Wilgrea7:

then of what purpose was the fruit?


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



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



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



i agree



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



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..



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

NICE. were adam and evil created "good"?? if they had to eat the fruit of good and evill to differentiate what good and evil is then it means adam and eve were not the favourite creation. they were simply dumb animals that had two feet.

chemystery:

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

Proof needed

kkins25:
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.

When you work in the spirit you would understand Belial and Leviathan more.
Lucifer wasnt created to be evil infact after Yahweh he was the next in command.Lucifer now called Satan rebelled against Yahweh because he wanted to be like God . This idea of overpowerment was initiated by Belial and Leviathan who were his best friends.

MuttleyLaff:

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, here you are, throwing a tantrum and sticking out the dummy.

.

if saying that will make you feel better.. then keep saying it

Wilgrea7:
.

if saying that will make you feel better.. then keep saying it

MuttleyLaff is Yahweh that is why he knows all Yahweh forgot to include in his weed inspired book. Show some respect!

asuustrike2009:

When you work in the spirit you would understand Belial and Leviathan more.
Lucifer wasnt created to be evil infact after Yahweh he was the next in command.Lucifer now called Satan rebelled against Yahweh because he wanted to be like God . This idea of overpowerment was initiated by Belial and Leviathan who were his best friends.

were is the scriptural backup

Wilgrea7:
.
if saying that will make you feel better.. then keep saying it

You have no idea.
I'll tell you what, I had an epiphany of what's being making me feel better
Looking back on, I keep seeing that, I suffered you gladly,
you can't understand or imagine how much that means to me
That, right there, my dear friend, every time I remember it, makes me feel better

kkins25:
were is the scriptural backup

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’,( Isaiah 14:12-14)

In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.( Isaiah 27:1)

MuttleyLaff:
Looking back on, I keep seeing that, I suffered you gladly,

if believing this makes you feel better.. then by all means do

MuttleyLaff:
You have no idea.
I'll tell you what, I had an epiphany of what's being making me feel better
Looking back on, I keep seeing that, I suffered you gladly,
you can't understand or imagine how much that means to me
That, right there, my dear friend, every time I remember it, makes me feel better

Wilgrea7:
if believing this makes you feel better.. then by all means do

Oh, stop it because, you just dont get it

MuttleyLaff:


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

Explain, please. How can somebody who has no knowledge of good and evil be expected to pass an integrity test?

asuustrike2009:

The Fall of Lucifer
12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’,( Isaiah 14:12-14)

In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.( Isaiah 27:1)

it dosent say belial or leviathan adviced lucifer.

LordOfNaira:


Explain, please. How can somebody who has no knowledge of good and evil be expected to pass an integrity test?

me self wan know...,,, muttleylaff in all his wisom just dosent know that adam means MAN and eve means LIFE. so the tale of adam nd eve is not an historical one.

LordOfNaira:
Explain, please.
How can somebody who has no knowledge of good and evil be expected to pass an integrity test?

Knowledge doesnt always have to be empirical
We at times know things through second-hand or third-hand parties experiences
and not through our own personal experience

The proof of the pudding is in the eating
Does man have integrity?
OK, let's put it to test and tell him about not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
The capital punishment will be death,
death because it is the highest punishment for such an act of disobeying the command,
deemed not to be ordinarily an act of disobedience
but is the ultimate treason against God

kkins25:
me self wan know...,,,
muttleylaff in all his wisom just dosent know that adam means MAN and eve means LIFE.
so the tale of adam nd eve is not an historical one.

You're actually spot on
that Adam means Man (i.e. human being made from dust)
and Eve means life (i.e. Adam on highsight realised this and appropriately called her so)
The bible isnt necessarily a historical narrative

kkins25:
it dosent say belial or leviathan adviced lucifer.

That's why I said you can't understand the things of the spirit because it takes maturity and the holy ghost to explain it

Crap. Nonsense analysis. Where is your scriptural verses backing up your claim.

MuttleyLaff:
Knowledge doesnt always have to be empirical
We at times know things through second-hand or third-hand parties experiences
and not through our own personal experience

The proof of the pudding is in the eating
Does man have integrity?
OK, let's put it to test and tell him about not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
The capital punishment will be death,
death because it is the highest punishment for such an act of disobeying the command,
deemed not to be ordinarily an act of disobedience
but is the ultimate treason against God

You talk about experience as though Adam and Eve had any experience before they disobeyed God. They had never disobeyed before. They had never seen anyone die before and yet God said they would die if they ate the fruit. The possibility that Adam was aware of deviation was not even there. For how could they have known that eating the fruit would bring them misery when they had never witnessed misery? How could they be scared of death when the were supposedly created and put into a perfect world? The reason why you all can easily judge Adam is because you are aware of the pains of repercussions. Adam had never felt misery or death or another sort of existence from the one he had. There was no other life he could compare with the one he used to have until he lost it. You should never call that test an integrity test. What integrity are you testing when the people you are making the test on had never witnessed any other life aside goodness?

The only way we can agree on this story is if you agree that Adam and Eve already had experiences with which they compared goodness with evil. If you can agree that they had once been punished and felt pains to understand the significance of repercussions.

Just like a baby who has just been born. The baby has no knowledge of good and evil. Has no experience. Threatening to smack the baby may even make the baby laugh because she has never been smacked before. But as she grows older and she gets beaten once, when next you threaten to smack her, she may become scared or burst into tears because she knows that spanking is painful. Also, if a baby loses its mother, it would certainty not be aware of grief. Imagine threatening to kill it. You can even point a gun at it and it would not feel alarmed.

Like I said earlier, we can only agree if you agree that Adam's knowledge of good and evil came from experience or from eating the fruit. But to tell me he was aware of good and evil without any experience to make comparisons is nothing but ridiculous.

LordOfNaira:
You talk about experience as though Adam and Eve had any experience before they disobeyed God

They had never disobeyed before. They had never seen anyone die before and yet God said they would die if they ate the fruit.

The possibility that Adam was aware of deviation was not even there.

For how could they have known that eating the fruit would bring them misery when they had never witnessed misery?
How could they be scared of death when the were supposedly created and put into a perfect world?

The reason why you all can easily judge Adam is because you are aware of the pains of repercussions.
Adam had never felt misery or death or another sort of existence from the one he had. There was no other life he could compare with the one he used to have until he lost it

You should never call that test an integrity test. What integrity are you testing when the people you are making the test on had never witnessed any other life aside goodness?

The only way we can agree on this story is if you agree that Adam and Eve already had experiences with which they compared goodness with evil
If you can agree that they had once been punished and felt pains to understand the significance of repercussions.

Just like a baby who has just been born. The baby has no knowledge of good and evil. Has no experience. Threatening to smack the baby may even make the baby laugh because she has never been smacked before. But as she grows older and she gets beaten once, when next you threaten to smack her, she may become scared or burst into tears because she knows that spanking is painful. Also, if a baby loses its mother, it would certainty not be aware of grief. Imagine threatening to kill it. You can even point a gun at it and it would not feel alarmed.

Like I said earlier, we can only agree if you agree that Adam's knowledge of good and evil came from experience or from eating the fruit. But to tell me he was aware of good and evil without any experience to make comparisons is nothing but ridiculous

I've read your beautifully presented post and clearly see everywhere you've misunderstood and/or misinterpreted points I've made.

When I come off the road, I will asap sectionally respond to each and every aspect of your post (i.e. the bolded especially and if possible more)

MuttleyLaff:
You're actually spot on
that Adam means Man (i.e. human being made from dust)
and Eve means life (i.e. Adam on highsight realised this and appropriately called her so)
The bible isnt necessarily a historical narrative

we can agree on that. so any idea what the allegory means

luvmijeje:
Crap. Nonsense analysis. Where is your scriptural verses backing up your claim.

ive been asking but no understandable reply

kkins25:
ive been asking but no understandable reply

He can never answer it. If one want to expose people like him, just ask for scriptural verse.

Man was created with the senses of sight, smell, hear, taste and touch as adjunks to the Conscience of God in him before he desired to touch The Fruit. So your answer is Yes.

Did I not read that the flesh is inclined to sin? Is so, and Adam was flesh then the sin was already inherent in his fleshly nature.

Further more there will be no salvation from sin cos the will be a resurrection of the flesh, which means a resurrection of sinful nature.

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?

PastorAIO:
Did I not read that the flesh is inclined to sin?
If so, and Adam was flesh then the sin was already inherent in his fleshly nature

Define sin

PastorAIO:
Further more there will be no salvation from sin cos the will be a resurrection of the flesh, which means a resurrection of sinful nature

Does a template(s) mean anything to you at all?
What is a template?

MuttleyLaff:
Define sin

Does a template(s) mean anything to you at all?
What is a template?

I mean it in the sense found here:


16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity,

PastorAIO:
I mean it in the sense found here:

¹⁶But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
¹⁷For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
¹⁸But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
¹⁹Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity
- Galatian 5:16-19

More my reason of asking ''Does a template(s) mean anything to you at all''?
And further asking ''What is a template?''

That Galatian 5:16-19 above, you referenced, is without discussing at length, talking about the second template
The first template is a living soul that became reduced in quality after losing life
(i.e. it became this way by losing faith in God's word and wilfully ignor‌ing it)
whereas the second template is a life-giving spirit
(i.e. it gives not only life but also deliverance from sin and its consequences)

Really would have appreaciated if you had define sin.
I mean, in in a thorough manner, define it to a large and detailed degree,

Is your second template a 'flesh' as well? If it is then is it distinguishable from the flesh that is distinguished from spirit in Galatians.

You are confusing the terms Flesh and Spirit.

You say the second template is a 'life giving' Spirit. Jesus said:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Your second template is a flesh and a spirit it seems. Who is right ? You or Jesus?

MuttleyLaff:
More my reason of asking ''Does a template(s) mean anything to you at all''?
And further asking ''What is a template?''

That Galatian 5:16-19 above, you referenced, is without discussing at length, talking about the second template
The first template is a living soul that became reduced in quality after losing life
(i.e. it became this way by losing faith in God's word and wilfully ignor‌ing it)
whereas the second template is a life-giving spirit
(i.e. it gives not only life but also deliverance from sin and its consequences)

Really would have appreaciated if you had define sin.
I mean, in in a thorough manner, define it to a large and detailed degree,

PastorAIO:
Is your second template a 'flesh' as well?

Affirmative, it is flesh as well

PastorAIO:

If it is then is it distinguishable from the flesh that is distinguished from spirit in Galatians

Yes the other is uncorrupted, uncompromised and without blemish

PastorAIO:
You are confusing the terms Flesh and Spirit.

Quite the contrary.
I am not confusing the terms
but it's you misunderstanding and thinking I am mixing them up

PastorAIO:
You say the second template is a 'life giving' Spirit, Jesus said:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

Yes I said so, and that is John 3:6 you are referring to, which I am pleased to say I am familiar with.

Remember this is what I wrote:
The first template is a living soul that became reduced in quality after losing life
(i.e. it became this way by losing faith in God's word and wilfully ignor‌ing it)
whereas the second template is a life-giving spirit
(i.e. it gives not only life but also deliverance from sin and its consequences)

The first template, which we've all inherited from, is a living soul, that gives death, whereas the second template is a life-giving spirit.

¹¹He (i.e. God) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
¹²Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
¹³children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
^14aThe Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
- John 1:11-14a

The second template is God, Who is Spirit, embodied in human flesh and you become born again from above by God the Son
Before you run with my last remark from the above sentence, please, think first over whether it's impossible for God, to simultaneously and concurrently be in heaven and earth.

You also need to ask yourself the question about what's the context behind John 3:6.
Ask yourself what question did Nicodemus ask that prompted Jesus to give him that response

PastorAIO:
Your second template is a flesh and a spirit it seems. Who is right ? You or Jesus?

Though you won't answer questions relating to templates, you no doubt know what a template is. You No doubt know why and when templates are used. This is why you shuffle feet and ignore answering questions about them

Who is right? I or Jesus?
Well we are both right
What are you made up from?
Aren't you a spirit and soul housed in a flesh body?

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?

.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Scripture at no point inferred that man (Adam) was perfect before the fall. The man Jesus is the true prototype of what God intended project MAN to be. Man could still have sinned (disobeyed) without the intervention of the serpent (or satan).