Apparent paradox in the garden of eden

originally posted by: tribal
Its not a paradox. God told Adam not to eat of the Tree. This doesn't HAVE to mean there is implied anything. Did God have to tell Adam not to eat rocks or twigs? No. Did God have to tell Adam not to have sex with the animals since there was no woman? No. Did God have to tell Adam not to jump in the water and inhale it like air? No.

Do you see what im getting at?

Whether or not God told Adam not to do something doesnt mean Adam was a total retard. Innocent yes, but not stupid. If Adam knew he couldnt breathe water like a fish does that mean it wasn't a perfect paradise simply because there was a behavior which Adam could intuit was not "correct"?

I admit you ALMOST came up with a pretty good zinger.....but upon closer inspection the premise is flawed.

I don't need to tell my dog not to eat stones, shag cats, and inhale water.
He still has no idea why I don't want him to play in the road.

a reply to: Mandy555

So you don't talk to him and tell him not to .. because he wouldn't understand.

Thus God telling them not to implies they would understand. You just gave a great argument for why your position is wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Mandy555

So you don't talk to him and tell him not to .. because he wouldn't understand.

Thus God telling them not to implies they would understand. You just gave a great argument for why your position is wrong.

Well, I do tell him not to.
I tell him all sorts of things, he's my dog.

Anyway, whatever you like. That was on the other day.
Since then 'Ancient Aliens' has done crystal skulls, the number 3, and magicians.
They showed an animation of Merlin magicking the lintles on to stonehenge in 500ad. Marvellous stuff.

I met Merlin at Stonehenge. He had a beard and a staff, seemed like a nice chap.

a reply to: Mandy555

.... ok

Yeah, sorry, but when the conversation has got round to the dog, it's pretty much over.

I thought this was a general chit chat thing. Not an argument board.
This was just something I was mulling over after seeing something silly on TV.

And I did meet Merlin! He does the solstice thing at the stones.
How cool is that?

originally posted by: Mandy555
Just watching some ancient aliens nonsense. About demons.

Made me think.

How could Adam and Eve know it was wrong to eat form the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, until they had eaten of it?

Knowing that you are not supposed to do something without knowing why doesn't mean you know what evil is. It just means you know a rule.

Surely before that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil...
And therefore didn't know it was wrong...

They didn't know what wrong was, just that they would die if they ate it, so they knew what death was but didn't believe God because they were so innocent they didn't know what deceit was and got decieved.

They didn't know death was bad, then believed they wouldn't die because a serpent said so.They didn't know what evil was.

They didn't know it was wrong or why they shouldn't eat it, just that they would die if they did and they didn't know the Serpent waams evil.

A stupid person takes no pleasure in understanding;

He would rather disclose what is in his heart. (Proverbs 18:2)

Sometimes this is recognizable in the use of a rhetorical question (so not all rhetorical questions, motive comes into play here). These type of rhetorical questions are often trying to make a point or argument in favor of a particular view. For example the thread "Did Paul invent Christianity?", where in the OP you will see no arguing in favor of the simple answer: no. But you will see a video that argues for the possibility of the answer: yes. Sometimes people hope that it will be debated so they can look for things that 'tickles their ears' (what they want to hear; see 2 Timothy 4:3,4), this includes those arguing poorly regarding the answer least favourable to the one proposing the question or subject (see the phrase "no pleasure" above). Often they have little intention to do the following from Proverbs 18:15:

The heart of the understanding one acquires knowledge,

And the ear of the wise seeks to find knowledge.

Insight, Volume 2: Knowledge

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah said to his associate in creative work (Joh 1:1-3): “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.—Jer 10:23.

And regarding the bolded part, also by reason that God had created them "in His image", morally and spiritually speaking, with a sense of what was good and what was bad (including the conscience that comes with it, all part of the package of being created in God's image; which has nothing to do with the physical aspect, cause God is a Spirit, and humans are made of flesh and bone).

Additional insight:
Eden: Insight, Volume 1

What was the forbidden fruit in Eden?
...

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad: Index 1986-2015

a real tree:...
discussion: ...
“knowing good and bad” (Ge 3:22):...
lesson taught:...
misconceptions: ...
knowledge in general: ...
sex: ...
not in new system of things: ...
purpose: ...
Satan’s lie: ...

originally posted by: Mandy555
Just watching some ancient aliens nonsense. About demons.

Made me think.

How could Adam and Eve know it was wrong to eat form the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, until they had eaten of it?

Surely before that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil...
And therefore didn't know it was wrong...

Experimental knowledge of evil is what they didn't have prior....that's what that part of the narrative is about.

Abysha



Exactly. If you were told to read the bible without any outside influence or bias, you would think "god" the antagonist and Satan as the protagonist. Jesus seems to be redeeming his father's sins more than humanity's.------------

Man is the antagonist and satan the influencer, God is the judge
You are blaming the judge for carrying out the sentence, not the perpetrator and enabler.

You are just transferring blame to someone else, seems God in this case.---------


No.

That god is to blame for nearly every death in the bible. Children being eaten by bears, babies being dashed against stones, families drowned and put to the sword, countless innocent women being raped, etc etc. The worst thing Satan did was call the god's bluff with Job.

A judge? Sure. But that doesn't absolve him of his horrors. A judge that makes talking back to your parents punishable by death or make rape victims marry their rapists... that's still an evil bastard.

Satan told the truth and tried to enlighten humanity at every turn, to the god's chagrin.

Humanity is simply the innocent bystander in that whole mess.

Definitely. Why would God allow the Serpent free reign to corrupt them without warning them about the Serpent?

Which is why Eve ate the fruit, not because she wanted to defy God but because she was told God was jealous and didn't want them to have knowledge.

I think good and evil is a late addition and knowledge period was the tree's benefit, they learned other things from it, the concept of nudity (natural not evil), how to hide, fear.

And GOOD.

While the story itself is Sumerian/Babylonian/Chaldean like the flood, the serpent character like later Sethian literature is the deliverer and hero, freeing man from ignorance.

My previous explanation is just how I see this version of the story explained in Orthodox fashion.

Personally this Yahweh is detestable as portrayed and out of date as a concept of God.

Which is why it's not taken literally except by Christians and Holy Scripture didn't end with the Tanakh. Or NT.

The Zohar is the only book that offers favorable interpretations of the Tanakh and gives it a mystical meaning rather than saying God actually is a homicidal maniac.
.
And while the Serpent is explained as being Lilith and/or Samael, the name of The Satan and his wife, Adam and Eve both procreated with the two Serpents leading to the race of Cain and the population of Nod when Cain is exiled to a populated area.

Seth is the seed of God and originally believed to be the father of the Watchers, Jubilees, once and still Canonical in Ethiopia has the name of the sons of Seth.

They are almost the same as the names of Enoch's Watchers and this was the popular interpretation for the early Church, now abandoned because that makes Seth a begetter of demigod like beings. They are companion pieces (1 Enoch and Jubilees).

Picked up and ran with by disaffected Jews and Syrian, Egyptian Jews and Greeks/Egyptians who became the sons of Seth, Yahweh becomes the demiurge and Wisdom /Sophia the true Creator.

Which is taken from Jewish Wisdom literature and an alternate interpretation of the word Beresheet.

Too bad that religion was persecuted by Orthodoxy, they had a lot of sense. Tolerant of disagreements and non legalistic they had ''too much'' liberty for domineering Rome to compete with and a smear campaign went on for centuries before possession of non canonical literature and non Orthodox beliefs became capital offenses.

Inspired by the ''God of Mercy and compassion.''

To kill what Jesus inspired in others that they didn't like.

originally posted by: whereislogic
A stupid person takes no pleasure in understanding;

He would rather disclose what is in his heart. (Proverbs 18:2)

Sometimes this is recognizable in the use of a rhetorical question (so not all rhetorical questions, motive comes into play here). These type of rhetorical questions are often trying to make a point or argument in favor of a particular view. For example the thread "Did Paul invent Christianity?",

That is a valid question as old as Christianity.

Jewish Nazarene or Ebionite Christians rejected Paul, his epistles corrupted Jesus teachings and were anti Semitic before anti Semitism was coined as a phrase.

And you know he called them Satan's servants and false apostles of Christ, IN THE BIBLE.

So it's a valid question and the answer yes, Christianity was not the religion of the apostles or Jesus they were Nazarene Jews who kept the law of Moses and believed:

''Faith without works is dead.'' James.

''Faith Alone justifies us, not works...'' Paul.

So disagree all you like but you should not ignore what so many people are realizing today because it contradicts your beliefs, which are contradicted by the Bible as I have shown you and you have been unable to explain how it is reconciled with the...lie, that there was a 13th apostle and the 12 accepted him as one.

They didn't. Pseudepigraphal 2 Peter calls him brother but is not complimentary towards his teachings at all saying they don't make sense and lead people astray.

When did Jesus teachings ever lead anyone astray?

I get it, you belong to a religion centered after Paul named after Jesus and admitting you missed something is hard to admit, especially in that position.

I have managed to convince my born again sister who still goes to Church that Paul was wrong to title himself apostle, no easy task. She knows everything I know and it's not about Paul to her, she cares about Jesus.

Good enough for me. But it is uncomfortable and inconvenient because rejection of Paul is excommunication territory, but who would you rather be excommunicated by, a Church or God for following the first false prophet to come on the scene with crazy claims that Jesus warned not to believe in Mt 24?

Don't think God is beyond testing people's loyalty to Jesus with a false prophet:

''The road is narrow, few will find it. ''

Remember Balaam? Paul IS Balaam like JTB is Elijah.

Tarsus=666 in gematria. The wisdom needed to decipher 666 which is also Nero.

where in the OP you will see no arguing in favor of the simple answer: no. But you will see a video that argues for the possibility of the answer: yes. Sometimes people hope that it will be debated so they can look for things that 'tickles their ears' (what they want to hear; see 2 Timothy 4:3,4),

Nobody wants to hate Paul, the evidence is real and obvious to anyone who is not biased by being a Christian. It's not like people are trying to discredit Jesus.

That video was saying Jesus WAS good but his message got corrupted by Paul, and I believe it was a Rabbinical lecture so you should be happy that Jesus is being given proper respect from Jews instead of complaining they don't care for Paul.

Paul was a ruinous hypocrite with no honor.

this includes those arguing poorly regarding the answer least favourable to the one proposing the question or subject (see the phrase "no pleasure" above). Often they have little intention to do the following from Proverbs 18:15:

If the argument is flawed, explain what you have been avoiding :

How do you reconcile Paul calling Jesus apostles Satan's servants?

The heart of the understanding one acquires knowledge,

And the ear of the wise seeks to find knowledge.

Insight, Volume 2: Knowledge

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah said to his associate in creative work (Joh 1:1-3): “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.—Jer 10:23.

And regarding the bolded part, also by reason that God had created them "in His image", morally and spiritually speaking, with a sense of what was good and what was bad (including the conscience that comes with it, all part of the package of being created in God's image; which has nothing to do with the physical aspect, cause God is a Spirit, and humans are made of flesh and bone).

Additional insight:
Eden: Insight, Volume 1

What was the forbidden fruit in Eden?
...

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad: Index 1986-2015

a real tree:...
discussion: ...
“knowing good and bad” (Ge 3:22):...
lesson taught:...
misconceptions: ...
knowledge in general: ...
sex: ...
not in new system of things: ...
purpose: ...
Satan’s lie: ...

Satan is God's creation and his job is to lie and tempt, With permission not rebellion.

As Job clearly shows he is an obedient servant who was instigated to prosecute then torture Job.

At the behest of Yahweh.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
One of the best tests in finding out if someone's rhetorical questions are sincere and willing to consider alternatives to the answer they think they already know or want to believe or are leaning towards or think is credible/plausible/likely/etc. (making the proposal of alternative ways of thinking about the subject a useful endeavor) is considering something Jesus said:

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. 11 Therefore, if you have not proved yourselves faithful in connection with the unrighteous riches, who will entrust you with what is true? (Luke 16:10,11)

The topic includes honesty (regarding little things, or the least ambiguous things, or things that shouldn't be so much of an issue admitting to), also being honest with oneself.

Below is a video with some examples where the information above is applied according to the type of analysis described at Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Humble yourselves dedicated to Dejan2116 and Oct31st1517

More details on how to apply the 2 texts above (or see examples) can be found in my commentary in that thread about Paul you seemed to want to get into detail about here. Especially don't miss this comment and this comment if you want to know more about Hebrews 4:12, Luke 16:10,11 and why I don't jump on every (rhetorical) question that I see out there (even if that was realistically possible). I won't get into details about Paul in this thread (I've said my piece in the other thread anyway).

From one of the earlier links:

There were fruit-bearing trees from which Adam could freely eat. However, Jehovah God clearly told Adam not to eat from one specific tree, warning Adam that if he did, he would die.

Did Adam understand that prohibition? He knew what death was; he had seen animals die. If Adam were created to die eventually, God’s warning would have had little meaning. Instead, Adam realized that if he obeyed God and did not eat from that tree, he would live on endlessly—he would not die.

There are those claiming to represent what the bible says that animals didn't die at that time and before (Young Earth Creationists, Trinitarians, to name 2 overlapping examples). This is very convenient* for some in their argumentation regarding how unfair God supposedly was to Adam (I've spoken about Don Quijote Windmill Giants in relation to straw man arguments that are actually believed but I don't really want to go through that again, so if you don't know what I mean with Don Quijote Windmill Giants, my own personal terminology for a rather peculiar phenomenon that I'm reluctant to refer to as a fallacy or pick one of the more common terminologies for, just forget this sidenote).

*: I phrased this concept in a slightly different manner using a reference to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 in my previous comment, especially the part that starts with "this includes those"

a reply to: whereislogic



I am not watching any videos I don't care about the religious beliefs of the Watchtower society and you need to make your points more clear and sometimes actually be making one because the randomness of your reply is not something I feel like dissecting as it's not even topic related.

But I don't need a video or lecture from a JW or anyone else unless I am doing research and know the scholar and his or her reputation.

I don't research topics I already know about. Maybe I will occasionally revisit a topic but I have exhausted all the information on our conversation, I suggest you do the same.

a reply to: Mandy555

Its not a paradox just a misconception on your part (no offence). Good and evil are not "right and wrong". You can be doing what you think is "good" but it is really is evil according to an outside authority. The authority is always the commands or words of God the creator. For instance:

Many do good by feeding the poor to work your way to Heaven, taking mass, committing genocide on a perceived inferior race, revolting and electing for socialism, establishing planned parenthood, welfare, passing common core, etc, but in the eyes of God these do good-ers are evil as they go against what God has established as "right". They think they are doing GOOD, or else they wouldn't do it. Do you think Hitler thought what he was doing was EVIL? Of course not, he saw it as good. But it was wrong in God's eyes.

When Eve was tempted with the fruit, she thought it was the RIGHT thing to do because of all the POSITIVE things that would come from it: Good for food, pleasant to the eyes, would make you wise, etc. But It was the WRONG thing to do as God said (the Authority) not to eat it.

So good and evil are not equal to right (righteousness) and wrong (rebellion). It depends on the authority.

originally posted by: Hilkiah1611
a reply to: Mandy555

Its not a paradox just a misconception on your part (no offence). Good and evil are not "right and wrong". You can be doing what you think is "good" but it is really is evil according to an outside authority. The authority is always the commands or words of God the creator. For instance:

Many do good by feeding the poor to work your way to Heaven, taking mass, committing genocide on a perceived inferior race, revolting and electing for socialism, establishing planned parenthood, welfare, passing common core, etc, but in the eyes of God these do good-ers are evil as they go against what God has established as "right". They think they are doing GOOD, or else they wouldn't do it. Do you think Hitler thought what he was doing was EVIL? Of course not, he saw it as good. But it was wrong in God's eyes.

When Eve was tempted with the fruit, she thought it was the RIGHT thing to do because of all the POSITIVE things that would come from it: Good for food, pleasant to the eyes, would make you wise, etc. But It was the WRONG thing to do as God said (the Authority) not to eat it.

So good and evil are not equal to right (righteousness) and wrong (rebellion). It depends on the authority.

Then why would "god" allow an infiltrator to deceive his new children? What? He couldn't keep the serpent out of the garden? Kinda smacks of "non-omnipotence" if you ask me. Or, maybe said "god" thought this whole mess of a suffering world was a good idea. You know, cause he will look so much better and appealing at the end of it all.
Not to mention the fact that he let demons loose on this planet to torment mankind.
I know...it's all a test, to see where our loyalties lie. But, God help the poor soul who's on the other side of the world and raised in a totally different religion or belief system. Guess that doesn't matter, huh?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Then why would "god" allow an infiltrator to deceive his new children? What? He couldn't keep the serpent out of the garden? Kinda smacks of "non-omnipotence" if you ask me.

God allows man, animals, angels, and atheists to make their own decisions. He graciously provides a home for us (earth) provides food (plants, animals) provides fellowship with Him if we take the time and get to know Him (The Holy Bible), He provides all we need and lets us grow. We decide on our home to sin and go astray.

God easily provided protection from the devil's attack, the protecting was His words. He said "don't eat it". Adam and Eve said: "No, I want to eat it because it feels good and I am selfish". And the rest is literal current history. If God dictated the actions of all His creatures without allows us to act on our own, then there would have been no need to create anything at all. Just make a bunch of androids.

Not to mention the fact that he let demons loose on this planet to torment mankind. I know...it's all a test, to see where our loyalties lie.

Once again, devils are easily defeated, simply believe God's words and use them like Adam and Eve failed at. God's words are your only weapon in this world of spiritual battles. I feel sorry for the poor foolish Christians who don't believe they have God's perfect words today, just as God wants us to have. I hold God's words in my hand right now. Christian scholars, David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindol, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and every one else on TV does not have God's words as they have all admitted to openly.

God help the poor soul who's on the other side of the world and raised in a totally different religion or belief system. Guess that doesn't matter, huh?

They will be MUCH better off than people born in a first world country with churches on every street corner and Bibles everywhere and yet the people refuse to search for God and TRY HIM OUT. Poor third world country people will fair better than my kind will. Romans chapter 1&2 explains how God will deal with those who never hear about Him yet never seek him either...God knows the hearts