GoodMuyis:


FREEWILL

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit: Integrity would have being passed as trait, which shows that Man had passed integrity test SIMPLE

For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. - Genesis 18:19

Seriuosly!!! what the hell is this? integrity would be passed down?? dont make me laugh.

Ken4Christ:


Op, you are wrong. Man was created perfect. But he had the opportunity to prove his loyalty to God but failed the test.

However, Jesus, the last Adam came to prove it is possible to overcome temptation. He was tempted the same way the first Adam was but never fell.

True but misleading. Jesus has existed before the devil was created, do you think it would be possible to tempt him into sinning

Jesus came to restore back what man lost in the Garden of Eden. And one day, a new earth will be created that life will go on as originally planned by God even in greater glory.

I agree.. but then I though jesus said we were going to heaven??

hopefulLandlord:
Humans wrote the book that says yahweh was perfect. Because humans are not perfect, none of what humans do is perfect .... including writing. translating, editing books.

Christianity posits it's the todder's fault for getting cut when the parent leaves the knife on the floor.

Come on, every decent parent child proofs their home well before the appearance of the baby, but somehow this concept escapes a divine being?

this is what ive been trying to pass across to muttleylaff.

chemystery:
It was when I saw where MuttleyLaff countered a fellow Christians claim
( https://www.nairaland.com/3960772/jesus-not-even-willing-die#59062808 ) that I knew him and his goons are all confused.

To them, the bible does not mean what it said rather it said what they themselves mean

Most of my postings will either attract a strong mind or put off a weak one
The strong mind will head upstream along with me against the flow,
whilst the weak one will go with the regular and usual flow

If all you do is follow the herd,
then you've already before any of my posts, like the one you brought up,
been stepping on centuries old, shipload of mistranslation horseshit or crap
Now recognising the truth from the different regular load of horseshit or crap you're used to is a challenge

GoodMuyis:


No its a confusion. count the number of IFs in the sentence, you will see what if mean.

He is trying to restructure a question, thereby turning it to confusion while capitalizing on the keyword i introduced to the discussion FREEWILL. Other keyword were neglected such as TEST OF INTEGRITY and OBEDIENCE that was introduced by Muttley.Laff.

If you or him will combine the three together answer to your question will come out.

And i will repeat again!

The Tree of Life is not evil but meant to be eating initially. so eating it is not issue, but failing Integrity Test

the tree of life was not the integrity test but the tree of knowledge. God took away the tree of life. this particular scene leads me to ask the question, if man was created immortal why would he need to eat daily from the tree of life? if you have read the book of enoch you would understand where am coming from

MuttleyLaff:
He didnt have to eat the fruit in order for him to tell the difference between good and evil

then of what purpose was the fruit?

Adam already understood the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is a tree of good and adversity,
that it's a tree of the knowledge of good and difficult or unpleasant experiences,

i understand you're making a good point.. but adding *experience* to that line has no basis nor backing.. the verse clearly states that he would know what is good and evil.. it did not mention experiences.. rather, it indicates that man would be able to know what is good and what is bad

Just like he saw animals and recognised each according to the name he gave each one.
Adam, by sheer looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
understood that, it is a tree of the knowledge of good and trouble, misadventure,
suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera oozing instant and an anti-climax death

why did you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not that of good? knowledge is different from experience..

You must think Adam was unintelligent and also didnt receive orientation

Everything; inanimate objects or not, everybody; kids or not, everyone; incarcerated or not, have various degrees of demarcations, limits, boundaries etcetera where lines are drawn

so saying that man had somewhat orientation of good and evil, then why isn't the tree supposed to expand his knowledge of good and evil instead of giving him the knowledge

He knew that he was not supposed to eat the fruit because he was explicitly told not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
and on hindsight should've heeded God's warning not to

i agree

How do you mean, Adam didnt know eating the fruit was wrong, when the name of the tree is a dead giveaway.
What is right in eating off a tree of the knowledge of good and epitome of evil?

Knowledge of evil means to bring forth trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera oozing instant and an anti-climax death
Pitch someone else with this line of reasoning jaare.

you're trying to equate knowing what good and evil is to opening a door to evil only.. knowledge is knowledge.. experience is different.. knowing something is different from bringing forth something.. knowing something is poisonous won't make you die of poison by just knowing.. also.. not knowing something is poisonous won't also save you from dying if you eat it

Punished? Isnt that an unfair and strong word to use
He was told to refrain from eating the fruit and informed that it isnt a worthless command having no consequence for flouting
but he made a harsh decision and took a risky action in the hope of getting whatever the desired result was/were

Adam was deceived.. in fact.. from the story, my guess is that he didn't know the fruit until he ate it.. but that's not my point..

You seem to have missed the part where the Lord God said:
''The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil''
the above merism, in effect, is saying,
Man has eaten the fruit and the pandora box has been opened, letting man now become like one of us, knowing, what is good and trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera plus instant and anti-climax death, albeit from a bitter lesson.

Apparently, the only means for man, to know good and trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera plus instant and anti-climax death, is if he eats the fruit off the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

i believe I've tackled the issue of the meaning of knowledge above.. also.. I'm interested in knowing why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good.. bearing in mind that knowledge, experience and opening a door to something are entirely different things

kkins25:

Seriuosly!!! what the hell is this? integrity would be passed down?? dont make me laugh.

Have you study Law of Inheritance/Behavioural_genetics

NO? Go and do it

GoodMuyis:


Have you study Law of Inheritance/Behavioural_genetics

NO? Go and do it

LOL.. you finally made me laugh!!!! what has spiritual issue have to do with genes??

Wilgrea7:
then of what purpose was the fruit?

You accept that, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is no longer left in the garden
then it must have served its purpose and a purpose?

Wilgrea7:
i understand you're making a good point..
but adding *experience* to that line has no basis nor backing

Ah-ha haba Chief?
Did Adam and Eve have an enjoyable experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Wilgrea7:
the verse clearly states that he would know what is good and evil.. it did not mention experiences..
rather, it indicates that man would be able to know what is good and what is bad

Which verse said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''
What verse are you talking about that said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''?
Tell, so we'll both be on the same page,
otherwise retract that remark and correctly quote it

Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
Eating the fruit surely left a lasting sour tasting experience on Adam and Eve's tongue

Wilgrea7:
why did you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not that of good?

I could have but didnt
because I was more foucused and interested in driving home the point that
a complete range or scope of evil was brought forth from eating the fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil

Wilgrea7:
knowledge is different from experience.

Adam had knowledge from God that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil constitutes getting a death sentence
Adam knew that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even by its name alone, is a dead giveaway that, the tree is capable of giving good and unpleasant experiences

There is knowledge based on experience.
One becomes experienced from merely knowing quite a lot

Wilgrea7:
so saying that man had somewhat orientation of good and evil,
then why isn't the tree supposed to expand his knowledge of good and evil
instead of giving him the knowledge

Hold on, what are you on about now?
Did God tell anyone that eating from the tree will expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil?
Adam was given the know, enough for him to have an edge and not to fall for Satan
Did you not read what Eve's justifications are (e.g. eating the fruit will make one wise)

Knowledge and wisdom always comes from above. God gives them
They dont come from trees, and certainly not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasnt going to expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil
instead the eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
is like flicking on a switch that activates and turns on the tree's floodlights of good and evil for Adam to experience

Wilgrea7:
you're trying to equate knowing what good and evil is to opening a door to evil only..
knowledge is knowledge.. experience is different..
knowing something is different from bringing forth something..
knowing something is poisonous won't make you die of poison by just knowing..
also.. not knowing something is poisonous won't also save you from dying if you eat it

It was in Adam's good interest, that he was made to know, it is fatal to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

You do accept that evil, is the absence of good and accept that death, is a separation from God

Knowledge and experience are part of a same tag team
Its impossible to have experience without knowledge
When Adam ate the fruit, he would have experienced a knowledge of an instant separation from God (i.e. spiritual death)
rapidly followed with another experience of the knowledge of the absence of good (i.e. strange unpleasant emotions)

Wilgrea7:
Adam was deceived..
in fact.. from the story, my guess is that he didn't know the fruit until he ate it..
but that's not my point.

Adam was deceived? Really?
Your guess is wrong because Adam certainly and fully knew the fruit before he ate it
Who coached Eve and exaggerated the truth claiming that a sheer touch of fruit of the tree will cause death?
Of course, it couldnt be anyone else than Adam told Eve this now

Adam was not deceived
Adam's DMZ effort didnt work, Satan had infiltrated his security
so leaving Adam with no choice than to resort to kamikaze.
I guess he rather the degeneration start from him than be from any other male
but that's for another discussion time and not today's

Wilgrea7:
I believe I've tackled the issue of the meaning of knowledge above..
also.. I'm interested in knowing why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good..
bearing in mind that knowledge, experience and opening a door to something are entirely different things
but that's not my point

I believe to a certain degree, I've addressed your quibble over my use of the terms; knowledge and experience
and also the reason for the synonyms of evil and not of good

Knowledge is:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation
- Google Dictionary

I am increasingly now becoming very interested in knowing why people dont seem to with great care and thoroughness read my post(s)
It beggars belief, why you bring up this: ''why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good...'''
after I 've already alluded to merism in the post section you mentioned

In law, a merism is a figure of speech
by which a single thing is referred to by a conventional phrase that enumerates several of its parts
or lists several synonyms for the same thing
- Google search meaning of merism

GoodMuyis:
Have you study Law of Inheritance/Behavioural_genetics
NO? Go and do it

kkins25:
LOL.. you finally made me laugh!!!!
what has spiritual issue have to do with genes??

GoodMuyis is right, you ought to do a studious reflection
if not the joke will actually be on you because the physical is a shadow of the spiritual
and often mimic the logic and principles of something spiritual

How do you think you successfully get to compose and write a Word document?

If the Normal Dot Dot template file is corrupted/compromised,
it is becomes impossible to edit, compose, write Word documents,
because it is upon it's pre-formatted settings like font size etcetera that all new blank and old documents are based
The old new and blank word document inherits from the Normal Dot Dot template file

There isnt any need to go into servers Access Control List (ACL) and inherited permissions

chemystery:
We are familiar with the genesis account of the original sin which made us believe that sin originated after Adam and Eve must have consumed the fruit from the forbidden tree.

If one should carry out a proper analysis of this story, one would realise that man was inclined to committing sin even before eating the forbidden fruit. Reason being that the act of disobedience came in first before the consumption of the fruit. Meaning there was an inclination of committing sin even before the fruit was eaten.

It also means that there is equal tendency of Adam to disobey god as well when he was instructed to name all the animals had it been Satan also tempted him not to.

In conclusion,

Disobedience (sin/imperfection) made man eat the fruit

and NOT
eating the fruit that made man disobey.

Why then do Christians say god created man perfect/sinless until the forbidden fruit was consumed when there is that tendency for man to do anything against god when tempted by the devil?

you could be just right, but man, did you think eve had disobeyed God before being tempted by the devil?

remember they onced lived a life of righteousness before the devil came. therefore, you are literally wrong with the symbol × for your claims. why? first, you need to define disobedience and second, you could as well reason your subject of matter well.

Again, ask yourself "is temptation sin?" if you say yes, you're absolutely ignorant to the core, if you say no, then lemme ask you my own question, "how did they disobey God if temptation is not sin?"

However, to conclude that when eve was tempted by the devil, it was not sin, but while she obeyed the devil rather than God made her commit sin, thus eve had sinned after the temptation and not before the temptation. sorry to mention that YOU ARE ACCENTUATING YOUR IGNORANCE HERE because you're confused on high levels.

because you're confused, you probably think that;
1. temptation is sin
2. disobedience is also temptation.

halt confusing 'temptation and disobedience' in your context. i benevolently beg you to contextualize your error by NOT confusing us please.

Finally, go ahead to read or reread the book of Genesis for the betterment of your understanding



mercie!

chemystery:
We are familiar with the genesis account of the original sin which made us believe that sin originated after Adam and Eve must have consumed the fruit from the forbidden tree.

If one should carry out a proper analysis of this story, one would realise that man was inclined to committing sin even before eating the forbidden fruit. Reason being that the act of disobedience came in first before the consumption of the fruit. Meaning there was an inclination of committing sin even before the fruit was eaten.

It also means that there is equal tendency of Adam to disobey god as well when he was instructed to name all the animals had it been Satan also tempted him not to.

In conclusion,

Disobedience (sin/imperfection) made man eat the fruit

and NOT

eating the fruit that made man disobey.

Why then do Christians say god created man perfect/sinless until the forbidden fruit was consumed when there is that tendency for man to do anything against god when tempted by the devil?

and to mention that the bolded really seems confusing rather than convincing

did not eating the fruit make man disobey? then if they hadn't eat the fruit, in what way did they disobey God?

you are probably intuiting that temptation is sin in the course of eve being tempted

MuttleyLaff:


GoodMuyis is right, you ought to do a studious reflection
if not the joke will actually be on you because the physical is a shadow of the spiritual
and often mimic the logic and principles of something spiritual

How do you think you successfully get to compose and write a Word document?

If the Normal Dot Dot template file is corrupted/compromised,
it is becomes impossible to edit, compose, write Word documents,
because it is upon it's pre-formatted settings like font size etcetera that all new blank and old documents are based
The old new and blank word document inherits from the Normal Dot Dot template file

There isnt any need to go into servers Access Control List (ACL) and inherited permissions

clears throat... la illah illalahu.

I did not graduate with 4.+ CGPA in Biological sciences to be told this shit... Nontheless congratulations. you just recieved an award for dumbness. goodmuyis could learn alot from you.. if you want to prove that sin is transferred through genes in biological terms - then my friend you also have to tell me who God is- in biological terms.

if sin is tranferred through genes then Humanity is nothing but a biological machine that is governed by the interactions of atoms and therefore the matter creates mind. if matter creates mind then The idea of a creator God is nullified. and if God exist then matter is eternal and God begotten.


if sin is genetically inheritable then jesus should have inherited the original sin and could not have been born without the Y chromosome supplied by a male- his alleged father....


again I must ask you, what happens to enviromental factors which influence " Learning"which in turn determines "behaviour"- in biological terms.

Jhaytee4all:


However, to conclude that when eve was tempted by the devil, it was not sin, but while she obeyed the devil rather than God made her commit sin, thus eve had sinned after the temptation and not before the temptation. sorry to mention that YOU ARE ACCENTUATING YOUR IGNORANCE HERE because you're confused on high levels.

Finally, go ahead to read or reread the book of Genesis for the betterment of your understanding

I think what the OP was trying to convey is not perceivable to your senses right now. when you mind develops more come back and re-reply him. as for now SHARRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GoodMuyis:

Have you study Law of Inheritance/Behavioural_genetics
NO? Go and do it

this joke is so good I had to quote it again.

kkins25:

I think what the OP was trying to convey is not perceivable to your senses right now. when you mind develops more come back and re-reply him. as for now SHARRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as i suppose you to be an atheists, remain ignored.

Haha see as wuna day argue Adam and eve like say them be real figure

To be frank, all this stuff don't make any sense anymore. So, because someone somewhere in Europe or the Middle East eat a piece of Apple, mango or whatever both of them eat, the entire world's population are now sinners? Does that even make any sense to anyone?

NPComplete:


I swear. I thought I was the only one who noticed the guy's love for bold assertive statements as if he was with God Himself when everything was going down. Two many delusional clowns in Christianity. No wonder there are so many denominations that do not agree with one another because all of them boldly believe they know God 100%.

chemystery:

It was when I saw where MuttleyLaff countered a fellow Christians claim ( https://www.nairaland.com/3960772/jesus-not-even-willing-die#59062808 ) that I knew him and his goons are all confused.

To them, the bible does not mean what it said rather it said what they themselves mean

"The bible" begs the question - which bible? There are many diverse and different, confused and internally contradictory editions of the bible that can be traced back as being written by men from the 4th century onward.
The oldest bible ( " Codex Sinaiticus" ) was written by a team of four men in the late 4th century and is significantly different to those we know today.

The message of Christianity is whatever you want it to be. The big book of multiple choice can and does validate any position anybody wants it to.

I keep telling people that "the bible, as written, is either the word of god, or it is not. If it requires interpretation, it becomes useless, because it then devolves in a war of interpretations, and one interpenetration is every bit as good as another." And then look at the number of Christian sects and cults today.....................!

Jhaytee4all:


and to mention that the bolded really seems confusing rather than convincing

did not eating the fruit make man disobey? then if they hadn't eat the fruit, in what way did they disobey God?

you are probably intuiting that temptation is sin in the course of eve being tempted

No what I'm saying is that Adam and Eve are inclined to disobey god in every other occasion asides eating the fruit. Meaning disobedience is already borne in on them by default

MuttleyLaff:
You accept that, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is no longer left in the garden
then it must have served its purpose and a purpose?

no

Ah-ha haba Chief?
Did Adam and Eve have an enjoyable experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

is it the fruit from the tree that gave them the enjoyable experience?

Which verse said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''
What verse are you talking about that said: ''man would be able to know what is good and what is bad''?
Tell, so we'll both be on the same page,
otherwise retract that remark and correctly quote it

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

please examine the bolded and tell me where experience was written there or where it doesn't mean that man would know good and evil.. what does it mean to know good and evil

Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
Eating the fruit surely left a lasting sour tasting experience on Adam and Eve's tongue

tongue i.... you... what? this does not relate

I could have but didnt
because I was more foucused and interested in driving home the point that
a complete range or scope of evil was brought forth from eating the fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil

where does knowing something equate to experience?... you're trying to forcefully put experience in place of knowledge in that verse then change the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the tree of experience of evil.. the gods said that man is like unto us.. does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine. plague etc etc??

Adam had knowledge from God that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil constitutes getting a death sentence
Adam knew that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, even by its name alone, is a dead giveaway that, the tree is capable of giving good and unpleasant experiences

experience.. knowledge.. different

There is knowledge based on experience.

and where is it stated that the knowledge of good and evil was gotten from experience?.. it was gotten from eating the fruit.. what bible are you using ?

One becomes experienced from merely knowing quite a lot

its actually the other way round

Hold on, what are you on about now?
Did God tell anyone that eating from the tree will expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil?

you are the one that clearly stated that everyone has limits or boundaries or somewhat orientation of something

Adam was given the know, enough for him to have an edge and not to fall for Satan
Did you not read what Eve's justifications are (e.g. eating the fruit will make one wise)

Knowledge and wisdom always comes from above. God gives them
They dont come from trees, and certainly not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasnt going to expand Adam's knowledge of good and evil

the tree was said to give knowledge of good and evil.. its written right there in the bible.. just as the tree of life was said to give eternal life.. or tress can't give eternal life? its what is written in the bible right there

instead the eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
is like flicking on a switch that activates and turns on the tree's floodlights of good and evil for Adam to experience

experience.. knowledge.. different

It was in Adam's good interest, that he was made to know, it is fatal to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil

yes

You do accept that evil, is the absence of good and accept that death, is a separation from God

no . i don't totally accept .. but let us proceed

Knowledge and experience are part of a same tag team
Its impossible to have experience without knowledge

it is very possible.. experiencing something can give you knowledge of it.. not the other way around.. someone whose finger got burnt by fire has knowledge of what fire does to the finger through his experience.. but someone who knows what fire does only knows.. he has not experienced it.

When Adam ate the fruit, he would have experienced a knowledge of an instant separation from God (i.e. spiritual death)
rapidly followed with another experience of the knowledge of the absence of good (i.e. strange unpleasant emotions)

please refer to my points above..

Adam was deceived? Really?
Your guess is wrong because Adam certainly and fully knew the fruit before he ate it
Who coached Eve and exaggerated the truth claiming that a sheer touch of fruit of the tree will cause death?
Of course, it couldnt be anyone else than Adam told Eve this now
Adam was not deceived

ok. agreed.. Adam is as guilty as eve

Adam's DMZ effort didnt work, Satan had infiltrated his security
so leaving Adam with no choice than to resort to kamikaze.
I guess he rather the degeneration start from him than be from any other male
but that's for another discussion time and not today's

ok

I believe to a certain degree, I've addressed your quibble over my use of the terms; knowledge and experience
and also the reason for the synonyms of evil and not of good

Knowledge is:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation
- Google Dictionary

i will attach a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of knowledge.. there are different ways to get knowledge

I am increasingly now becoming very interested in knowing why people dont seem to with great care and thoroughness read my post(s)
It beggars belief, why you bring up this: ''why you expatiate on the synonyms of evil and not of good...'''
after I 've already alluded to merism in the post section you mentioned

In law, a merism is a figure of speech
by which a single thing is referred to by a conventional phrase that enumerates several of its parts
or lists several synonyms for the same thing
- Google search meaning of merism

i know what merism is.. i was just pointing out your desire to acknowledge only the bad and leave out the good... stressing as if the tree of knowledge(not experience) of good and evil entails knowing(not experiencing) evil alone

Wilgrea7:
no

is it the fruit from the tree that gave them the enjoyable experience?

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

please examine the bolded and tell me where experience was written there or where it doesn't mean that man would know good and evil.. what does it mean to know good and evil

tongue i.... you... what? this does not relate

where does knowing something equate to experience?... you're trying to forcefully put experience in place of knowledge in that verse then change the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the tree of experience of evil.. the gods said that man is like unto us.. does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine. plague etc etc??

experience.. knowledge.. different

and where is it stated that the knowledge of good and evil was gotten from experience?.. it was gotten from eating the fruit.. what bible are you using ?

its actually the other way round

you are the one that clearly stated that everyone has limits or boundaries or somewhat orientation of something

the tree was said to give knowledge of good and evil.. its written right there in the bible.. just as the tree of life was said to give eternal life.. or tress can't give eternal life? its what is written in the bible right there

experience.. knowledge.. different

yes

no . i don't totally accept .. but let us proceed

it is very possible.. experiencing something can give you knowledge of it.. not the other way around.. someone whose finger got burnt by fire has knowledge of what fire does to the finger through his experience.. but someone who knows what fire does only knows.. he has not experienced it.

please refer to my points above..

ok. agreed.. Adam is as guilty as eve

ok

i will attach a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of knowledge.. there are different ways to get knowledge

i know what merism is.. i was just pointing out your desire to acknowledge only the bad and leave out the good... stressing as if the tree of knowledge(not experience) of good and evil entails knowing(not experiencing) evil alone

I am currently on the road
but will asap respond to each of your responses
I have already seen the few "odds and out of places" in your posts to address

I dont like your reasoning pattern. For the fact that you disbelieved in God doesnt meant ITS A MUST you must reject any fact/point presented to you. You out to asked questions w/o planing to give feedback of accepting

again I must ask you, what happens to enviromental factors which influence " Learning"which in turn determines "behaviour"- in biological terms.

kkins25:
then my friend you also have to tell me who God is- in biological terms.

=> Seun is a programmer who use code to created Nairaland, Yet Their is noting as code aspect of seu.n he is human being as we are

[s]if sin is tranferred through genes then Humanity is nothing but a biological machine that is governed by the interactions of atoms and therefore the matter creates mind. if matter creates mind then The idea of a creator God is nullified. and if God exist then matter is eternal and God begotten. [/s]

[s]if sin is genetically inheritable then jesus should have inherited the original sin and could not have been born without the Y chromosome supplied by a male- his alleged father.... [/s]

=> How did babies/infant realise that crying will attract attentiion to them, yet all were not born from same parent, or same country.
I common factor to them all is that they are all Adam/Eve or Noah offspring, This Logical Reason

GoodMuyis:
I dont like your reasoning pattern. For the fact that you disbelieved in God doesnt meant ITS A MUST you must reject any fact/point presented to you. You out to asked questions w/o planing to give feedback of accepting

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST however I do understand that the bible was WRITTEN by MAN of his own accord. I rejects fact with no facts in them

=> Seun is a programmer who use code to created Nairaland, Yet Their is noting as code aspect of seu.n he is human being as we are

my pattern of reasoning is difficult for you to understand because you simply cannot comprehend it. take seu.ns brain and scan youd see that the part of his brain responsible for understanding patterns is more active than that of a person who doesn't program so in a sense, seun is code...

=> How did babies/infant realise that crying will attract attentiion to them, yet all were not born from same parent, or same country.
I common factor to them all is that they are all Adam/Eve or Noah offspring,This Logical Reason

smiles. simple. from a biological perspective "crying" (form of communication/signal) developed over millions of years. chicks cry, calfs cry, cubbs cry. "cry" is the term we use to understand the 'need' of the baby.

cry is passed down through genes- yes- Exactly. from scientific point of view this is true..

But from your religious point of view this is FALSE because Adam didnt pass through childhood. he never cryed so how do you know it was in his genes??

Wilgrea7:
no

No?
What exactly are you no-ing to?
You're aware, as well as I am,
that eventually, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when being used up and having served its purpose, wouldnt anymore be present in the garden
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have served the reason for which it was created and so it removed
The tree of life however stays remaining to serve its purpose

You must have heard it said: The best teacher in life is experience

Wilgrea7:
Is it the fruit from the tree that gave them the enjoyable experience?

Seems you're latching on my comment to make it ambiguous, so let me rephrase the question using ''pleasant'' instead of enjoyable
Did Adam and Eve have a enjoyable pleasant experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Tell now

Experience (i.e. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) is a hard teacher
because she gives the test (i.e. to eat the fruit, or not to eat the fruit) first,
then the lesson (i.e. to know or knowing good and evil) afterwards.

Experience is not always the kindest of teachers, but it is surely the best.
Experience is the best teacher, it is because of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we get to know good and evil

Wilgrea7:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,
to know good and evil: and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

please examine the bolded and tell me where experience was written there or where it doesn't mean that man would know good and evil.. what does it mean to know good and evil

The only source of knowledge is experience
- Albert Einstein

You see my friend, you're just over-reacting and unnecessarily being unhappy with me using knowledge and experience interchangeably
Please tell, is it possible to have knowledge without experience?

OK, examining the bolded reveals it is talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or Genesis 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience
First-hand experience and not them-say experience or a God-said experience
You will personally know what good and evil is, will have personal experience(s) of it

Wilgrea7:
tongue i.... you... what? this does not relate

No worries, I will edit or rephrase the comment
Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
The experience of eating the fruit, surely left a bad taste in Adam & Eve's mouth
The memory of the sour taste whilst the fruit was ate would be an unpleasant one
The point is, eating the fruit, left them with an opposite impression to one they were expecting

Wilgrea7:
where does knowing something equate to experience?...
you're trying to forcefully put experience in place of knowledge in that verse then change the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the tree of experience of evil.. the gods said that man is like unto us..
does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine. plague etc etc??

Here you go again overreacting
C'mon, stop incorrectly and falsely being pedantic.
I have, above, already put forward, how, when and where knowing something equate to experience

Does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine, plague etc etc, is a non question
Is it necessary for me to remind you that, God knows that the absence of good is the presence of evil?

Wilgrea7:
experience.. knowledge.. different

Not necessarily all the time

Wilgrea7:
and where is it stated that the knowledge of good and evil was gotten from experience?.. it was gotten from eating the fruit.. what bible are you using ?

SMH. This has been addressed above

Wilgrea7:
its actually the other way round

This too has been addressed above

Wilgrea7:
you are the one that clearly stated that everyone has limits or boundaries or somewhat orientation of something

so saying that man had somewhat orientation of good and evil,
then why isn't the tree supposed to expand his knowledge of good and evil
instead of giving him the knowledge
- Wilgrea7

Yes, I did so responding to your remark reproduce above

Adam was orientated and told about the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Contrary to your remark, Adam wasnt told the tree of knowledge of good and evil will expand his knowledge of good and evil
but rather as the tree's name signifies, it is a tree that will give whoever eats of it, the knowledge of good and evil
Eating the fruit of the tree will give the opportunity to experience the knowledge of good and evil

Part of the orientation was about letting it be known that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is off limts
That's your boundary there, the tree is out of bounds to Adam and Eve

Wilgrea7:
the tree was said to give knowledge of good and evil.. its written right there in the bible..
just as the tree of life was said to give eternal life..
or tress can't give eternal life? its what is written in the bible right there

The tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it possible to know of good and evil.
Without eating from the tree, it was not possible for man to experience good and evil

Same with the tree of life, eating or partaking of the tree of life, makes it possible for man to have or experience eternal life

Wilgrea7:
experience.. knowledge.. different

Again, not necessarily all the time

Wilgrea7:
yes

Smiling

Wilgrea7:
no . i don't totally accept .. but let us proceed

If you dont totally accept, how far are you accepting then?
What of, you do accept darkness is the absence of light?

Wilgrea7:
it is very possible.. experiencing something can give you knowledge of it.. not the other way around..
someone whose finger got burnt by fire has knowledge of what fire does to the finger through his experience.. Genesis
but someone who knows what fire does only knows.. he has not experienced it.

Well that is why the bible Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience

It is talking of first-hand experience, not a second-hand, third-hand, them-say experience or a God-said experience
To know what good and evil is, talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
You will have personal experience(s) of knowing. You will personally experience the know
So in the above context, I reiterate, its impossible to have experience without knowledge

Wilgrea7:
please refer to my points above..

I had and still stand by my original comment
You now, need to go over and reconsider my points

Wilgrea7:
ok. agreed.. Adam is as guilty as eve

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression
- 1 Timothy 2:14
Adam though wasnt deceived, is no doubt as guilty as Eve
I am glad, you agree and arent anymore saying Adam was deceived

Wilgrea7:
ok

Smiles

Wilgrea7:
i will attach a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of knowledge.. there are different ways to get knowledge

Attaching a screenshot of the dictionary with an alternative meaning of knowledge is unnecessary, when what the bible is talking about is posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)

Wilgrea7:
i know what merism is..
i was just pointing out your desire to acknowledge only the bad and leave out the good...
stressing as if the tree of knowledge(not experience) of good and evil entails knowing(not experiencing) evil alone

If you admit to knowing what merism is, why then are you pulling me up for highlighting and giving a flavour of what experiencing the range or scope of the knowledge of evil is?

I gave an inexhaustible list of experiences of the knowledge of evil following eating the fruit

Now here's me being fair, please give me three lists, Adam & Eve had, of experiences of the knowledge of good, following eating the fruit

Reiterating, experience is the best teacher
and the worst experiences teaches the best lessons
Via the tree of the knowledge of good and evil comes the worst experiences
(i.e. instant and an anti-climax death, trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera)

MuttleyLaff:
No?
What exactly are you no-ing to?
You're aware, as well as I am,
that eventually, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when being used up and having served its purpose, wouldnt anymore be present in the garden
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have served the reason for which it was created and so it removed
The tree of life however stays remaining to serve its purpose

you're drifting.. this does not relate.. the tree served the reason for which it was created? .. what was the reason? to aid the fall of man or to give man knowledge of good and evil.. if it was to aid the fall of man, then man is not to be blamed.. so let me ask.. what is the purpose of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Seems you're latching on my comment to make it ambiguous, so let me rephrase the question using ''pleasant'' instead of enjoyable
Did Adam and Eve have a enjoyable pleasant experience after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Tell now

you're starkly ignoring what i said earlier.. is it the tree that gave Adam and eve the unpleasant experience or it was the punishment for their disobedience.. you're trying to paint the tree as a bad tree which it is not

Experience (i.e. the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) is a hard teacher
because she gives the test (i.e. to eat the fruit, or not to eat the fruit) first,
then the lesson (i.e. to know or knowing good and evil) afterwards.

Experience is not always the kindest of teachers, but it is surely the best.
Experience is the best teacher, it is because of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we get to know good and evil

putting experience countless times in the place of knowledge will not make experience equal to knowledge.. the bible stated knowledge and knowledge.. why specify that its by experience when evidence says the contrary?

The only source of knowledge is experience
- Albert Einstein

choose one.. Albert Einstein or the bible.. a quote from Albert Einstein doesn't change what knowledge is.. a science student has knowledge of the boiling point of water.. doesn't mean he experienced it

You see my friend, you're just over-reacting and unnecessarily being unhappy with me using knowledge and experience interchangeably
Please tell, is it possible to have knowledge without experience?

both are not the same.. refer to my point above.. knowledge can be gotten irrespective of experience

OK, examining the bolded reveals it is talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or Genesis 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience
First-hand experience and not them-say experience or a God-said experience
You will personally know what good and evil is, will have personal experience(s) of it

how many times will i say it?... how does “to know" equate to “knowledge by experience" ? you're not making any point.. you're further proving my point that experience is not stated anywhere there

No worries, I will edit or rephrase the comment
Experience is an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone
The experience of eating the fruit, surely left a bad taste in Adam & Eve's mouth
The memory of the sour taste whilst the fruit was ate would be an unpleasant one
The point is, eating the fruit, left them with an opposite impression to one they were expecting

memory of what .. good lord.. where in the bible did it state that the fruit was bitter? i ask again.. what bible are you using?

Here you go again overreacting
C'mon, stop incorrectly and falsely being pedantic.
I have, above, already put forward, how, when and where knowing something equate to experience

it was a wrong comparison as i have already showed you countless times

Does that mean that the gods are experiencing famine, plague etc etc, is a non question
Is it necessary for me to remind you that, God knows that the absence of good is the presence of evil?

what i.. this.... this does not relate

Adam was orientated and told about the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Contrary to your remark, Adam wasnt told the tree of knowledge of good and evil will expand his knowledge of good and evil
but rather as the tree's name signifies, it is a tree that will give whoever eats of it, the knowledge of good and evil
Eating the fruit of the tree will give the opportunity to experience the knowledge of good and evil

again with this your forceful injection of experience

The tree of knowledge of good and evil makes it possible to know of good and evil.
Without eating from the tree, it was not possible for man to experience good and evil

Same with the tree of life, eating or partaking of the tree of life, makes it possible for man to have or experience eternal life

ok... let me explain it for you... the tree of knowledge of good and evil gives the eater knowledge of good and evil.. simple... plain... the tree of life gives you eternal life.. simple.. plain.. the experience philosophy is just trying to put what isn't there

If you dont totally accept, how far are you accepting then?
What of, you do accept darkness is the absence of light?

yes

Well that is why the bible Genesis 3:5's ''to know'' and/or 3:22's ''knowing'' is knowledge based on experience

no premise for this

It is talking of first-hand experience, not a second-hand, third-hand, them-say experience or a God-said experience
To know what good and evil is, talking of posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)
You will have personal experience(s) of knowing. You will personally experience the know
So in the above context, I reiterate, its impossible to have experience without knowledge

it is very possible.. in fact.. in that verse its the only possibility.. what is good is good and what is evil is evil... knowing it is knowing it.. knowing the boiling point of water is knowing it.. as long as God defines what is good and what is evil(as the creator of the world) then knowing what is good and evil does not involve experiencing it.. experience is experience.. it being bitter doesn't mean it is evil.. taking aloe vera is bitter due to the taste.. but medicinal .. God defines what is good and bad adam and eve only need to know it.. simple .. no need for this complicated philosophy.. the bible wasn't written like that so its best to avoid it.. you can have a better knowledge of something through experience.. yes.. but having knowledge of something is also possible without experience.. plus.. you still try to be biased by wanting to paint the tree of knowledge as bad.. when it was not

Attaching a screenshot of the dictionary with an alternative meaning of knowledge is unnecessary, when what the bible is talking about is posteriori knowledge (i.e. empirical knowledge)

attaching philosophical terms that were invented after the bible was written is also invalid.. also noting that you quoted from google dictionary.. or at least claimed to

I gave an inexhaustible list of experiences of the knowledge of evil following eating the fruit

why did you leave out the good? did they experience good before eating the fruit? if yes.. then what good did the tree offer and why wasn't it called tree of experience of evil?.. if no.. then why wasn't the good evident after eating the fruit?

Now here's me being fair, please give me three lists, Adam & Eve had, of experiences of the knowledge of good, following eating the fruit

how do you expect me to give you experiences when I'm clearly against the experience claim?... or did God lie when calling the tree that name?

Reiterating, experience is the best teacher
and the worst experiences teaches the best lessons
Via the tree of the knowledge of good and evil comes the worst experiences
(i.e. instant and an anti-climax death, trouble, misadventure, suffering, affliction, sorrow, distress, hardship, difficulty, pain, misery etcetera)

refer to points above

Wilgrea7:
you're drifting.. this does not relate.. the tree served the reason for which it was created? ..
what was the reason? to aid the fall of man or to give man knowledge of good and evil..
if it was to aid the fall of man, then man is not to be blamed..
so let me ask.. what is the purpose of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

You cant come to terms with it

Wilgrea7:
you're starkly ignoring what i said earlier..
is it the tree that gave Adam and eve the unpleasant experience
or it was the punishment for their disobedience..
you're trying to paint the tree as a bad tree which it is not

The tree opened the door for all sorts of experiences
The punishment for the disobedience was death,
Death being the possible highest form of punishment for treason
(i.e. for the betrayal of God, man will pay with his life)

No one is painting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bad
I am just stating the facts of the matter and reality about it
The tree isnt neccesarily bad but
if you're comfortable with the term, the tree is a necessary evil
and after serving its purpose, ultimately gets removed from the garden
(i.e. when Eden is restored the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is nowhere to be found)

Wilgrea7:
putting experience countless times in the place of knowledge will not make experience equal to knowledge.. the bible stated knowledge and knowledge.. why specify that its by experience evidence says the contrary

choose one.. Albert Einstein or the bible..
a quote from Albert Einstein doesn't change what knowledge is..
a science student has knowledge of the boiling point of water.. doesn't mean he experienced it

both are not the same.. refer to my point above.. knowledge can be gotten irrespective of experience

how many times will i say it?... how does “to know" equate to “knowledge by experience" ?
you're not making any point.. you're further proving my point that experience is not stated anywhere there

If you really want to know how ''to know'' equate to ''knowledge by experience'', you'll have to meet me further down then

Wilgrea7:
memory of what .. good lord..
where in the bible did it state that the fruit was bitter?
i ask again.. what bible are you using?

Are you really this plain and unsophisticated?
I use all and/or every available bible translations I can lay my grubby hands on
but honestly speaking, knowing what bible I use, ought to be the least of your concern
because it's seems you have a lot of familiarity to do, catching up on what poetic license is about

Wilgrea7:
it was a wrong comparison as i have already showed you countless times

what i.. this.... this does not relate

again with this your forceful injection of experience

ok... let me explain it for you... the tree of knowledge of good and evil gives the eater knowledge of good and evil.. simple... plain... the tree of life gives you eternal life.. simple.. plain.. the experience philosophy is just trying to put what isn't there

yes

no premise for this

it is very possible.. in fact.. in that verse its the only possibility.. what is good is good and what is evil is evil... knowing it is knowing it.. knowing the boiling point of water is knowing it.. as long as God defines what is good and what is evil(as the creator of the world) then knowing what is good and evil does not involve experiencing it.. experience is experience.. it being bitter doesn't mean it is evil.. taking aloe vera is bitter due to the taste.. but medicinal .. God defines what is good and bad adam and eve only need to know it.. simple .. no need for this complicated philosophy.. the bible wasn't written like that so its best to avoid it.. you can have a better knowledge of something through experience.. yes.. but having knowledge of something is also possible without experience.. plus.. you still try to be biased by wanting to paint the tree of knowledge as bad.. when it was not

You cant even refer to posteriori knowledge properly
If philosophy is a stumbling block, then cancel it out and forget philosophy.
It doesnt matter, nor make any differences, whether philosophy is in there or not,
What matters, is accepting that, the knowledge is empirical

Most of, if not all my points, understandably, went over the head anyway.
so sorry for the overestimation

Wilgrea7:
attaching philosophical terms that were invented after the bible was written is also invalid..
also noting that you quoted from google dictionary.. or at least claimed to

''attaching philosophical terms that were invented after the bible was written is also invalid''? SMH
Please meet me further down

Wilgrea7:
why did you leave out the good?
did they experience good before eating the fruit?
if yes.. then what good did the tree offer and why wasn't it called tree of experience of evil?..
if no.. then why wasn't the good evident after eating the fruit?

Same questions Adam and Eve asked themselves repeatedly after eating

Wilgrea7:
how do you expect me to give you experiences when I'm clearly against the experience claim?...
or did God lie when calling the tree that name?

Sorry for asking the question

Wilgrea7:
refer to points above

Nope! No can do.
You reconsider my points, after, you'll realise, the tree, considering the circumstance, was the best teacher for Man



''also noting that you quoted from google dictionary..
or at least claimed to''
- Wilgrea7 ©

I found the scepticism in your above mentioned remark unfortunate and hilarious. SMH

Anyway, as seen above, I have reproduced my earlier definition of knowledge
but you ignored & countered it, by giving an alternative definition of knowledge, in the screenshot you provided, that hasnt a mention of experience

I have allowed you to have a good run with your obsessive interest in and/or disingenuous feeling about knowledge and experience
but I guess now is one of those, when push comes to shove moments

Please check Genesis 3:5 and Genesis 3:22, to confirm what kind of part of speech ''knowing'' and ''to know'' are?
In other words, are ''knowing'' and ''to know'' used as nouns, adjectives or verbs?
Also what is experience and/or how does one get experience?
Thank you

MuttleyLaff:
You cant come to terms with it

The tree opened the door for all sorts of experiences
The punishment for the disobedience was death,
Death being the possible highest form of punishment for treason
(i.e. for the betrayal of God, man will pay with his life)

No one is painting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil bad
I am just stating the facts of the matter and reality about it
The tree isnt neccesarily bad but
if you're comfortable with the term, the tree is a necessary evil
and after serving its purpose, ultimately gets removed from the garden
(i.e. when Eden is restored the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is nowhere to be found)

If you really want to know how ''to know'' equate to ''knowledge by experience'', you'll have to meet me further down then

Are you really this plain and unsophisticated?
I use all and/or every available bible translations I can lay my grubby hands on
but honestly speaking, knowing what bible I use, ought to be the least of your concern
because it's seems you have a lot of familiarity to do, catching up on what poetic license is about

You cant even refer to posteriori knowledge properly
If philosophy is a stumbling block, then cancel it out and forget philosophy.
It doesnt matter, nor make any differences, whether philosophy is in there or not,
What matters, is accepting that, the knowledge is empirical

Most of, if not all my points, understandably, went over the head anyway.
so sorry for the overestimation

''attaching philosophical terms that were invented after the bible was written is also invalid''? SMH
Please meet me further down

Same questions Adam and Eve asked themselves repeatedly after eating

Sorry for asking the question

Nope! No can do.
You reconsider my points, after, you'll realise, the tree, considering the circumstance, was the best teacher for Man



''also noting that you quoted from google dictionary..
or at least claimed to''
- Wilgrea7 ©

I found the scepticism in your above mentioned remark unfortunate and hilarious. SMH

Anyway, as seen above, I have reproduced my earlier definition of knowledge
but you ignored & countered it, by giving an alternative definition of knowledge, in the screenshot you provided, that hasnt a mention of experience

I have allowed you to have a good run with your obsessive interest in and/or disingenuous feeling about knowledge and experience
but I guess now is one of those, when push comes to shove moments

Please check Genesis 3:5 and Genesis 3:22, to confirm what kind of part of speech ''knowing'' and ''to know'' are?
In other words, are ''knowing'' and ''to know'' used as nouns, adjectives or verbs?
Also what is experience and/or how does one get experience?
Thank you

this back and forth is pointless.. you are hell bent on attaching experience as a compulsory means for acquiring knowledge .. you're criticizing me for using a dictionary yet you compulsorily make reference to Google dictionary.. nowhere does “to know" or knowing imply experience... experience is a way to acquire knowledge and it was not listed anywhere... you seem to be eager to add to the Bible .. goodluck with that.. you went from accepting what is plain and written there to adding google and philosophy that didn't exist when Genesis was written.. once again.. good luck..

Wilgrea7:
this back and forth is pointless.. you are hell bent on attaching experience as a compulsory means for acquiring knowledge .. you're criticizing me for using a dictionary yet you compulsorily make reference to Google dictionary.. nowhere does “to know" or knowing imply experience... experience is a way to acquire knowledge and it was not listed anywhere... you seem to be eager to add to the Bible .. goodluck with that.. you went from accepting what is plain and written there to adding google and philosophy that didn't exist when Genesis was written.. once again.. good luck..

I am no match for your level of ignorance(s)
and you've realised you're caught out,
that's why instead of obliging the questions,
you rather, throw a tantrum and spit dummy out.

simplex2:
The pertinent question should have been what was gods plan about the man and woman he created? Did he expect to just play around with the 2 naked toys until he is bored? What was the essence of creating two humans and keep them intellectually daft, no plans for procreation since they weren't to know what to even do and how to do it?

If you ask pertinent questions, you will discover that the creation story is as false as they come.

Anyway, if it were true, Adam would have finally gotten bored and eaten the damn fruit. After all, angels got bored and irritated with the style of leadership and revolted.

"Some" angels were bored and they rebelled against Yahweh. These angels were Belial and Leviathan which we mistakenly attributed them to Satan himself. They told Lucifer that he should be "God".

MuttleyLaff:
Sin and Human beings
Necessity is the mother of invention
Sin; difficult problem(s) & situation(s) inspires ingenious solution(s); Man

LIES!!!

SMH
Disobedience was activated or triggered the moment the fruit was eaten
Remember that the command was ''thou shall not eat...''

MORE LIES

You're clutching straws mate,
because there was no stipulated consequence for disobeying God's instruction to name all the animals

We gave ecerything names. we named the Angels, we named the devils, we named God.

Refusing to obey the command not to eat the fruit is the disobedience
Man failed his integrity test

if they disobeyed in other to eat the fruit then how the bleep was "disobedience" activated after eating the fruit

I'll give you the ''God created man sinless until the forbidden fruit was consumed'' part
but challenge you, to reproduce here, anywhere from the bible, where and at any time, God said He ever, created man perfect

IF THE CREATION IS IMPERFECT THEN THE CREATOR IS IMPERFECT. your logic is a myth.

asuustrike2009:

"Some" angels were bored and they rebelled against Yahweh. These angels were Belial and Leviathan which we mistakenly attributed them to Satan himself. They told Lucifer that he should be "God".

Another thing is that jesus said the devil is the father of evil "right from the beginning" .. ? right from the beginning? does that mean he was created evil? ? or is he simply the God of darkness. but I dont understand where you said Belial and leviathan are take for satan. according to the book of enough there is no lucifer or the ultimate devil.