shadeyinka:

But you haven't shown any depth of thought to warrant a knowledge based position.

What is faith?
What kind of faith do you have?

You have not shown any depth of thought to warrant any attention by anyone on Earth!

shadeyinka:

Even though he is wrong, his error is still based on knowledge. However, incomplete knowledge.
He must have read books by atheists!
Listened to arguments from other Atheists!
Read a little science!

A knowledge not understood is more or less an incomplete knowledge.

One must admit Also that there may also exist false knowledge (a deliberate falsification of facts to lead to a different conclusion).

So, Hell's error that I am budaatuum is based on knowledge, according to you? I got to wonder where you think he got that knowledge from, Shade.

Sorry, but I do not think I can continue this conversation with you at this point in time without being rude. When you concentrate on what is presented before you, hola. And do let me know how the bridge built with incomplete knowledge goes when you got time.

I will reassess my decision in the morning.

budaatum:

So, Hell's error that I am budaatuum is based on knowledge, according to you? I got to wonder where you think he got that knowledge from, Shade.

Sorry, but I do not think I can continue this conversation with you at this point in time without being rude. When you concentrate on what is presented before you, hola. And do let me know how the bridge built with incomplete knowledge goes when you got time.

I will reassess my decision in the morning.

Sorry, I got your reference wrong! (I assumed you refer to where I asked him to proof his two assertions

However, there seems to be another person on NL bearing the name budaatuum, you are budaatum.

Even at that, the knowledge of the wrong budaatum lead to his confusion. Even knowedge can be wrong!

Your anger is easily stoked bro!

HellVictorinho:

You have not shown any depth of thought to warrant any attention by anyone on Earth!

No problems!

What do you think faith is?
What kind of faith did you have?

shadeyinka:

Sorry, I got your reference wrong! (I assumed you refer to where I asked him to proof his two assertions

However, there seems to be another person on NL bearing the name budaatuum, you are budaatum.

Even at that, the knowledge of the wrong budaatum lead to his confusion. Even knowedge can be wrong!

Your anger is easily stoked bro!

Yes, my anger is easily stoked by people who can not be honest in their conversations. We are all here learning so we can increase our knowledge and understanding so why lie to massage your ego? Do you think the rest of us are so stupid that we would not notice when you lie? Are you trying to mislead us?

I mean, take your lie above. You and everyone else here can easily check, but without bothering, you tell an untruth instead of simply admitting your mistake. If you lie in little things like there seems to be another person on NL bearing the name budaatuum, I can't assume you can be honest in the bigger things we are discussing here, and would be insulting myself in trying to hold a honest conversation with you.

If your knowledge is wrong or incomplete and you believe it, you are no different to an atheist who has not bothered to read their Holy Book and claims everything in it is untrue. Christ would advise you to become as a child, as in, abandon your incomplete knowledge so that you may learn. But as he also said, it's as hard as threading camels through needle's eyes.

Please know one fact. I like discussing with you because I believe you are intelligent, an assumption I come to by the topics you open threads about. They are of a higher intellectual level than the norm but you unfortunately often do not apply the rigour required to tackle them.

buda will be blessed by you if you try harder. The Lord God Almighty strengthens you.

budaatum:


Yes, my anger is easily stoked by people who can not be honest in their conversations. We are all here learning so we can increase our knowledge and understanding so why lie to massage your ego? Do you think the rest of us are so stupid that we would not notice when you lie? Are you trying to mislead us?

I mean, take your lie above. You and everyone else here can easily check, but without bothering, you tell an untruth instead of simply admitting your mistake. If you lie in little things like there seems to be another person on NL bearing the name budaatuum, I can't assume you can be honest in the bigger things we are discussing here, and would be insulting myself in trying to hold a honest conversation with you.

If your knowledge is wrong or incomplete and you believe it, you are no different to an atheist who has not bothered to read their Holy Book and claims everything in it is untrue. Christ would advise you to become as a child, as in, abandon your incomplete knowledge so that you may learn. But as he also said, it's as hard as threading camels through needle's eyes.

I must apologize, I didn't look carefully: yes I searched for budaatuum and I found some mentions (unrelated to this thread) that I assumed is a moniker for someone else. So sorry my error.

But why should I lie about anything on NL, there is no reward for posting.

I attach for you to see what I mean: my error please

shadeyinka:


I must apologize, I didn't look carefully: yes I searched for budaatuum and I found some mentions (unrelated to this thread) that I assumed is a moniker for someone else. So sorry my error.

But why should I lie about anything on NL, there is no reward for posting.

I attach for you to see what I mean: my error please

Posting "incomplete knowledge" can be deemed an error if you are not aware your knowledge is incomplete. Not admitting it once discovered, is however lying. As to why, ego stands out as one reason but there are many more.

Take the topic we are discussing here. I have often referred you back to read your own statements. I assumed you did not quite understand what you wrote as they show the errors in your thought, but you have not bothered. Then there's how you seem to ignore that which should make you question what you say. I mean, take the one about mother. I bet you have not done a DNA test to check if your mother is trully your mother, but I also bet you have never ever merely believed your mother is your mother because you know who your mother is. Take also the one about building bridges with incomplete knowledge, a question you can easily answer but which keep making out you haven't noticed just so you do not have to engage with the implication of your thought. It shows you are not only being dishonest with me, but also dishonest with yourself because you do not want to admit your reasoning is not exactly correct which is usual amongst the religious apologetics, I dare say. If the topic were maths we would accuse you of wuruwuruing to the wrong answer!

You would note I have not once asked you what is knowledge. I'll put it to you that you think information is knowledge. It is the only sort of knowledge that belief applies to, the simple facts about a subject like the data you read in the Bible and believe. It's like the "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child" stage of learning during which time we "see through a glass, darkly". The next level is to put away childish things and gain understanding so that you "know even as also I am known". It is a pity we have so far failed to evolve our discuss to that level but I shall continue my praying for us because I very strongly believe we are capable and it glorifies God.

budaatum:


Posting "incomplete knowledge" can be deemed an error if you are not aware your knowledge is incomplete. Not admitting it once discovered, is however lying. As to why, ego stands out as one reason but there are many more.

Okay!

budaatum:

Take the topic we are discussing here. I have often referred you back to read your own statements. I assumed you did not quite understand what you wrote as they show the errors in your thought, but you have not bothered. Then there's how you seem to ignore that which should make you question what you say. I mean, take the one about mother. I bet you have not done a DNA test to check if your mother is trully your mother, but I also bet you have never ever merely believed your mother is your mother because you know who your mother is. Take also the one about building bridges with incomplete knowledge, a question you can easily answer but which keep making out you haven't noticed just so you do not have to engage with the implication of your thought. It shows you are not only being dishonest with me, but also dishonest with yourself because you do not want to admit your reasoning is not exactly correct which is usual amongst the religious apologetics, I dare say. If the topic were maths we would accuse you of wuruwuruing to the wrong answer!

I think the difference between the two of us has to do with how we define and understand the terms we use.
For me:
To Believe means
1. to consider to be true or honest an information
2. to accept an information or evidence as true or reliable

I think where we differ is that I take the position that Believing is not just an emotional position but based on incomplete knowledge or information.
Whereas:
I assume you take the position that knowledge or knowing is key (and I agree) but believing is baseless!

To know means:
1. to perceive directly and have direct cognition of an information
2. to have understanding of something, something or an idea
3. to recognize the nature of something, something or an idea

Information:
1. knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction
2. Intellegence report or News
3. Acquisition of Facts or Data
Knowledge:
1. the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
2. acquaintance with understanding of a science, art, or technique

Difference between knowledge and information:
Knowledge is information imbibed or internalised by a person.
e.g. information may be in a book, but knowledge is information comprehended or assimilated by a person.


All our argument may be distilled into these questions
1. Is knowledge involved in believing?
2. Can knowledge be incomplete yet applicable?
3. Is Believing irrational?
4. If knowledge is incomplete, can a person really claim he knows?

budaatum:

You would note I have not once asked you what is knowledge. I'll put it to you that you think information is knowledge. It is the only sort of knowledge that belief applies to, the simple facts about a subject like the data you read in the Bible and believe. It's like the "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child" stage of learning during which time we "see through a glass, darkly". The next level is to put away childish things and gain understanding so that you "know even as also I am known". It is a pity we have so far failed to evolve our discuss to that level but I shall continue my praying for us because I very strongly believe we are capable and it glorifies God.

By dictionary definition:
Knowledge means the awareness or understanding of the subject obtained from the education or experience of a particular person.

Information is a refined form of data that is useful to understand the meaning

https://www.guru99.com/information-vs-knowledge-difference.html#:~:text=Knowledge%20means%20the%20awareness%20or,useful%20to%20understand%20the%20meaning.

Can a person truely believe without knowledge?

shadeyinka:

I think the difference between the two of us has to do with how we define and understand the terms we use.
For me:
To Believe means
1. to consider to be true or honest an information
2. to accept an information or evidence as true or reliable.

Do you remember when I posted the following:

budaatum:

As in, if I ragrnae lstetr yb ggljuing eyht lwoud eamn thimgsone ot oyu in English, French or Dutch language?

If words were made up like that I'm absolutely certain I can define them as I wish, but that is not what we do, especially when using words that have been in use long before we were born and that have a long history of defining behind them.

Note the subjective words in your definitions above. Would you understand if I say you can believe any crap you make up inside your head? Its like a man believing he is a girl or a dog or a millionaire. I'd hope we'd need some sort of data or evidence for us to accept it as any sort of knowledge worth considering, or would we not?

Now, go to your definitions of knowledge. Note how they include words like "perceive directly", "have direct cognition", "understanding of something", "recognize the nature of something". They all require the use of the senses and is why Jesus Christ is written to have spent so much time working on people's eyes. It's because the eye, which is one of the senses, is the lamp of the body. If you can not perceive, recognise, understand, etc, your whole body will be full of darkness and ignorance and a lack of understanding and what you call "incomplete knowledge". Those who understand about the eye will evolve to making their minds work well too along with all their other senses, for as is said, be, or at least strive to "be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". One may never achieve perfection but one is at least guaranteed to be better than mediocre.

shadeyinka:
Can a person truely believe without knowledge?

I think there is sufficient data in this thread to know that yes, many can truly believe without knowledge.

One is, Hell believing I am budaatuum. Another was you not looking carefully. I've mentioned the flat earth guy and I am absolutely certain you have come across many in your time on here who have argued ignorantly that what they believe is true when it wasn't.

If not, then please see this thread where you'd meet individuals who believe the current President of the United States of America is a certain guy called trump who won a second term in November and will be sworn in on March or May 4.

You might be tempted to argue about you "truely" but I will advise caution. As I said, they could be lying that they believe what they say, hence, "woe unto them for not entering nor letting enter those who would", or they could just be ignorant and believe the little incomplete knowledge they have. This is why we must refrain from believing, in my opinion, and continue to [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A7-8&version=KJV]ask and seek and knock[/url] until we truly find. The fact that we are instructed to in three ways shows how diligently we must work.

budaatum:


Do you remember when I posted the following:



If words were made up like that I'm absolutely certain I can define them as I wish, but that is not what we do, especially when using words that have been in use long before we were born and that have a long history of defining behind them.

Note the subjective words in your definitions above. Would you understand if I say you can believe any crap you make up inside your head? Its like a man believing he is a girl or a dog or a millionaire. I'd hope we'd need some sort of data or evidence for us to accept it as any sort of knowledge worth considering, or would we not?

Now, go to your definitions of knowledge. Note how they include words like "perceive directly", "have direct cognition", "understanding of something", "recognize the nature of something". They all require the use of the senses and is why Jesus Christ is written to have spent so much time working on people's eyes. It's because the eye, which is one of the senses, is the lamp of the body. If you can not perceive, recognise, understand, etc, your whole body will be full of darkness and ignorance and a lack of understanding and what you call "incomplete knowledge". Those who understand about the eye will evolve to making their minds work well too along with all their other senses, for as is said, be, or at least strive to "be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". One may never achieve perfection but one is at least guaranteed to be better than mediocre.


I think there is sufficient data in this thread to know that yes, many can truly believe without knowledge.

One is, Hell believing I am budaatuum. Another was you not looking carefully. I've mentioned the flat earth guy and I am absolutely certain you have come across many in your time on here who have argued ignorantly that what they believe is true when it wasn't.

If not, then please see this thread where you'd meet individuals who believe the current President of the United States of America is a certain guy called trump who won a second term in November and will be sworn in on March or May 4.

You might be tempted to argue about you "truely" but I will advise caution. As I said, they could be lying that they believe what they say, hence, "woe unto them for not entering nor letting enter those who would", or they could just be ignorant and believe the little incomplete knowledge they have. This is why we must refrain from believing, in my opinion, and continue to [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A7-8&version=KJV]ask and seek and knock[/url] until we truly find. The fact that we are instructed to in three ways shows how diligently we must work.

Let's come to a middle ground.
1. A Person can believe by CONSIDERING to be true or honest an information.

The consideration constitute cognition, judgement and understanding : in other words KNOWLEDGE!
2. A Person can believe by ACCEPTING an information or evidence as true or reliable.

The acceptance may or may NOT involve cognition and understanding, in other words it may be devoid of KNOWLEDGE!


I will add that it is RECKLESSNESS to believe without KNOWLEDGE!

shadeyinka:

Let's come to a middle ground.
1. A Person can believe by CONSIDERING to be true or honest an information.

The consideration constitute cognition, judgement and understanding : in other words KNOWLEDGE!
2. A Person can believe by ACCEPTING an information or evidence as true or reliable.

The acceptance may or may NOT involve cognition and understanding, in other words it may be devoid of KNOWLEDGE!


I will add that it is RECKLESSNESS to believe without KNOWLEDGE!

This topic has interested me a lot as you can see. In Christianity, a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is spoken of but many do not investigate it because they are afraid of dying. Those who are not afraid however, will investigate the tree and its trunk and its branches and its flowers and its fruits if it has any and its bark and its pulp, and when they have done with the bits they perceive above the ground they will dig up the ground and study the roots of the tree and the soil the tree grows in and the climate the tree thrives under and so on and so on because that is how one acquires knowledge and grows in understanding and wisdom and becomes able to say "Let there be" so that there is.

I am afraid I can not meet you halfway on this topic. I am antibeliever with a passion, and believe believers are lazy. They do not investigate enough and call their ignorance "incomplete knowledge" instead of admitting they know only a little and should be learning so they can know more. The bridges they build will not cross rivers because they are like those who build without the LORD and like watchmen who stand guard in vain and I can not permit this to be your portion.

You, Sir, are part of the building up of the people of power so your request to be lazy and hold on to beliefs that are devoid of knowledge is denied (at least whenever you engage with buda). Those who would be knowledgeable will diligently investigate so that they know instead of stating their ignorant "incomplete knowledge" while making out they know when they truly have not even begun to have a clue.

budaatum:


This topic has interested me a lot as you can see. In Christianity, a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is spoken of but many do not investigate it because they are afraid of dying. Those who are not afraid however, will investigate the tree and its trunk and its branches and its flowers and its fruits if it has any and its bark and its pulp, and when they have done with the bits they perceive above the ground they will dig up the ground and study the roots of the tree and the soil the tree grows in and the climate the tree thrives under and so on and so on because that is how one acquires knowledge and grows in understanding and wisdom and becomes able to say "Let there be" so that there is.

Any knowledge of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil NOW will at best be INCOMPLETE: It will be full of speculations, insinuations and guesswork.

I think that the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is an examination of choice for COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE (ability to decide everything apart from God -their Source) which ultimately lead to a SEVERANCE (death) from God.

The Eating of the Tree is deciding to be ones own Moral Standard (of what is good and evil) rather than God.

Unfortunately, we don't even know for sure how the tree looks like nor its kind. We can't even be certain that the tree isn't figurative. Too much information is absent!

budaatum:

I am afraid I can not meet you halfway on this topic. I am antibeliever with a passion, and believe believers are lazy. They do not investigate enough and call their ignorance "incomplete knowledge" instead of admitting they know only a little and should be learning so they can know more. The bridges they build will not cross rivers because they are like those who build without the LORD and like watchmen who stand guard in vain and I can not permit this to be your portion.

Your anti- believing stand is probably what had cause my Buda to be so closed minded to admit that as humans, we take many major decisions not by knowing but by believing: for in many cases, it is impossible to truely know everything. Hence we take our chances with the incomplete knowledge we have.

1. In boarding a public transport for instance, I have never asked the driver "if he's sure he knows how to navigate to my destination" or "to ask him to prove that he hasn't smoked nor taken alcohol". I don't know about you.
2. When I eat in a restaurant, I don't ask if ALL hygiene and guiding regulations was practiced in the preparation of the food. How can you know if a rat or cockroach has not "played" with the foodstuff?
3. In voting my candidature for an election, I vote in good faith after an incomplete knowledge of the person is acquired. If you voted for Joe Biden, will you say you truely know or believe?

In situations where as humans we have to make decisions with INCOMPLETE but adequate information, we Believe!

I agree that some people Believe
1. Based on sentiments
2. Based on inadequate information or in adequate knowledge
3. Based on adequate information or adequate knowledge

I do not subscribe to 1&2 but 3 for like you said, they are LAZY. But one must realize too that the word "adequate" is a relative term.

budaatum:

You, Sir, are part of the building up of the people of power so your request to be lazy and hold on to beliefs that are devoid of knowledge is denied (at least whenever you engage with buda). Those who would be knowledgeable will diligently investigate so that they know instead of stating their ignorant "incomplete knowledge" while making out they know when they truly have not even begun to have a clue.

To truely KNOW will be to have COMPLETE information and knowledge. Such is denied mortal men in several areas of their existence. An intelligent man is expected to make reasonable judgements and decisions based on incomplete information and knowledge. Such judgements and decisions are taken by faith after due diligence.

Is is possible to totally separate HOPE from BELIEF? I don't think we hope after having a knowing. We hope only after Believing! Do we expunge the word hope from our dictionary (hope is the life of the soul)?

Army Generals have to take life and death decisions on warfronts based on incomplete information and knowledge. Thus, they Believe in their Strategy and Hope for victory!
I hope you will reconsider your vehement opposition to Believing and instead, encourage critical thinking on information and knowledge before taking a position of Believing based on incomplete information and knowledge. Of course, knowledge too should be filtered!

shadeyinka:

Any knowledge of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil NOW will at best be INCOMPLETE: It will be full of speculations, insinuations and guesswork.

Or reasoning, you left out, but then, you do not appear to understand the nature of knowledge, or trees for that matter.

Knowledge is never complete. Like a tree, it keeps growing so there's always more to learn. That's why the Tree is used figuratively to symbolize the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The hope being, you will continue growing in knowledge like a tree grows. It's how you discover new things and evolve in understanding.

shadeyinka:
Unfortunately, we don't even know for sure how the tree looks like nor its kind. We can't even be certain that the tree isn't figurative. Too much information is absent!

Which is why you should not give up seeking and lazily believe the little that you know! You keep searching until you find the tree so you know what it looks like, then you study it so you understand.

But unfortunately here you are claiming not to even know what the tree looks like and saying "we" as if your ignorance is some collective thing. Instead of you learning from those who seem to know more than you, you want to comfort yourself by claiming we are equally as ignorant as one another as if your laziness is contagious!

I can only advise you come to school Shade, and learn, but I have the feeling, or rather, I have the belief that you would rather believe the little you know. We'll see if you turn up in class. No fees required, note.

shadeyinka:
Your anti- believing stand is probably what had cause my Buda to be so closed minded to admit that as humans, we take many major decisions not by knowing but by believing: for in many cases, it is impossible to truely know everything. Hence we take our chances with the incomplete knowledge we have.

This is you being silly. Is it not the believer who has a closed mind and believes so no new learning can enter? Isn't that what you are doing here? Jesus describes such people as "won't learn, and would not let those who would learn", and Amujale describes your sort here. Read my response to him to know how I view people who think like he has described you to be please. If you know you do not truly know something, why would you stop learning and just believe the little you know?

You said scientists believe in the form of hypotheses. They then test their hypothesis to derive knowledge. If they stop seeking and just believe the little they have discovered, would they learn?

That is how we learn, Shade, by constantly testing our hypothesis and beliefs about life, and every minute of everyday. That is what Adam and Eve is written to have done in the Garden of Eden to free themselves from slavery. Jesus spent his entire life challenging the beliefs of his contemporaries and was crucified for doing so and he asks those who would follow him to pick up the same cross, ergo, do exactly the same as he did and challenge beliefs.

If you just believe you will not grow and Amujale will be correct about you.

shadeyinka:

I hope you will reconsider your vehement opposition to Believing and instead, encourage critical thinking on information and knowledge before taking a position of Believing based on incomplete information and knowledge. Of course, knowledge too should be filtered!

Sounds like you will benefit from my thread on Critical Thinking. It will at least inform you on my view on the topic instead of you ignorantly believing the incomplete information you seem to believe about me.

shadeyinka:

To truely KNOW will be to have COMPLETE information and knowledge]

This bit is so important I'm responding to it separately.

The only thing a person truly knows is that they only know so little. That their information and knowledge is incomplete and that they are ignorant and must constantly be learning to cure their ignorance.

When you think you have complete knowledge you will believe and stop learning and will be truly ignorant. Scripture describes such people as dead!

budaatum:
This topic has interested me a lot as you can see. In Christianity, a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is spoken of but many do not investigate it because they are afraid of dying. Those who are not afraid however, will investigate the tree and its trunk and its branches and its flowers and its fruits if it has any and its bark and its pulp, and when they have done with the bits they perceive above the ground they will dig up the ground and study the roots of the tree and the soil the tree grows in and the climate the tree thrives under and so on and so on because that is how one acquires knowledge and grows in understanding and wisdom and becomes able to say "Let there be" so that there is.

I am afraid I can not meet you halfway on this topic. I am antibeliever with a passion, and believe believers are lazy. They do not investigate enough and call their ignorance "incomplete knowledge" instead of admitting they know only a little and should be learning so they can know more. The bridges they build will not cross rivers because they are like those who build without the LORD and like watchmen who stand guard in vain and I can not permit this to be your portion.

You, Sir, are part of the building up of the people of power so your request to be lazy and hold on to beliefs that are devoid of knowledge is denied (at least whenever you engage with buda). Those who would be knowledgeable will diligently investigate so that they know instead of stating their ignorant "incomplete knowledge" while making out they know when they truly have not even begun to have a clue.

shadeyinka:
Any knowledge of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil NOW will at best be INCOMPLETE: It will be full of speculations, insinuations and guesswork.

I think that the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is an examination of choice for COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE (ability to decide everything apart from God -their Source) which ultimately lead to a SEVERANCE (death) from God.

The Eating of the Tree is deciding to be ones own Moral Standard (of what is good and evil) rather than God.

Unfortunately, we don't even know for sure how the tree looks like nor its kind. We can't even be certain that the tree isn't figurative. Too much information is absent!

Few people, know that the, The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, also known as, the Tree of Death, in fact, is actually, a synecdoche.

The 'the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil ' figure of speech, is explaining that, prematurely eating off the tree or eating of it without authorisations, will not only bring death, but it also is, an open invitation to a world of, begin to experience, the variations and ranges of what is good and evil. In other words, introduction to getting to know what is: sweet & sour, beautiful & ugly, tranquility & mayhem, peace & anarchy, love & hate, bias & impartial, friend & foe, saint & villain, fresh & stale, success & failure, agony & elation, cold & hot, harsh & kind, happy & sad, wicked & virtuous, soft & hard, pain & pleasure, struggle & ease, suffer & comfort, rich & poor, smile & wince, laugh & cry, greed & content, sick & healthy etc

Another example of a synecdoche, is the greeting salutation or intro 'ladies and gentlemen' used instead of saying 'Everyone' and so, the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is saying and means 'the Tree of the knowledge of Everything'

BassReeves:


Few people, know that the, The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, also known as, the Tree of Death, in fact, is actually, a synecdoche.

The 'the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil ' figure of speech, is explaining that, prematurely eating off the tree or eating of it without authorisations, will not only bring death, but it also is, an open invitation to a world of, begin to experience, the variations and ranges of what is good and evil. In other words, introduction to getting to know what is: sweet & sour, beautiful & ugly, tranquility & mayhem, peace & anarchy, love & hate, bias & impartial, friend & foe, saint & villain, fresh & stale, success & failure, agony & elation, cold & hot, harsh & kind, happy & sad, wicked & virtuous, soft & hard, pain & pleasure, struggle & ease, suffer & comfort, rich & poor, smile & wince, laugh & cry, greed & content, sick & healthy etc

Another example of a synecdoche, is the greeting salutation or intro 'ladies and gentlemen' used instead of saying 'Everyone' and so, the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil is saying and means 'the Tree of the knowledge of Everything'

You have described the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil as the "Tree of EXPERIENCE". I like to describe it as a tree of "knowledge to set standards of good and evil" (independence from God's authority). I do not condemn your interpretation though!

However, on a different note:

We all sometimes forget that in addition to the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil, the Tree of life was also present in the midst of the garden.

Gen 2:9:
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

It's fruit must have looked ordinary!

budaatum:


This bit is so important I'm responding to it separately.

The only thing a person truly knows is that they only know so little. That their information and knowledge is incomplete and that they are ignorant and must constantly be learning to cure their ignorance.

When you think you have complete knowledge you will believe and stop learning and will be truly ignorant. Scripture describes such people as dead!

But of many things, we honestly truely and completely know.
Example:
We all know that 2 oranges plus 3 oranges give five oranges. (It is stupidity to believe that the addition of these oranges is 5)

I agree that in most things, we truely understand that we know enough to make perfect decisions. In that case we claim that we know!

In other cases, we truely understand that we do NOT know enough to make perfect decisions. In that case we claim that we believe!

Knowledge is progressive especially in circumstances where we don't have the peregative of certainty!

budaatum:


Or reasoning, you left out, but then, you do not appear to understand the nature of knowledge, or trees for that matter.

Knowledge is never complete. Like a tree, it keeps growing so there's always more to learn. That's why the Tree is used figuratively to symbolose the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The hope being, you will continue growing in knowledge like a tree grows. It's how you discover new things and evolve in understanding.


Which is why you should not give up seeking and lazily believe the little that you know! You keep searching until you find the tree so you know what it looks like, then you study it so you understand.

But unfortunately here you are claiming not to even know what the tree looks like and saying "we" as if your ignorance is some collective thing. Instead of you learning from those who seem to know more than you, you want to comfort yourself by claiming we are equally as ignorant as one another as if your laziness is contagious!

I can only advise you come to school Shade, and learn, but I have the feeling, or rather, I have the belief that you would rather believe the little you know. We'll see if you turn up in class. No fees required, note.

It seems you know many things about the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that I don't know. Do you have another source? May be archeology, books etc that has a direct or close enough timeline?

Always willing to learn sir!

budaatum:

This is you being silly. Is it not the believer who has a closed mind and believes so no new learning can enter? Isn't that what you are doing here? Jesus describes such people as "won't learn, and would not let those who would learn", and Amujale describes your sort here. Read my response to him to know how I view people who think like he has described you to be please. If you know you do not truly know something, why would you stop learning and just believe the little you know?

You said scientists believe in the form of hypotheses. They then test their hypothesis to derive knowledge. If they stop and believing the little they have discovered, would they learn?

That is how we learn, Shade, by constantly testing our hypothesis and beliefs about life, and every minute if everyday. That is what Adam and Eve is written to have done in the Garden of Eden to free themselves from slavery. Jesus spent his entire life challenging the beliefs of his contemporaries and was crucified for doing so, and he asks those who would follow him to pick up the same cross, ergo, do exactly the same as he did and challenge beliefs.

If you just believe you will not grow and Amujale will be correct about you.



Sounds like you will benefit from my thread on Critical Thinking. It will at least inform you on my view on the topic instead of you ignorantly believing the incomplete information you seem to believe about me.

Not true sir. You truely hold a bias!
Believing doesn't mean "closed to knowledge". It just simply means that you have taken an educated decision based on available but incomplete facts!

1. In boarding a public transport for instance, I have never asked the driver "if he's sure he knows how to navigate to my destination" or "to ask him to prove that he hasn't smoked nor taken alcohol". I don't know about you.
2. When I eat in a restaurant, I don't ask if ALL hygiene and guiding regulations was practiced in the preparation of the food. How can you know if a rat or cockroach has not "played" with the foodstuff?
3. In voting my candidature for an election, I vote in good faith after an incomplete knowledge of the person is acquired. If you voted for Joe Biden, will you say you truely know or believe?
4. Do you think Army Generals take life and death decisions on warfronts based on incomplete information and knowledge?

ALL the four illustrations above take a position of BELIEVING, are they wrong or archaic stances?



I still hope that you will reconsider your vehement opposition to Believing and instead, encourage critical thinking on information and knowledge before taking a position of Believing based on incomplete information and knowledge.

Knowledge too should be filtered, not all information and knowledge is correct!

shadeyinka:
You have described the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil as the "Tree of EXPERIENCE". I like to describe it as a tree of "knowledge to set standards of good and evil" (independence from God's authority). I do not condemn your interpretation though!

However, on a different note:

We all sometimes forget that in addition to the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil, the Tree of life was also present in the midst of the garden.

Gen 2:9:
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

It's fruit must have looked ordinary!

John 12:24
'I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone.
But its death will produce many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives.'

No, you have not completely said what I described. You interpreted what I described to gel with your preconceived idea of what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' is and what it represents.

I did not describe the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil, as the "Tree of EXPERIENCE", but I have described the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' correctly as 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'

Whether it's fruit must have looked ordinary, is neither here nor there because the instruction was quite explicit.

The Tree of life that was also present in the midst of the garden, actually was beside the Tree of Death, also known as the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that equally is the 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'

I sense you are bereft of what synecdoches are, and that's is why your understanding of what the essence of what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' is all about and why as a Tree of Death, it really was inevitable that it should, would or could be eaten.

A single grain of wheat doesn't produce anything unless it is planted in the ground and dies. If it dies, it will produce a lot of grain.

If you don't eat off the Tree of Death, you will access to the Tree of Life to prolong life, but eat of the off the Tree of Death, you can't be permitted to in that violated state of yours, be permitted to live forever, from eating off the Tree of Life, because your evilness with be in perpetuity, hence the reason after the fall, for be barred from anymore having access to the Tree of Life.

BassReeves:
John 12:24
'I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone.
But its death will produce many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives.'

No, you have not completely said what I described. You interpreted what I described to gel with your preconceived idea of what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' is and what it represents.

I did not describe the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil, as the "Tree of EXPERIENCE", but I have described the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' correctly as 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'

Whether it's fruit must have looked ordinary, is neither here nor there because the instruction was quite explicit.

The Tree of life that was also present in the midst of the garden, actually was beside the Tree of Death, also known as the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that equally is the 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'

I sense you are bereft of what synecdoches are, and that's is why your understanding of what the essence of what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' is all about and why as a Tree of Death, it really was inevitable that it should, would or could be eaten.

A single grain of wheat doesn't produce anything unless it is planted in the ground and dies. If it dies, it will produce a lot of grain.

If you don't eat off the Tree of Death, you will access to the Tree of Life to prolong life, but eat of the off the Tree of Death, you can't be permitted to in that violated state of yours, be permitted to live forever, from eating off the Tree of Life, because your evilness with be in perpetuity, hence the reason after the fall, for be barred from anymore having access to the Tree of Life.

Dear Sir,
I have not opposed your post. I only complemented it.

We will all have a perfect understanding of the significance at resurrection!

shadeyinka:

You have described the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil as the "Tree of EXPERIENCE". I like to describe it as a tree of "knowledge to set standards of good and evil" (independence from God's authority). I do not condemn your interpretation though!

shadeyinka:
Dear Sir,
I have not opposed your post. I only complemented it.

We will all have a perfect understanding of the significance at resurrection!

What makes you think you are seen as opposing the post.

I appreciate you complementing the post, however I merely was highlighting additional illumination about what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' really is about, what is means and what it represents.

Would you not agree that 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' aside the fact, of it it being the Tree of Death, isnt just a the 'Tree of EXPERIENCE' as you shortchanging put it, but it is 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'?

BassReeves:
What makes you think you are seen as opposing the post.

I appreciate you complementing the post, however I merely was highlighting additional illumination about what the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' really is about, what is means and what it represents.

Would you not agree that 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' aside the fact, of it it being the Tree of Death, isnt just a the 'Tree of EXPERIENCE' as you shortchanging put it, but it is 'the Tree of the EXPERIENCE of EVERYTHING'?

The symbol of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil connotes several meanings and interpretations. And as long as it makes sense, it shouldn't be discarded. The difference between Experience and Experience of Everything is minor and shouldn't cause any misunderstanding!

shadeyinka:
The symbol of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil connotes several meanings and interpretations. And as long as it makes sense, it shouldn't be discarded. The difference between Experience and Experience of Everything is minor and shouldn't cause any misunderstanding!

Most things in the Bible, of course, are polysemous, however as for the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil', what does 'Good and Evil' in 'knowledge of Good and Evil' from 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' symbolises and stands for?

BassReeves:
Most things in the Bible, of course, are polysemous, however as for the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil', what does 'Good and Evil' in 'knowledge of Good and Evil' from 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' symbolises and stands for?

I think it doesn't mean literal knowledge of good and evil, for Adam knew it wasn't good to eat of the fruit (evil). Adam knew what name to name all the animals God made, and whatever name he gave was their name (good).

I think it means independence of standard of good and evil. In other words, man will begin to set his own standards rather than Gods standard for what he considers as good or evil. It also in essence connotes INDEPENDENCE from God.

Therefore, God said, "On the day you eat of the tree, you shall DIE! Death here means DISCONNECTION from God. Since it was obvious that man didn't die physically, we must therefore conclude that he died spiritually!

The above is my understanding of it.

shadeyinka:

It seems you know many things about the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that I don't know. Do you have another source? May be archeology, books etc that has a direct or close enough timeline?

Always willing to learn sir!

Gained from a lot of reading and reasoning with an open mind I daresay, instead of believing the junk and lies peddled about it. I mean, take how people do wuruwuru to claim Adam and Eve who went on to live like 800 years after eating the fruit died as the God said they would. A child would raise eyebrows if you tell it to believe such a lie I would think, but many grown ups seem to just accept it without thinking. I find such brainlessness unacceptable!

The Kingdom of God is not found in a book, Shade. That's why the scholars in Christ time never found it despite all their study. Christ told a most profound truth when he told you where to seek it once you understand what it is you seek. Just become a child and you will understand.

Below are some links on the subject. If you hold me in your prayers perhaps the Lord God will empower me to write a book about it.

https://www.nairaland.com/6301141/emancipate-yourself-slavery-ignorance

https://www.nairaland.com/4960881/garden-eden-childs-view

shadeyinka:

I think it doesn't mean literal knowledge of good and evil, for Adam knew it wasn't good to eat of the fruit (evil).

BassReeves:
Most things in the Bible, of course, are polysemous, however as for the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil', what does 'Good and Evil' in 'knowledge of Good and Evil' from 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' symbolises and stands for?

You are both using complex words to confuse yourselves. Perhaps step out of the religious box and look at it anew. For instance, if you want to be a medical doctor you must learn science first, then study branches of knowledge about medicine in university, and qualify when you pass the test on the tree of Knowledge of Medicine.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is like studying the Godly way to be which involves knowing what is good and knowing what is bad so you can separate the wheat from the chaff. For as Eve found, "the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise".

It is after you learn to be wise that you will "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" and eventually be empowered to say "let there be", and there is.

Basically, "you will become like us".

shadeyinka:
I think it doesn't mean literal knowledge of good and evil, for Adam knew it wasn't good to eat of the fruit (evil). Adam knew what name to name all the animals God made, and whatever name he gave was their name (good).

Genesis 2:8-9
'8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
9Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food.
And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'

It does literally mean the knowledge of good and evil and the following will tell you actually how it means literal knowledge of good and evil. In the original text, good, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Beautiful' while evil, in the same context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Adversity'.

Now when you put both words in use, good as 'Beautiful' means, have knowledge of all extremes and everything in between, that is dandy and good and with evil, as 'Adversity', it means, have knowledge of every hardship, bad and ugly, difficult or unpleasant situation that possibly exists.

The good, is English and comes originally from the Hebrew verb word 'tob', that means 'to be pleasing, pleasant or good', while the evil, too is an English word, that equally is translated originally from the Hebrew noun word 'roa', that means 'rottenness, wickedness, badness, ugliness, sadness, naughtiness, evil' etc,

shadeyinka:
I think it means independence of standard of good and evil. In other words, man will begin to set his own standards rather than Gods standard for what he considers as good or evil. It also in essence connotes INDEPENDENCE from God.

Lets examine a few popular synecdoches, correctly also known as, merisms, together and you say what the examples of them symbolises and mean:

Hello ladies and gentlemen, or, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, or, I searched high and low or, you fell for it hook, line and sinker etc

shadeyinka:
Therefore, God said, "On the day you eat of the tree, you shall DIE! Death here means DISCONNECTION from God. [s]Since it was obvious that man didn't die physically[/s], we must therefore conclude that he died spiritually!

Genesis 2:17
'but [only] from the tree of the knowledge (recognition) of good and evil you shall not eat,
otherwise on the day that you eat from it, you shall most certainly die [because of your disobedience].'
Or
'but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it,
for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.'

The 'you shall DIE' part in Genesis 2:17, in the original text, communicates an information about the point of death. It is not talking of an exact time of death, but is communicating when the point of death of will start. Two things happened upon prematurely eating from the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubled up, as, the 'Tree of Death'. Spiritual death, in other words, separation or severance from God, was instantaneous or immediate, meanwhile as for Adam, physical death happened 930 years later.

Genesis 2:17 wasn't explicit about the sort of death. All it stated was, about dying on that day of eating from 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubled up, as, the 'Tree of Death'. Dying is what exactly happened, spiritual death first and then physical death trotting closely behind spiritual death until the day 930 years later that Adam drew his last breath

shadeyinka:
The above is my understanding of it.

Your understanding is on the surface.

budaatum:
You are both using complex words to confuse yourselves.

Out of being seriously curious, I would like to know from you genuinely what is or are the complex words used to confuse selves?

budaatum:
Perhaps step out of the religious box and look at it anew.

What religious box are you advocating anyone to step out of?

budaatum:
For instance, if you want to be a medical doctor you must learn science first, then study branches of knowledge about medicine in university, and qualify when you pass the test on the tree of Knowledge of Medicine.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is like studying the Godly way to be which involves knowing what is good and knowing what is bad so you can separate the wheat from the chaff. For as Eve found, "the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise".

It is after you learn to be wise that you will "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" and eventually be empowered to say "let there be", and there is.

Basically, "you will become like us".

John 12:24
'I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone.
But its death will produce many new kernels—a plentiful harvest of new lives.'

Remember that John 12:24, is what, for a good reason, I launched my comment first with and you have just there, with your 'The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is like studying the Godly way to be which involves knowing what is good and knowing what is bad so you can separate the wheat from the chaff' comment just corroborated my point what, the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' is all about and why as, a Tree of Death, it really was inevitable that it should, would or could be eaten.

As I earlier posted, a single grain of wheat doesn't produce anything, unless it is planted in the ground and dies. If it dies, it will produce a lot of grain.

If you don't eat off the Tree of Death, you will continue to have access to the Tree of Life to prolong life, but the moment, you eat, off the Tree of Death, you can't be permitted to continue to have access to the Tree of Life to prolong life, in that violated state of you've become, because your evilness with be in perpetuity as you live forever, hence this is the reason, why after the fall, for being barred from anymore having access to the Tree of Life.

It is true that Eve found, "the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" and it was because she clued up that "the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" is why Adam followed suit to eat the fruit after Eve gave him a bite to have. The unfortunate thing about eating of the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubles up, as, the 'Tree of Death' is that the act was premature, ill timed and a costly mistake.

Had it been that Adam and Eve after the test passed, they would have still be giving the go ahead to eat off the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubles up, as, the 'Tree of Death' but by that time, the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' would have stopped doubling up as, the 'Tree of Death' and there would have be no death repercussions happening. Also, the effect of the evilness would have being nullified and not affect them.

Since the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubles up, as, the 'Tree of Death' prematurely was taken, then what follows or ensues, just as you've advanced and also lending weight to my post, is, the process to separate the wheat from the chaff.

No one can be nor become "you will become like us" in a fallen state. That first human sin, the first failed test, truncated any idea about "you will become like us" only to heavily bring down upon them and all, the confusion and likeness of the prince of darkness

We now have on our hands, the white porridge comes out of the black pot or out of the black pot, comes the white pap, in other words, the point about the process to separate the wheat from the chaff.

BassReeves:

What religious box are you advocating anyone to step out of?

The one thst causes you to say the following for starts:

BassReeves:

The unfortunate thing about eating of the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubles up, as, the 'Tree of Death' is that the act was premature, ill timed and a costly mistake.

Its a belief. One you got from indoctrination and not from a reading of the text.

No reading of Genesis 3 would make one conclude that eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil causes death or Adam and Eve would have surely died when they ate it. Instead, their eyes opened and they discovered they were naked and lived for over 800 years after eating the FotToKoG&E so I can't understand how you could claim it caused their death unless someone has told you to believe it did and you believe it.

BassReeves:
Genesis 2:8-9
'8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
9Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food.
And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'

It does literally mean the knowledge of good and evil and the following will tell you actually how it means literal knowledge of good and evil. In the original text, good, in that context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Beautiful' while evil, in the same context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Adversity'.

Now when you put both words in use, good as 'Beautiful' means, have knowledge of all extremes and everything in between, that is dandy and good and with evil, as 'Adversity', it means, have knowledge of every hardship, bad and ugly, difficult or unpleasant situation that possibly exists.

The good, is English and comes originally from the Hebrew verb word 'tob', that means 'to be pleasing, pleasant or good', while the evil, too is an English word, that equally is translated originally from the Hebrew noun word 'roa', that means 'rottenness, wickedness, badness, ugliness, sadness, naughtiness, evil' etc,

Lets examine a few popular synecdoches, correctly also known as, merisms, together and you say what the examples of them symbolises and mean:

Hello ladies and gentlemen, or, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, or, I searched high and low or, you fell for it hook, line and sinker etc

Genesis 2:17
'but [only] from the tree of the knowledge (recognition) of good and evil you shall not eat,
otherwise on the day that you eat from it, you shall most certainly die [because of your disobedience].'
Or
'but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it,
for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.'

The 'you shall DIE' part in Genesis 2:17, in the original text, communicates an information about the point of death. It is not talking of an exact time of death, but is communicating when the point of death of will start. Two things happened upon prematurely eating from the 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubled up, as, the 'Tree of Death'. Spiritual death, in other words, separation or severance from God, was instantaneous or immediate, meanwhile as for Adam, physical death happened 930 years later.

Genesis 2:17 wasn't explicit about the sort of death. All it stated was, about dying on that day of eating from 'Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil' that also doubled up, as, the 'Tree of Death'. Dying is what exactly happened, spiritual death first and then physical death trotting closely behind spiritual death until the day 930 years later that Adam drew his last breath

Your understanding is on the surface.

My concern is that
1. The tree of death is given a TITLE, "tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil".
The keyword is Knowledge and not good or evil.
2. Can we say Adam and Eve were not experiencing "good" in the garden prior to eating of the forbidden tree?
We cannot focus on the extreme evil on earth without asking the question: "where is the good". For it seems that "good/goodness" occurs when "evil" is averted/prevented/removed!

In other words, couldn't we say that A&E never experienced "good" in the garden?
Why must they have the knowledge of what they've already had in the garden as a reason of eating of the fruit. Why was the tree of death not just called "the Tree of the knowledge of Evil"!
3. God said:"On the day you eàt of it you shall die"!
It wasn't that they shall begin to die , it literally means "the same day they eat of the tree, that same day, they shall die"!

Did they die on the day they eat of the tree of death? God every made tunics for them!

Like I said, we can only all speculate for our information is at best INCOMPLETE!

budaatum:




You are both using complex words to confuse yourselves. Perhaps step out of the religious box and look at it anew. For instance, if you want to be a medical doctor you must learn science first, then study branches of knowledge about medicine in university, and qualify when you pass the test on the tree of Knowledge of Medicine.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is like studying the Godly way to be which involves knowing what is good and knowing what is bad so you can separate the wheat from the chaff. For as Eve found, "the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise".

It is after you learn to be wise that you will "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" and eventually be empowered to say "let there be", and there is.

Basically, "you will become like us".

It seems your keywords is the phrase , "you will become like us".

This connote that God was hiding knowledge to studying the Godly way to be which involves knowing what is good and knowing what is bad so you can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Why would God be angry with them for such a knowledge?
Why did God plant such a Tree in the midst of the garden if He doesn't want man to "be like the Elohim"?

For me, I think God knew that Adam and Eve will eat of the tree! It was simply an Examination for man to choose either complete dependence on Him for morality rather than on himself. Adam and Eve chose to be the alpha and omega with respect of there morality (good and evil).

The story was complicated by the "Serpent" who "419ed" Eve.
...You shall not die!
...God doesn't want you to be like Him!

The only truth there is the statement:
...your eyes will open!
But the Serpent didn't explain the consequence of "opened eyes".

Why do you think God was angry that eating of the tree will help man to fulfill his original commission
1. To multiply?
2. To subdue the earth?
If A&E didn't eat of the fruit, would they remain "stupid"?
Were they created "unwise"?

Don't forget that Adam named all the animals
Gen 2:20,23:
"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
… And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Apart from the ability to name all the animals and probably remember their names, Adam was even knowledgeable of where Eve came from even though he was asleep when God too out his bones and flesh.

I submit that, it seems Adam and Eve had some "superhuman" ability which was lost immediately they ate from the tree of death. Hence, they found themselves NAKED.

Like I said, we can only all speculate for our information is at best INCOMPLETE!