why did god let adam and eve get decieved by the serpent
- Thread starter fahrenheit 451
- Start date
*************heart said:
M*W: The way I see it is that A&E represent humanity. I believe that humanity is STILL in the last day of creation. A day, of course, is infinite time. Humanity is not dead, so that would make me ask:
1) Has the serpent already talked to Eve? (Remember, HWWH is the name of both EVE and the SERPENT).
2) Have A&E taken a bite of the FRUIT? (What is the symbolism of the "fruit?" (Could it be sex? I think elohim were pissed that A&E learned to "create" life by themselves.)
3) We're not naked anymore, we're still clothed in our symbolic and fashionable "fig leaves."
4) It doesn't appear that we have been cast out of EDEN (or Earth).
5) If we have already eaten of the TOKOG&E, then we have become like gods!
6) So has the SERPENT been our one TRUTHFUL god?
7) Are we descended from the SERPENT and that is why we became like gods?
I'd like to see some enlightened discussion, so no Christians need reply.
I never said that I listen to my heart. I listen to the Bible.
Yes. The tree of life was also in the garden and that is what gave them life eternal. Once God denied them access to it on e day they would and did die.
Unfortunatly, you cannot have an "enlightened discussion" with out us.
FOR THE THIRD TIME: WHERE DO YOU FIND THIS STATED? WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE?
I never knew that sex grew on trees. Or did you mean gonads do.
Eden is not the same as earth. Eden was a garden on the earth.
We have become like God in the sense that we know certain things are right and other things are wrong. We do not posses the power that God does.
The serpent told Eve that certainly she would not die, so therefore, he has lied, because Eve is no longer walking around today.
No. We are decendants of Adam and Eve. the serpent had no relations with Eve.
*************Enigma'07 said:
M*W: How do you know? Qayin was the product of A&E as was Abvil. Then E produced another son, Set, allegedly by the serpent. Set became ruler of the "underworld" which is Earth considering the vastness of the universe. Set produced Enosh who was godlike. I recommend a book called Out of the Ashes of Eden about Enosh and his descendants.
Again, thank you for your reply, Katazia, but I don’t understand why you can’t speculate an answer since you know it is a speculative question. Although, if you want to say you don’t know what would happen then that would be okay, too.Katazia said:
But if they were given that knowledge & ability would they have obeyed or disobeyed? I would tend to agree that obedience is not dependent on the knowledge of good & evil or right & wrong. It is whether you trusted the person who gave the rule.Katazia said:
Very true, Katazia, since they had nothing to measure death with. So it came down to whether they trusted God or not, and were they willing to obey or not. Same thing applies to a command given to a young child when you tell them not to play in the water without grownup supervision. They won’t understand why not since they have fun in the water. They have nothing to measure the dangers with playing in the water. Their decision to obey or disobey will depend on if they trust their parents (or how severe the punishment will be).Katazia said:
Understood, Katazia, but if you re-read your statement & apply it to raising a child you would know this happens all the time.Katazia said:
Obedience is not dependent on the knowledge of what is right & wrong, it is dependent on trust.
We have the power of God. We have the power to create due to that "godly" knowledge of good and evil. There are no other animals here on Earth with the creational and intellectual minds of humans. Since we weren't created the same day as God's existance, we just have a lot more learning to do to catch up which we're doing.
- N
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Where did you study Hebrew? "Yahweh" is spelled exactly as it looks, without the vowels: YHWH.Neildo said:
Change the vowels and it becomes "Yehowah," which was transliterated as "Jehovah" in the Roman alphabet.
Fundamentalist Jews have a taboo about speaking the name of their god, so putting different vowel marks under the letters is a way of making it clear who you're writing about but making sure anybody who reads the book aloud will be pronouncing a euphemism.
I've never seen anyone figure out where the name Jehovah or Yahweh came from. Ancient Hebrew had the same word for "god" that found its way into Arabic as "allah". There's something like one single passage in Genesis that uses the word "elohim" for "gods" -- "-im" being the Hebrew plural suffix as in "cherubim" and "goyim." Leave out the vowels as both written languages do, and "eloh" and "allah" look identical.
And I don't wanna hear no crap about spelling these names with lower case letters. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic even have upper case letters.
I'd have to first dig up the volume(s) and then read through some stuff I haven't cared about in years, but in that vaguely-Qabalistic, vaguely-Crowleyan "high magick" that still persists in new age bookshops, there's a lot of talk about overlapping correspondences in the mystical attributions of the letters, and these modern "magickal" systems are all extrapolated from something along the line of the Sefer Yetzirah Cliff's notes and a bullet-list of Golden Dawn ceremonial pomp.
But the basic arguable yet indefinite thesis would be that the "tetragrammaton" arises as a result of how other things worked out in Hebrew language, mysticism, and politics.
(Don't look at me ... I won't defend it. High magick is even more useless to me than most people would imagine my "pagan" streak.)
I'm not the only one to say it, but you seem to keep avoiding the point - so I'm just gonna reiterate it.
Gen 2:15 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die.
Now let's look at when Adam died: Oh, he was 930 years old.
Okinrus translated "version" is even worse, saying "the moment you eat.."
Having written the above, aswell as some others have, we have adequately concluded that god's truth most certainly is not absolute. If he intended Adam to die that very same day, and Adam lived until 930 years old - then god is quite simply lying.
Yes but it's a choice out of ignorance, which isn't really a choice or an accurate test of free will. You keep calling them sinners, but without the prior knowledge of what a sin constitutes, they can hardly be held accountable for it. Simply put, Adam could have dropped his pants and let one go in gods face, beaten eve to a bloody pulp, or run round the garden throwing rocks at all of gods creations - from fluffy bunnies to velociraptors - and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to him because he wouldn't be able to understand what being good or being bad actually is.
Can you not understand that if god came down to you and said, "do not do this", and you had no knowledge of good or evil, what he said would be of no relevance to anything. If Saddam then came up and said "bomb some innocents", you might very well do it - not because you're showing a choice to be evil, but you've simply taken a guess at which, if any, to listen to.
Well done Engima, you're getting there slowly. And until he'd eaten the fruit, he had no knowledge of good or evil and as such choice is irrelevant because he can't make any distinction between the choices he is given.
It says they knew right and wrong in the bible, or are you just making it up? And I don't get what you're saying... god is perfect so he doesn't know what right and wrong is?
How so? Adam lived for a further 900 years or so, and didn't seem to be hiding from god all that much. The only case actually being just after eating the fruit.
Technically no. You see, the minute they'd gained knowledge of good and evil, they'd realise that living forever is cool and they'd go and eat from the tree of life. It was only gods intervention that stops that, and he goes to such extreme as protecting the tree of life with flashing swords so they can't get to it.
So on point A where he says they will become like the gods and their eyes will be opened - he was being totally truthful.
On point B where he says they wont die - the only thing that stopped that from being a reality was... god.
god kicked them out so they wouldn't get to the tree of life, which he had guarded with flashing swords.
His first sentence after cursing everyone was; '"..he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too." So god expelled him from the garden of eden.'
The motive for expulsion was clearly to make sure they didn't eat from the tree of life.
It means "gods" not "god".
In Joshua 24:2 where it says '.. Terah, father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the river and served other gods."
The word used is "elohim".
That's just one example, but I think it's pretty unanimous that Elohim just means gods, and would also explain the "us" that are found several times in genesis such as:
Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, our likeness"
Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language.."
Gen 3:22 "And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
A lush garden in Iraq.. It's hard to imagine. :bugeye:
Snakelord, tiassa,
All it means is that at some time in the future after eating the fruit your death becomes inevitable.
I do not believe you have a case for claiming that God lied in this instance.
Kat
Doesn't mean that you will die the day you eat the fruit, but that you will be "doomed to die" on that day. The operative word is "doomed".
All it means is that at some time in the future after eating the fruit your death becomes inevitable.
I do not believe you have a case for claiming that God lied in this instance.
Kat
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible
2:16 And the LORD God l commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(l) So that man might know there was a sovereign Lord, to whom he owed obedience.
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely m die.
(m) By death he means the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief happiness: and also that our disobedience is the cause of it.
The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary expands:
thou shalt not eat of it . . . thou shalt surely die--no reason assigned for the prohibition, but death was to be the punishment of disobedience. A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.
In the final in-depth analysis of the Matthew Henry commentary, we find out:
II. The particular act of this authority, in prescribing to him what he should do, and upon what terms he should stand with his Creator. Here is, 1. A confirmation of his present happiness to him, in that grant, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat. This was not only an allowance of liberty to him, in taking the delicious fruits of paradise, as a recompence for his care and pains in dressing and keeping it (1 Co. 9:7, 10), but it was, withal, an assurance of life to him, immortal life, upon his obedience. For the tree of life being put in the midst of the garden (v. 9), as the heart and soul of it, doubtless God had an eye to that especially in this grant; and therefore when, upon his revolt, this grant is recalled, no notice is taken of any tree of the garden as prohibited to him, except the tree of life (ch. 3:22), of which it is there said he might have eaten and lived for ever, that is, never died, nor ever lost his happiness. "Continue holy as thou art, in conformity to thy Creator’s will, and thou shalt continue happy as thou art in the enjoyment of thy Creator’s favour, either in this paradise or in a better.’’ Thus, upon condition of perfect personal and perpetual obedience, Adam was sure of paradise to himself and his heirs for ever. 2. A trial of his obedience, upon pain of the forfeiture of all his happiness: "But of the other tree which stood very near the tree of life (for they are both said to be in the midst of the garden), and which was called the tree of knowledge, in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;’’ as if he had said, "Know, Adam, that thou art now upon thy good behaviour, thou art put into paradise upon trial; be observant, be obedient, and thou art made for ever; otherwise thou wilt be as miserable as now thou art happy.’’ Here, (1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience: Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence, as, in the former part of this covenant, eating thou shalt eat, denotes a free and full grant. Observe [1.] Even Adam, in innocency, was awed with a threatening; fear is one of the handles of the soul, by which it is taken hold of and held. If he then needed this hedge, much more do we now. [2.] The penalty threatened is death: Thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt be debarred from the tree of life, and all the good that is signified by it, all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface it and attend it.’’ [3.] This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin: In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence shall depart from thee. Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in the law’’ (only, because Adam was to be the root of mankind, he was reprieved); "nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee, and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’’ (2.) Adam is tried with a positive law, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now it was very proper to make trial of his obedience by such a command as this, [1.] Because the reason of it is fetched purely from the will of the Law-maker. Adam had in his nature an aversion to that which was evil in itself, and therefore he is tried in a thing which was evil only because it was forbidden; and, being in a small thing, it was the more fit to prove his obedience by. [2.] Because the restraint of it is laid upon the desires of the flesh and of the mind, which, in the corrupt nature of man, are the two great fountains of sin. This prohibition checked both his appetite towards sensitive delights and his ambitions of curious knowledge, that his body might be ruled by his soul and his soul by his God. Thus easy, thus happy, was man in a state of innocency, having all that heart could wish to make him so. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws he gave him! How kind the covenant he made with him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.
The Matthew Henry commentary alone should explain volumes for you Katazia. I hope it is of use.
2:16 And the LORD God l commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(l) So that man might know there was a sovereign Lord, to whom he owed obedience.
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely m die.
(m) By death he means the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief happiness: and also that our disobedience is the cause of it.
The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary expands:
thou shalt not eat of it . . . thou shalt surely die--no reason assigned for the prohibition, but death was to be the punishment of disobedience. A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.
In the final in-depth analysis of the Matthew Henry commentary, we find out:
II. The particular act of this authority, in prescribing to him what he should do, and upon what terms he should stand with his Creator. Here is, 1. A confirmation of his present happiness to him, in that grant, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat. This was not only an allowance of liberty to him, in taking the delicious fruits of paradise, as a recompence for his care and pains in dressing and keeping it (1 Co. 9:7, 10), but it was, withal, an assurance of life to him, immortal life, upon his obedience. For the tree of life being put in the midst of the garden (v. 9), as the heart and soul of it, doubtless God had an eye to that especially in this grant; and therefore when, upon his revolt, this grant is recalled, no notice is taken of any tree of the garden as prohibited to him, except the tree of life (ch. 3:22), of which it is there said he might have eaten and lived for ever, that is, never died, nor ever lost his happiness. "Continue holy as thou art, in conformity to thy Creator’s will, and thou shalt continue happy as thou art in the enjoyment of thy Creator’s favour, either in this paradise or in a better.’’ Thus, upon condition of perfect personal and perpetual obedience, Adam was sure of paradise to himself and his heirs for ever. 2. A trial of his obedience, upon pain of the forfeiture of all his happiness: "But of the other tree which stood very near the tree of life (for they are both said to be in the midst of the garden), and which was called the tree of knowledge, in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;’’ as if he had said, "Know, Adam, that thou art now upon thy good behaviour, thou art put into paradise upon trial; be observant, be obedient, and thou art made for ever; otherwise thou wilt be as miserable as now thou art happy.’’ Here, (1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience: Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence, as, in the former part of this covenant, eating thou shalt eat, denotes a free and full grant. Observe [1.] Even Adam, in innocency, was awed with a threatening; fear is one of the handles of the soul, by which it is taken hold of and held. If he then needed this hedge, much more do we now. [2.] The penalty threatened is death: Thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt be debarred from the tree of life, and all the good that is signified by it, all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface it and attend it.’’ [3.] This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin: In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence shall depart from thee. Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in the law’’ (only, because Adam was to be the root of mankind, he was reprieved); "nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee, and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die.’’ (2.) Adam is tried with a positive law, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now it was very proper to make trial of his obedience by such a command as this, [1.] Because the reason of it is fetched purely from the will of the Law-maker. Adam had in his nature an aversion to that which was evil in itself, and therefore he is tried in a thing which was evil only because it was forbidden; and, being in a small thing, it was the more fit to prove his obedience by. [2.] Because the restraint of it is laid upon the desires of the flesh and of the mind, which, in the corrupt nature of man, are the two great fountains of sin. This prohibition checked both his appetite towards sensitive delights and his ambitions of curious knowledge, that his body might be ruled by his soul and his soul by his God. Thus easy, thus happy, was man in a state of innocency, having all that heart could wish to make him so. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws he gave him! How kind the covenant he made with him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.
The Matthew Henry commentary alone should explain volumes for you Katazia. I hope it is of use.
That's fair enough, but it's not a specifically worthwhile statement of god to make. After all, they hadn't eaten from the tree of life, which would have allowed them to live forever, (in gods words) - so the point is somewhat moot.
Without knowledge of good and evil, he could have said they'd be doomed to anything and it wouldn't have made a difference to them because until they'd eaten from the tokogae they wouldn't understand the whole concept.
Technically it remains a lie, simply because it was going to happen anyway whether they'd eaten the fruit or not, (and as such they're not actually doomed from that day forth) - but due to their inability to comprehend things before eating the fruit, they would just not have realised it.
Maybe he should have just said "the day you eat that fruit, you'll realise you're going to eventually kick the bucket". Not that it would actually mean anything to people who couldn't understand its relevance or importance.
*************Enigma'07 said:
M*W: No, I said exactly what I meant. "Cain," "Abel," and "Seth," are the Anglicized names which were not their names in Hebrew. Just because they are unfamiliar to you doesn't mean they're incorrect. You decry anything you're unfamiliar with.
Snakelord, tiassa,
I'll retract my assertion since I didn't have a bible with me when I posted and merely assumed that okinrus's quote was correct. Now when I look at my RSV I see the text says -
"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die".
That is very unambiguous - eat the fruit and in the same day you will die.
Adam didn't die that day. God lied and the serpent told the truth.
Can't really be much simpler.
Kat
I'll retract my assertion since I didn't have a bible with me when I posted and merely assumed that okinrus's quote was correct. Now when I look at my RSV I see the text says -
"...for in the day that you eat of it you shall die".
That is very unambiguous - eat the fruit and in the same day you will die.
Adam didn't die that day. God lied and the serpent told the truth.
Can't really be much simpler.
Kat
SouthStar,
And hyped-up imaginative alternative descriptions of what death means apart from not living seem excessively contrived and an obvious attempt to rationalize another bible blunder.
Kat
And Adam understood this perfectly, right? And where in Genesis is this explained exactly?
And hyped-up imaginative alternative descriptions of what death means apart from not living seem excessively contrived and an obvious attempt to rationalize another bible blunder.
Kat
SouthStar,
Again I must remind you that neither Adam nor Eve had any understanding of good and evil BEFORE they ate from the tree. They were entirely unable to see any difference between obedience or disobedience or life and death. To understand these things requires the ability to discern good from bad.
The article does not address this paradox but appears to reinforce it quite nicely.
Kat
Yes thankyou that was excellent. It confirms very clearly that to disobey god was evil and the penalty was extremely bad, and that Adam should obey God because of all the good things he had done for Adam. All of this is perfectly clear to anyone who has an appropriate understanding of what good and evil mean.
Again I must remind you that neither Adam nor Eve had any understanding of good and evil BEFORE they ate from the tree. They were entirely unable to see any difference between obedience or disobedience or life and death. To understand these things requires the ability to discern good from bad.
The article does not address this paradox but appears to reinforce it quite nicely.
Kat