As powerful as GIMP is, I find myself struggling to complete tasks that would be easier in Photoshop. More frustrating, however, is having to compile my own plugins. I still have not managed to compile one successfully (and I've been working with Linux since Red Hat 7.3).
We both agree that God said "You will die if you eat this fruit." We both agree that they died later on...It matters because God told them they would die as a result of eating the fruit. This is important because they do not die as a result of eating the fruit.
Then why do they die? Let's see. Genesis 3:17: "And to Adam he said: "Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating form the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it,"...'" So, there you go. That's why they died: they ate the fruit.
You say that the whole dooming to death happens when God pulls a cosmic "WHY YOU ROTTEN I'M GONNA KILL YOU!!!" Isn't it interesting, then, that he doesn't mention death at all when talking to Eve? He sounds displeased with her, but doesn't say she will die. Well, we both agree that Adam and Eve died, so your argument about God's "flip-out" is fundamentally wrong. It's good, however, that God reminds Adam that yes, he's gonna die. He's passing sentence on someone who has been convicted of a crime, just so there's no ambiguity about what's going to happen to him.
Those two events were not causally related...They didn't die from eating the fruit, God just decided to make them mortal after he found out.
Let's examine that possibility for a moment. Suppose God had said, "Oh, hey, everybody makes mistakes; let's just sweep this one under the rug." Okay, then what? Then God is a liar, because he had said that those who ate that fruit would die. If eating the fruit itself truly isn't fatal, then there's only one way for God to keep his word: kill violators himself. So, then, in order not to be a liar, God carried out the penalty he had promised for all violators.
It would be like me telling you "If you play guitar, it will be deadly to you." You decide to go ahead and play a little guitar anyways. Then 50 years down the road, I come to you and say "Remember that time 50 years ago when you were playing guitar? Well, now I'm going to kill you!"
Besides the huge difference between interpersonal relationships and deipersonal (sp?) relationships (you know, relationships between people and the Infinitely Almighty One), that's a bit temporally inaccurate, I'm afraid. Genesis 3:7, 8: "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." We know what happens next. The interesting thing is that, in contrast to your scenario, God didn't beat around the bush. He saw when they ate, and he evidently gave them enough time to cover up their now-indignity. He confronted them in a very timely manner indeed.
Those are the actions of an insane, jealous person...That's why he curses us and the serpent.
Most of the scenarios you've described are indeed rather insane. Unfortunately for your argument, however, they are glaringly orthogonal to the events being discussed herein. Notice, by the way, that he didn't curse us, but Adam and Eve. Once they ate the fruit, they were incapable of producing perfect children. That's why we all get sick, grow old and die, even though the mechanisms for self-healing are deeply embedded in us, and even though our brains can store many lifetimes' worth of memories. The human being is designed to live forever, but we can't do it in and of ourselves, because our parents debased themselves and gave up perfection and with it everlasting life. We had no say in it, and that's why God made a way out for us (which is faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, a perfect human life given to repay the value of what Adam gave up).
God is willing to give us everlasting life if we try our best to l
No, I am saying that the eating of the fruit did not kill them, as God told them it would.
He merely said they would die if they ate it, and they died. Now if you want to talk about what God meant when he said that they would die if they ate the fruit, you can speculate all day, but your opinions will be just that--speculative opinions.
for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Well, now, that depends on which translation you use. I've noticed that you keep using the one that says "when", since it's a little less unfriendly to your claims. I've got one that says: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." And I've got another that says: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." So if you want to play word games and actually expect me to go along with it, we'll have to do it in Hebrew.
Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes." If that's what God meant, then that's what God should have said. Instead, he told the people that the fruit would kill them, which wasn't true.
Good try, but it didn't work this time either. He said they would die for eating it. They died. I don't know why you keep going back to that when it contradicts the point you're trying to make.
The Bible, which is biased against the serpent, does say he is weasely.
Well, as we've seen, God was telling the truth, so this serpent guy is either criminally negligent/inept or is a murderous liar (more on that later). It's hard not to be biased against either kind of person, especially when they are partly responsible for the death of every human being in history.
of course God is going to try to paint him in a bad light.
But, seeing as how you and I weren't there, I wonder if it's just possible that--maybe--Genesis is just reporting on the facts, and the fact that this serpent guy was rather sneaky just happens to be pertinent to the situation? I mean, you have to admit that it could be read that way by someone with an open mind and no axe to grind.
It's clear that they are talking about what would happen if the people ate the fruit. The serpent asked Eve what God had told her about eating the fruit. When Eve relays God's lie to the serpent, the serpent corrects her. When he says "You will surely not die", he is talking about if they ate the fruit.
Well, as we have seen, those that ate the fruit did indeed die, so God's statement 'you will die if you eat the fruit' was the truth, so either the serpent has no clue or he's deliberately lying. Seeing that the spirit person now known as Satan was in heaven for a long time, he had to know what was going on, so the most likely explanation is that he was lying outright. Does this check with the Bible? Let's see here. Jesus tells the Pharisees at John 8:43-45: "Why is it you do not know what I am speaking? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from you father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie [emphasis mine]. Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, you do not believe me."
So, then, Satan, being the father of the lie, was the first one to tell a lie. So, then, what God told was the truth.
And guess what happens? They eat the fruit, and they don't die.
They've been dead for thousands of years. That means they died. *punches straw man down again*
You can say whatever you want about old Hebrew words, or quote verses from other parts of the Bible. What you are unable to do is to back up your beliefs with quotes from Genesis.
Okay, let's have some more fun, eh? 2:17: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." 3:4: "'You won't die!' the serpent hissed." 3:6: "So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, w
What, you're saying they didn't die? If Eat fruit == I will kill you down the road, then what is the result for you? Just like that song by The Old Dogs, "You're still gonna die." Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes. You have to do some serious twisting to get around that.
Oh wait, the serpent clears it up for us. After he tells us the truth about the fruit, that it won't kill people
Actually, the serpent is a little weaselly on the point of how they wouldn't die. He just said:
"You won't die!" the serpent hissed. (NLT)
Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die." (NKJV)
The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!" (NASB)
But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die." (RSV)
At this the serpent said to the woman: "You positively will not die." (NWT)
Et cetera. Whether from the fruit or from God's punishment for eating thereof, or from an Invisible Pink Unicorn Crash, the serpent just says there will be no dying. First Timothy 2:14 shows that she was thoroughly deceived by the serpent, but her husband was not deceived. Adam didn't think for a moment that he would not die if he ate the fruit.
"They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white." Really? Where does it say that?
Ho hum, time to knock the straw man down. Genesis 2:17 has the command, Genesis 3:1-5 shows the serpent's lie and the disobedient eating, and Genesis 5:5 documents Adam's death. "But why not Eve's?" I hear a whiny voice wheedle.
Because the lineage/family heads were considered of prime importance. The wives' deaths are a given. You'll be hard-pressed to find the death of anybody's wife listed in Genesis 5 (or in many other genealogical sections of the Bible, like Numbers, for that matter), since it's about tracing lineage, as well as the time spans down through generations (for example, that's how we can tell that Adam was still alive nearly up to the Great Flood, and could see how far humankind had deteriorated from the Good Ole Garden Days). But hey, even if Eve were to live all the way up to the Flood, "Still Gonna Die" because Eve was not on board the Ark when came the rain.
They ate the fruit, and they died, no matter how you twist it. Simple as that.
The only way to read this is to come to the conclusion that the action of eating the fruit will make you dead.
Well, they died. So what?
How can we expect Adam and Even to understand this misleading riddle?
Eat fruit == die. There's nothing strange about it. Down through the centuries and up to our day (that pesky word again), commandments (or laws) with penalties for violating them have had a similar structure, and nobody ever thought, for example, that murdering a fellow human is fatal in itself. Except you, I guess;-)
You do a lot of twisting, spinning, and translating Hebrew words in order to make the story mean something other than it said.
It says in simple language (English, Spanish, the original Hebrew, any language you like),that God told them they would die for eating it, and it says they died for eating it. No twisting required.
Clearly you see that you have lost this argument, because you haven't come up with any points to refute this logic.
The Bible itself completely refutes your quite faulty logic, in multiple places. They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white. It has become clear that an honest reading of Genesis challenges your beliefs, and you, though quite able, simply refuse to acknowledge it.
They died from God's punishment for eating the fruit.
Exactly what was God's punishment? There are 2 ways to read it:
1. God's punishment consisted solely of increased birth pains and craving for husband, who would dominate her, for Eve, and having to work super hard to get food out of the ground, and eating said food from the ground in pain and sweat until the day of death (notice also that in that cursing, the mention of death is specifically directed at Adam, not Eve);
2. God's punishment consisted of all that, plus the penalty of death.
If we take choice 1, then you and I have no disagreement, since it means obviously that they were already going to die (hence why he didn't even mention death when talking to Eve). So let's take choice 2.
Let's just suppose for a moment that eating the fruit wasn't going to kill them. Then what? Everybody would call God a liar, since he told them they would die for eating it. So, then, God, in order to be completely honest (it is impossible for him to lie), carried out the death penalty himself. There is no difference between dead and dead.
Look, I've seen people who will criticize anybody for anything. Heck, they killed Jesus for blasphemy! Was Jesus guilty? Of course not (in fact, he never sinned in his life).
I mean, come on, if they hadn't died, you'd still be right here calling God a liar. Only thing is, you'd be right in that case.
Oh, and by the way, billions of us have had--and still have--the knowledge of good and bad. If God really wanted us not to have it, he'd just take it away. In fact, he would not have even allowed anyone to eat the fruit. He left it up to humans whether they wanted it, but put a condition on it: death. Now if only they would have had some perfect children before they committed suicide... Jerks.
It appears that dark matter is not necessary to explain those observations. Someone just forgot to flip the gravity switch from "Newtonian" to "General Relativity" in the computer.
"wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? "
That might make him nice, but it also makes him a liar
Look, we've already been over this. But hey, let's just go back to the original Hebrew, then, eh? The Hebrew "yowm" (day), pronounced like "yome", means (Strong's Dictionary):
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period): 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1; 2) as a division of time; 2a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references: 1) today; 2) yesterday; 3) tomorrow
So, then, "back in the day" (pun intended), Adam and Eve's own language used the term "day" pretty loosely. Remember how long it took God to create everything (one day, according to Genesis 2:4). Adam and Eve died in a much shorter period of time after eating the fruit, almost instantly when compared to the Genesis 2:4 definition of "day".
the sentence means they will die from eating the fruit.
They wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten the fruit, right? Right. They ate the fruit, right? Right. Did they die? Yes. They died. God clearly tells them that the act of eating the fruit will kill them. So, then, God didn't lie about anything.
You have two problems here. One, if it turns out God is a liar at the very outset, we certainly can't trust him later on.
You have failed to show that God lied anywhere. You're spinning and apinning, but God still told them they would die if they ate the fruit, and they died for eating the fruit.
Second, those other parts of the Bible clearly spin Genesis just like you do.
Or, could it be, possibly, that they merely form the basis for my beliefs, thus making my beliefs Bible-based? The entire Bible is a unit, internally consistent, and having internal harmony, despite having been penned by dozens of different people from vastly different backgrounds over a period of about 1,600 years. You can't blow that off so easily.
They wind up dying some 900+ years later because God curses them, not after they ate this fruit.
Actually, God cursed the ground because of them, so that it would be very hard to make food grow from it, which curse was lifted after the Flood of Noah's day (there's that d-word again)--see Genesis 8:21, 22. God also cursed Eve with increased birth pains and craving for her husband, and he cursed the serpent (Satan). But what did he say to Adam? Genesis 3:17-19: "And to Adam he said: 'Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it," cursed is the ground on your account...Thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."
So, then, the curses from God were painful things in the meantime until they died. They were going to die anyway, and God reminded them (remember that Adam wasn't deceived at all, but Eve didn't think she was going to die). Another way the phrase "to dust you will return" could be read is that God here passes sentence upon them in accord with the penalty he already stated at Genesis 2:17. Either way, he told them they would die. Either way, they died.
They wind up dying some 900+ years later...not after they ate this fruit.
What, did they die before they ate it? You can't mean that.
You're just taking the points I made against you, and saying them against me.
Well, I can't help it if what you say contradicts the point you're trying to make.;-)
Let's expand our horizons, shall we? No sense restricting ourselves to only one translation, seeing that the rich Hebrew language has deep meanings rather difficult to convey using one set of English words: Genesis 2:17:
"except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." New Living Translation
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." New King James Version
"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." New American Standard Bible
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Revised Standard Version
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." New Webster Version
"and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die." Robert Young Literal Translation
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die." J. N. Darby Translation
"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 die." American Standard Version
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die." Hebrew Names Version
"de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris" Jerome's Latin Vulgate
"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." New World Translation
There is no way to interpret this other than that the consumption of the fruit from that tree will result in death. But when? The vast majority of translations take the Hebrew word here to mean "day". All through Genesis chapter 1, the term "day" has been used to describe lengths of time during which God created stuff. These time periods are generally believed to have been thousands, millions, even billions of years. The term "day" is also used in Genesis 2:4 to describe the entire period of time God spent creating things, therefore the term "day" is not necessarily literal. So when God says 'you will die in the day you eat from it', it's clear to us that he's not going to let them live forever, but that he might not necessarily have them die instantly.
But hey, we could argue that Adam and Eve didn't know that. They may have thought they would die at sunset! So, then, when God told them about what was already going to happen to them, namely, DEATH, wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? Wasn't it NICE of him to POSTPONE the execution of the sentence 900+ YEARS, with no jail time? Why don't you criticize him for being nice and allowing them to have children (including you)? At least you'd have a point.
He's jealous and doesn't want the people to be like Him, with knowledge of good and evil.
Then why did he let them have the knowledge for 900 years? Come to think of it, why has he allowed billions of us to have it, all these 6,000+ years? You're not making sense anymore. Or maybe you just don't understand the Bible, but somehow still think you're right.
I don't have to argue against your thesis, the Bible contradicts it. Not just the Bible, the whole Bible. First Timothy
But, according you, because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin, and refer to other parts of the Bible.
Okay, I'll play again, by your rules this time;-)
God said quite plainly that they would die if they ate the fruit. They ate the fruit anyway. They died. Notice that what actually happened is the same as the plain meaning of what God said (you know, like, dead, as in not alive). The meaning can't be any plainer or simpler. But according you (sic), because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin;-)
We're not even sure that the snake is aware of God's commandment.
Eve told him the commandment immediately before he lied about it (check it out at Genesis 3:1-5).
So, the snake was honest with as much as he knew.
The snake told the first lie. What sharing does truth have with the lie? Besides, if he really didn't know, and was acting in all honesty, what motivation could he possibly have for trying to convince Eve to do something potentially lethal (totally lethal, as it turns out)? This shady serpent character just isn't worthy of our worship. Remember, too, that Adam didn't fall for it one bit. He deliberately ate, with full knowledge of the penalty.
Come on, you're not even making it hard anymore. I think you afford your arguments too much slack;-)
God didn't say where the death would come from, and he didn't have to, being their Creator. He said they would die if they ate it. They knew they would die if they ate it. They ate it. They died.
Go ahead, troll somewhere else. You don't have to waste any more time on me;-)
"Yes, that's what it says, but what it means is actually..."
But you see, that's exactly what you've been saying. The Bible says that God told Adam and Eve that they'd die if they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they died. Now, if you want to argue that that somehow means something different, twist away. But don't sit there and tell me you truly gave it an honest read. You may fool yourself, but you don't fool me.
if Adam and Eve had not yet learned good from evil, I don't know how they could be expected to make a judgment on whose words to trust regarding the tree
Interesting point. The command came from the One who gave them life, and who therefore had authority over them. Having a death penalty on such a command only makes sense if they knew it would be wrong to eat it. Therefore, the Knowledge of Good and Bad could only refer to their everyday life. Remember, they were imbued with an instinct to only do good. They were physically and mentally perfect, so they would have to deliberately choose to eat the fruit, therefore they would not eat it accidentally (being perfect, they wouldn't just forget the command either). As pointed out at First Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived the very first lie in history, so he definitely knew who to trust regarding the command.
I still don't see why the tree was made accessible to Adam and Eve, if it was to never be messed with. If it were to test them, then I don't understand why they needed to be tested.
Another good point. As pointed out above, they had no conception of doing anything bad, except on the command about the fruit. Also, being perfect, they wouldn't eat the fruit except by deliberate choice, and with full knowledge of the consequences. Therefore, the tree wasn't there to test them, but to give them this choice: they could trust that God wanted what was best for them, live without choosing whether to do good or bad (having the instinct to always do good), and show that they served God by choice, out of love for him; or, they could say, "we don't like the restriction you've placed on our behavior, even though you are the one that gave us our lives", and choose for themselves what to do, good, bad, whatever they felt like doing, even knowing that they would die for it.
And if they fail the test... God created them, so it seems like it should be his bad.
They didn't fail a test, they made a choice, knowing that it would be wrong to do the only thing he told them not to do, and knowing it would mean death (Eve was fooled into thinking that disobedience wouldn't cost her, but Adam was not deceived).
It's all about freedom of choice. God didn't want to be worshiped by robots, he wanted to be worshiped only by intelligent persons who loved him. So, he left it up to them to choose whether they really, truly wanted to serve him.
God only created the being that *became* Satan, however I still don't understand why God would even allow that to happen, being all-knowing and all-powerful.
Another good question. Genesis 3:22: "God went on to say: 'Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad'". So, then, the spirit creatures all knew what would be right or wrong in any circumstance. They had total free will, so any one of them could, if he so chose, decide not to serve God, no tree required. God granted them that choice (as for why he apparently skipped the 'tree' step with the angels, I'm not sure--in any case, he makes the rules, and by definition can't do wrong; furthermore, he has a perfect sense of justice--see Deuteronomy 32:4). He has a purpose, and even though he allowed Satan to try his best to mess up that purpose, Satan has utterly failed. Furthermore, there is nothing that Satan has brought upon us that God cannot undo. The only bad things that God will not reverse are the decisions of those people who have deliberately made an informed decision to reject God despite knowing the truth about him; so far, there have been fewer of those than one might think (besides, that's what the choice was in the beginning anyway: whether to accept or reject God as one's master). Satan has complicated things in the meantime, but God will fix that. He's not going to let 1 rebel or 10 billion rebels keep him from doing what he purposes to do. That's one way you can tell he's all-wise and all-powerful--he gave every person he created the ability to rebel against him, but he knew that his purpose
If I said to you, "Don't drink the orange juice in the fridge; if you do you will surely die", I could only conclude that you didn't want me to drink it. If you were my Almighty Creator, I would also take seriously your threat on my life. So would any reasonable person.
How could they know that [it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit]?
Because God gave them a command. They had no free will to do something wrong in any other case, but they had free will on this point, for the sake of simplicity. As the Creator, God made the rules of right and wrong. He imprinted upon their minds the tendency to automatically do good, but he gave them the free will to decide on one thing: the command about the fruit. It was up to them to obey or disobey. Disobeying a command made by one with authority over you is wrong by definition, from the beginning of creation, so they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit he commanded them not to eat.
If God lies in the beginning, we shouldn't trust him later on.
Red herring. God said they would die, and they died. God told the truth. Are you trolling, or what?
However, the eating of the fruit actually doesn't kill them. It just gives them knowledge of good and evil...Then the snake comes along, and says "Die? Of course you won't die. It's Fruit of Kowledge of Good and Evil, not Deadly Fruit." So then they look at it, and eat it.
Again, First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived." This shows that at least one of the serpent's statements was intended to deceive. Since we know that they did get the Knowledge of Good and Bad (in other words, free will in everything), the false statement could only be "You will positively not die", so the serpent (Satan) knew exactly what would happen to them. But Adam was not deceived, so he knew that he would die for eating the fruit.
Why would you try to excuse something like that, especially coming from a man with a perfect mind, a man who deliberately worked against his inborn tendency to do good in order to do this? You think it wasn't Adam's fault? You wish the whole thing would just go away? You got some kind of grudge against God for making sure that when he says you'll die for something, he actually means it? I mean, it's not as though you ate the fruit.
I don't know whether to think you're a troll or just scared that what the Bible really says will just shatter your comfortable life.
That's pretty far down the chain of cause and effect. God tells them, 'If you eat the fruit you will die'. Not, 'If you eat the fruit, I will kill you as a punishment.'
Um...what's the difference how they would die? He said for them not to eat it, and he said they would die for eating it ("You must not eat from it, for...you will positively die", New World Translation; "thou shalt not eat of it: for...thou shalt surely die", King James Version). Where's the ambiguity?
They knew it was wrong to eat it. But here's something interesting: Eve was totally fooled into thinking she wouldn't die for rebelling against God's command (which she knew was wrong). First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived."
Okay, so she was fooled. But Adam was not fooled at all. He knew it was wrong, and he knew the penalty was death. He ate the fruit anyway, and they both died for it.
An open-minded reading clearly shows that God mislead the people and then took out a punishment on them.
An open-minded but accurate reading, however, shows that they knew full well the consequences, and that God did what he said he would do.
"As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying."
No, it really looks like he told us the truth. He told Eve that the fruit would give them knowledge, which God neglected to mention.
What exactly did God call it, anyway? Genesis 2:17: "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat". Sounds like you missed that part, or neglected to mention it.
He also said the fruit wouldn't kill them -- and it didn't.
Actually, he said, "Thou shalt not surely die" (KJV), or "You will positively not die" (NWT).
So you are saying that it was fair of God to create this Tree of Knowledge, which seems to serve no purpose other than being something that Adam and Eve are told to stay away from?
What did the command to stay away from the tree stand for? Exercise of free will. Up until they ate the fruit, they were, shall we say, "instinctively programmed" do only do what was right. They didn't have free will to just go and kill somebody. They did, however, know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit, and they did have the free will to decide whether they would eat it or not (after all, they did choose to eat it, didn't they?). It made the whole issue of free will neat and simple. One rule, one consequence. Or would you rather we were all just robots? Keep in mind that that question affects the entire population. Basically, all of humanity could choose whether or not they wanted to only do good, in a very simple, easy to understand way. (It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.)
Then, for some reason, God has created a world in which there is a Satan...?
Slow down, cowboy! God created the perfect spirit person we now know as Satan, but did He really create him with evil inside? Let's see what *really* happened.
Ezekiel 28:13-15: "In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrysolite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you." Jesus says at John 8:44 (and he should know) that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth". This shows us that the one now called Devil and Satan was "in the truth" when he was created, but he let a desire develop and grow for the worship that rightfully belonged to God, and he worked to overcome his tendency to do good, and began to sin. He totally changed. He was like a completely different person. He's been a manslayer ever since. He even convinced thousands--if not millions--of faithful angels to join him in his rebellion.
Revelation 12:9: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him." So he and his spirit cohorts are helping people along the path of wickedness, influencing people, as much as they can, to do more wickedness than ever before, trying to see just how wicked they can make the world. The vast majority of humankind is being misled by them, and most people don't even know these wicked spirits are misleading them.
it was fair of God to allow this evil serpent to trick Eve, who at this time has no concept of good or evil, and then hold Eve responsible for doing something wrong?
Remember that Eve, while not having "the knowledge of good and bad", still knew it was wrong to take the fruit (see the statement about simplicity earlier). If God had stopped Satan from convincing Eve to eat the fruit, then the entire command not to eat it--indeed, the whole tree--would have been pointless. It's about free will. In other words, "You must not do this bad thing. You're gonna die if you do this bad thing." God didn't say he'd stop anyone from doing it. He told them not to do it, and he told them they'd die if they did it. They knew who God was, namely, their Creator, and they knew it was wrong. But notice something else. First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly dec
People have natural tendencies to do all sorts of things, presumably designed by god. Omniscient? Apparently god knows we're all going to sin
Remember, though, that the first humans had natural tendencies to do only good. They decided that it wasn't good enough. Would it have been unrighteous of God to withhold it from them? No, since he, by definition, makes the rules. But, out of love and fairness, he chose to give them the ability to decide whether they truly wanted to serve him.
He's 'personally' responsible for intentionally killing nearly everyone on the planet.
Is God to blame when Adam and Eve are the ones that screwed us? Kind of like blaming the parent when some kid deletes the files on his own machine. God gave them their lives, and said, 'You can do what you like, but these are the consequences if you do this one thing.' They knew what would happen. They did it anyway. And we're still paying for it. It's a real good thing for us that God loved the rest of us enough to send his own son to make a way out, or we'd be eternally screwed.
he sends his son...So we can kill him, and by doing that we're cleansed of sin?!
You and I certainly didn't kill him. Those that killed him were wicked people anyway, and took many lives; if not by murder, then by keeping them from finding the way to eternal life. Jesus said: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Gehenna twice as much so as yourselves." -- Matthew 23:15.
So what would it matter if it was them to carry out the sacrifice? Better that they commit the greatest single murder of all time than someone righteous.
what is he so worried about with the whole sovereignty issue? Why would god have to prove anything to anyone?
He doesn't. He chose to. He wanted to answer the question, he wanted to settle the issue. And because he chose to settle the issue, you and I and billions of other human beings actually do have a shot at eternal life in accord with God's original purpose.
He also refused to give up on that purpose--a paradise planet filled with happy people living forever in perfect health, and love among all--including between God and humans (First John 4:8, "God is love"). Is it rational to criticize God for not being a quitter?
I would like to know the reality about how things came about...I hope you find your happiness
I too have been determined to avoid self-delusion. That is why I set out to know what the Bible really says. I have found out a great deal, and I have found much happiness. I can tell you more if you like, not just based on the Bible, but from the Bible itself (most Christian churches I've seen are 'based on the Bible' like some movies are 'based on a true story'). There's a lot more to the Bible than most people realize. But I think it would be better to discuss it off of Slashdot.
My email is available; if you'd like to know more, just give me a shout.
As you say, it's not really about when they died. But they wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten it.
He said, "If you eat this fruit, you will surely die". Correct.
They ate the fruit, and God killed them as a punishment for disobeying his command. Also correct.
They ate the fruit, and they surely died. God was telling the truth. They gained certain knowledge that the serpent said they would gain, but remember that the serpent was the one that said, "Thou shalt not surely die."
As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying.
Did God lie to the first man and woman?...he later makes them mortal as punishment for eating the fruit, but that wasn't a direct result of eating the fruit.
Actually, he did not lie. Hebrews 6:18 states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible for God to lie. So, what does this mean, the not dying within 24 hours of consuming the fruit?
First, from God's standpoint, they *were* dead that day. There was no way they would live forever as he had intended. Second, God had already blessed them in Genesis 1:28 and told them to fill the earth with offspring. Third, Second Peter 3:8 states that from God's viewpoint, a thousand years is as one day. Psalm 90:4 is similar. Both Adam and Eve died well within that timeframe. Fourth, you may recall that the six creative "days" are together called one "day" at Genesis 2:4, so the term "day" does not always mean 24 hours, but can mean "epoch, age, time period". And finally, when you're looking at a lifetime that extends infinitely into the future, as Adam and Eve were (imagine being alive long enough to see and remember huge changes in the geology of the earth, even cosmic scale changes), nine hundred-odd years is no time at all.
So, yes, the penalty for eating it was death, as God said, and no, God certainly did not lie.
Why would a "Just God" create a world where young children are sometimes tortured and killed? If God valued "free will" so much, why would there be...
Okay, first of all, excellent point. Many Christians believe that everything we see around us, including the most evil things ever to occur, all of it is God's Will. This goes completely against what the Bible says.
God gave all his intelligent creatures (heavenly and earthly) free will. The real question is, Did he instill a sense of evil therein or not?
"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it". -- Genesis 2:17
Adam and Eve had a built-in tendency to always do good. This is often referred to as being Perfect or Sinless. They would have to consciously work to overcome that tendency in order to do anything bad, and having the tendency to do good, they wouldn't really want to do that. But They Could (that's free will). That was the entire point of that command from God--indeed, the only one with any penalty. God did this out of love and out of his sense of justice, or fairness. He wanted any and all those who would serve him to do so of their own free will. (As a side note, Genesis 1:27 notes that humans were made "in God's image", or having the same predominant qualities, so it's evident that the angels have free will also, as we shall see.) The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad was a physical symbol of freedom of choice, eating the fruit of which would take away that built-in tendency to always do good, as God defines good.
Anyway, the Devil (Satan) gave Eve the idea that God was withholding something. "At this the serpent said to the woman, 'You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.'" -- Ge 3:4, 5
In other words, "Decide for yourself what's good and what's bad. You can do whatever you want to. You don't want this silly restriction on your behavior. God's being unfair to you. Oh, and he lied when he said you'd die for it." Now, why would Satan do this?
"When under trial [to clarify, the scripture is here talking about temptation to sin], let no one say, 'I am being tried by God.' For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin". --James 1:13-15. The angel now known as Satan, originally as perfect as could be, started to want something that wasn't his to have, namely, the worship of humans. He cultivated that desire and allowed it to cause him to overcome his own inborn tendency to do good, and became evil. Now, he couldn't possibly argue that he was greater or more powerful than God. He couldn't even argue against the fact that, as the Creator, God is the Sovereign Lord of Everything, answerable to no one. So he challenged the rightfulness of God's Sovereignty. He said, in effect, "I'm a better ruler." Satan couldn't offer people anything good that they didn't already have: they already were perfect, would live forever in perfect health in Paradisaic conditions, and had some satisfying jobs to do (multiply and fill the earth with perfect offspring, extend the Garden of Eden worldwide, for example). But Satan could offer them the opportunity to rule their own lives, which interestingly enough would really mean serving him.
Okay, so Eve thought about it. She decided to just go ahead and exercise her right to disobey, and Adam did the same, and they doomed us all, since in gaining the right to decide for themselves what was right and wrong, they lost Perfection. Nope, God wasn't lying. "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." -- Romans 5:12. And, "The wages sin pays is death." -- Romans 6:23.
Well, God had a choice (free will, remember that humans were c
Toshiba 60GB notebook drive issued the Bleating Squeal of Death
I can't believe it. Someone else with the same problem, and the same sound. It's not just coincidence, then, eh? We've gone through 2 or 3 of them now on the same laptop (40GB drives, actually), and I always thought it was from having a Pentium 4 cooking them. Thank goodness for warranties.
I really wish I had mod points right now. Even more convincing than the apparent non-necessity is its Trinity-like identity (it's three, and yet one; sphere, yet string; all, yet nothing).
That must be a great way to get tax dollars: ask for billions to research something that doesn't exist, and give it impossible characteristics.
The reason it doesn't make sense to me is that it doesn't appear that compression of the gas would even require as much energy as one acquired going up. Is there some way of calculating how much energy the compression would require (and, for that matter, how much energy one acquires through negative falling, although that figure seems to be rather straightforward, like the energy water gathers falling a certain distance in a hydro plant), and thus coming to an accurate conclusion about whether this could work?
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to put some numbers to your reasoning.
Well, sure, I understand that fine...but here's what I mean (apologies for not being specific about this earlier):
Suppose, firstly, that you don't let the gas out, but you compress it. Secondly, suppose you don't harness the energy from forward, but from up and down motions. You use some kind of turbine to extract energy, but still use wings and such to get forward movement.
Now, let's say you get pushed up from 1000 feet to 20 miles. Why couldn't you extract enough energy from that to compress enough gas to descend back to 1000 feet (and vice versa)? Seems eminently feasible from my understanding. Am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
As powerful as GIMP is, I find myself struggling to complete tasks that would be easier in Photoshop. More frustrating, however, is having to compile my own plugins. I still have not managed to compile one successfully (and I've been working with Linux since Red Hat 7.3).
Then why do they die? Let's see. Genesis 3:17: "And to Adam he said: "Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating form the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it,"...'" So, there you go. That's why they died: they ate the fruit.
You say that the whole dooming to death happens when God pulls a cosmic "WHY YOU ROTTEN I'M GONNA KILL YOU!!!" Isn't it interesting, then, that he doesn't mention death at all when talking to Eve? He sounds displeased with her, but doesn't say she will die. Well, we both agree that Adam and Eve died, so your argument about God's "flip-out" is fundamentally wrong. It's good, however, that God reminds Adam that yes, he's gonna die. He's passing sentence on someone who has been convicted of a crime, just so there's no ambiguity about what's going to happen to him.
Those two events were not causally related...They didn't die from eating the fruit, God just decided to make them mortal after he found out.
Let's examine that possibility for a moment. Suppose God had said, "Oh, hey, everybody makes mistakes; let's just sweep this one under the rug." Okay, then what? Then God is a liar, because he had said that those who ate that fruit would die. If eating the fruit itself truly isn't fatal, then there's only one way for God to keep his word: kill violators himself. So, then, in order not to be a liar, God carried out the penalty he had promised for all violators.
It would be like me telling you "If you play guitar, it will be deadly to you." You decide to go ahead and play a little guitar anyways. Then 50 years down the road, I come to you and say "Remember that time 50 years ago when you were playing guitar? Well, now I'm going to kill you!"
Besides the huge difference between interpersonal relationships and deipersonal (sp?) relationships (you know, relationships between people and the Infinitely Almighty One), that's a bit temporally inaccurate, I'm afraid. Genesis 3:7, 8: "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." We know what happens next. The interesting thing is that, in contrast to your scenario, God didn't beat around the bush. He saw when they ate, and he evidently gave them enough time to cover up their now-indignity. He confronted them in a very timely manner indeed.
Those are the actions of an insane, jealous person...That's why he curses us and the serpent.
Most of the scenarios you've described are indeed rather insane. Unfortunately for your argument, however, they are glaringly orthogonal to the events being discussed herein. Notice, by the way, that he didn't curse us, but Adam and Eve. Once they ate the fruit, they were incapable of producing perfect children. That's why we all get sick, grow old and die, even though the mechanisms for self-healing are deeply embedded in us, and even though our brains can store many lifetimes' worth of memories. The human being is designed to live forever, but we can't do it in and of ourselves, because our parents debased themselves and gave up perfection and with it everlasting life. We had no say in it, and that's why God made a way out for us (which is faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, a perfect human life given to repay the value of what Adam gave up).
God is willing to give us everlasting life if we try our best to l
He merely said they would die if they ate it, and they died. Now if you want to talk about what God meant when he said that they would die if they ate the fruit, you can speculate all day, but your opinions will be just that--speculative opinions.
for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Well, now, that depends on which translation you use. I've noticed that you keep using the one that says "when", since it's a little less unfriendly to your claims. I've got one that says: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." And I've got another that says: "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." So if you want to play word games and actually expect me to go along with it, we'll have to do it in Hebrew.
Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes." If that's what God meant, then that's what God should have said. Instead, he told the people that the fruit would kill them, which wasn't true.
Good try, but it didn't work this time either. He said they would die for eating it. They died. I don't know why you keep going back to that when it contradicts the point you're trying to make.
The Bible, which is biased against the serpent, does say he is weasely.
Well, as we've seen, God was telling the truth, so this serpent guy is either criminally negligent/inept or is a murderous liar (more on that later). It's hard not to be biased against either kind of person, especially when they are partly responsible for the death of every human being in history.
of course God is going to try to paint him in a bad light.
But, seeing as how you and I weren't there, I wonder if it's just possible that--maybe--Genesis is just reporting on the facts, and the fact that this serpent guy was rather sneaky just happens to be pertinent to the situation? I mean, you have to admit that it could be read that way by someone with an open mind and no axe to grind.
It's clear that they are talking about what would happen if the people ate the fruit. The serpent asked Eve what God had told her about eating the fruit. When Eve relays God's lie to the serpent, the serpent corrects her. When he says "You will surely not die", he is talking about if they ate the fruit.
Well, as we have seen, those that ate the fruit did indeed die, so God's statement 'you will die if you eat the fruit' was the truth, so either the serpent has no clue or he's deliberately lying. Seeing that the spirit person now known as Satan was in heaven for a long time, he had to know what was going on, so the most likely explanation is that he was lying outright. Does this check with the Bible? Let's see here. Jesus tells the Pharisees at John 8:43-45: "Why is it you do not know what I am speaking? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from you father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie [emphasis mine]. Because I, on the other hand, tell the truth, you do not believe me."
So, then, Satan, being the father of the lie, was the first one to tell a lie. So, then, what God told was the truth.
And guess what happens? They eat the fruit, and they don't die.
They've been dead for thousands of years. That means they died. *punches straw man down again*
You can say whatever you want about old Hebrew words, or quote verses from other parts of the Bible. What you are unable to do is to back up your beliefs with quotes from Genesis.
Okay, let's have some more fun, eh? 2:17: "If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." 3:4: "'You won't die!' the serpent hissed." 3:6: "So she ate some of the fruit. She also gave some to her husband, w
What, you're saying they didn't die? If Eat fruit == I will kill you down the road, then what is the result for you? Just like that song by The Old Dogs, "You're still gonna die." Eat fruit == die, no matter how the death comes. You have to do some serious twisting to get around that.
Oh wait, the serpent clears it up for us. After he tells us the truth about the fruit, that it won't kill people
Actually, the serpent is a little weaselly on the point of how they wouldn't die. He just said:
"You won't die!" the serpent hissed. (NLT)
Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die." (NKJV)
The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!" (NASB)
But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die." (RSV)
At this the serpent said to the woman: "You positively will not die." (NWT)
Et cetera. Whether from the fruit or from God's punishment for eating thereof, or from an Invisible Pink Unicorn Crash, the serpent just says there will be no dying. First Timothy 2:14 shows that she was thoroughly deceived by the serpent, but her husband was not deceived. Adam didn't think for a moment that he would not die if he ate the fruit.
"They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white." Really? Where does it say that?
Ho hum, time to knock the straw man down. Genesis 2:17 has the command, Genesis 3:1-5 shows the serpent's lie and the disobedient eating, and Genesis 5:5 documents Adam's death. "But why not Eve's?" I hear a whiny voice wheedle.
Because the lineage/family heads were considered of prime importance. The wives' deaths are a given. You'll be hard-pressed to find the death of anybody's wife listed in Genesis 5 (or in many other genealogical sections of the Bible, like Numbers, for that matter), since it's about tracing lineage, as well as the time spans down through generations (for example, that's how we can tell that Adam was still alive nearly up to the Great Flood, and could see how far humankind had deteriorated from the Good Ole Garden Days). But hey, even if Eve were to live all the way up to the Flood, "Still Gonna Die" because Eve was not on board the Ark when came the rain.
They ate the fruit, and they died, no matter how you twist it. Simple as that.
Well, they died. So what?
How can we expect Adam and Even to understand this misleading riddle?
Eat fruit == die. There's nothing strange about it. Down through the centuries and up to our day (that pesky word again), commandments (or laws) with penalties for violating them have had a similar structure, and nobody ever thought, for example, that murdering a fellow human is fatal in itself. Except you, I guess ;-)
You do a lot of twisting, spinning, and translating Hebrew words in order to make the story mean something other than it said.
It says in simple language (English, Spanish, the original Hebrew, any language you like),that God told them they would die for eating it, and it says they died for eating it. No twisting required.
Clearly you see that you have lost this argument, because you haven't come up with any points to refute this logic.
The Bible itself completely refutes your quite faulty logic, in multiple places. They ate the fruit, and they died. The Bible says so, plain as day, in black and white. It has become clear that an honest reading of Genesis challenges your beliefs, and you, though quite able, simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Exactly what was God's punishment? There are 2 ways to read it:
1. God's punishment consisted solely of increased birth pains and craving for husband, who would dominate her, for Eve, and having to work super hard to get food out of the ground, and eating said food from the ground in pain and sweat until the day of death (notice also that in that cursing, the mention of death is specifically directed at Adam, not Eve);
2. God's punishment consisted of all that, plus the penalty of death.
If we take choice 1, then you and I have no disagreement, since it means obviously that they were already going to die (hence why he didn't even mention death when talking to Eve). So let's take choice 2.
Let's just suppose for a moment that eating the fruit wasn't going to kill them. Then what? Everybody would call God a liar, since he told them they would die for eating it. So, then, God, in order to be completely honest (it is impossible for him to lie), carried out the death penalty himself. There is no difference between dead and dead.
Look, I've seen people who will criticize anybody for anything. Heck, they killed Jesus for blasphemy! Was Jesus guilty? Of course not (in fact, he never sinned in his life).
I mean, come on, if they hadn't died, you'd still be right here calling God a liar. Only thing is, you'd be right in that case.
Oh, and by the way, billions of us have had--and still have--the knowledge of good and bad. If God really wanted us not to have it, he'd just take it away. In fact, he would not have even allowed anyone to eat the fruit. He left it up to humans whether they wanted it, but put a condition on it: death. Now if only they would have had some perfect children before they committed suicide... Jerks.
It appears that dark matter is not necessary to explain those observations. Someone just forgot to flip the gravity switch from "Newtonian" to "General Relativity" in the computer.
That might make him nice, but it also makes him a liar
Look, we've already been over this. But hey, let's just go back to the original Hebrew, then, eh? The Hebrew "yowm" (day), pronounced like "yome", means (Strong's Dictionary):
1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period): 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1; 2) as a division of time; 2a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year
f) temporal references: 1) today; 2) yesterday; 3) tomorrow
So, then, "back in the day" (pun intended), Adam and Eve's own language used the term "day" pretty loosely. Remember how long it took God to create everything (one day, according to Genesis 2:4). Adam and Eve died in a much shorter period of time after eating the fruit, almost instantly when compared to the Genesis 2:4 definition of "day".
the sentence means they will die from eating the fruit.
They wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten the fruit, right? Right. They ate the fruit, right? Right. Did they die? Yes. They died. God clearly tells them that the act of eating the fruit will kill them. So, then, God didn't lie about anything.
You have two problems here. One, if it turns out God is a liar at the very outset, we certainly can't trust him later on.
You have failed to show that God lied anywhere. You're spinning and apinning, but God still told them they would die if they ate the fruit, and they died for eating the fruit.
Second, those other parts of the Bible clearly spin Genesis just like you do.
Or, could it be, possibly, that they merely form the basis for my beliefs, thus making my beliefs Bible-based? The entire Bible is a unit, internally consistent, and having internal harmony, despite having been penned by dozens of different people from vastly different backgrounds over a period of about 1,600 years. You can't blow that off so easily.
They wind up dying some 900+ years later because God curses them, not after they ate this fruit.
Actually, God cursed the ground because of them, so that it would be very hard to make food grow from it, which curse was lifted after the Flood of Noah's day (there's that d-word again)--see Genesis 8:21, 22. God also cursed Eve with increased birth pains and craving for her husband, and he cursed the serpent (Satan). But what did he say to Adam? Genesis 3:17-19: "And to Adam he said: 'Because you listened to your wife's voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, "You must not eat from it," cursed is the ground on your account...Thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."
So, then, the curses from God were painful things in the meantime until they died. They were going to die anyway, and God reminded them (remember that Adam wasn't deceived at all, but Eve didn't think she was going to die). Another way the phrase "to dust you will return" could be read is that God here passes sentence upon them in accord with the penalty he already stated at Genesis 2:17. Either way, he told them they would die. Either way, they died.
They wind up dying some 900+ years later...not after they ate this fruit.
What, did they die before they ate it? You can't mean that.
Have a nice day! ;-)
Well, I can't help it if what you say contradicts the point you're trying to make. ;-)
Let's expand our horizons, shall we? No sense restricting ourselves to only one translation, seeing that the rich Hebrew language has deep meanings rather difficult to convey using one set of English words: Genesis 2:17:
"except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die." New Living Translation
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." New King James Version
"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." New American Standard Bible
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Revised Standard Version
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." New Webster Version
"and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die." Robert Young Literal Translation
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die." J. N. Darby Translation
"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 die." American Standard Version
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die." Hebrew Names Version
"de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris" Jerome's Latin Vulgate
"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." New World Translation
There is no way to interpret this other than that the consumption of the fruit from that tree will result in death. But when? The vast majority of translations take the Hebrew word here to mean "day". All through Genesis chapter 1, the term "day" has been used to describe lengths of time during which God created stuff. These time periods are generally believed to have been thousands, millions, even billions of years. The term "day" is also used in Genesis 2:4 to describe the entire period of time God spent creating things, therefore the term "day" is not necessarily literal. So when God says 'you will die in the day you eat from it', it's clear to us that he's not going to let them live forever, but that he might not necessarily have them die instantly.
But hey, we could argue that Adam and Eve didn't know that. They may have thought they would die at sunset! So, then, when God told them about what was already going to happen to them, namely, DEATH, wasn't it nice of him not to kill them within a fundamentalist 24-hour "day"? Wasn't it NICE of him to POSTPONE the execution of the sentence 900+ YEARS, with no jail time? Why don't you criticize him for being nice and allowing them to have children (including you)? At least you'd have a point.
He's jealous and doesn't want the people to be like Him, with knowledge of good and evil.
Then why did he let them have the knowledge for 900 years? Come to think of it, why has he allowed billions of us to have it, all these 6,000+ years? You're not making sense anymore. Or maybe you just don't understand the Bible, but somehow still think you're right.
I don't have to argue against your thesis, the Bible contradicts it. Not just the Bible, the whole Bible. First Timothy
Okay, I'll play again, by your rules this time ;-)
God said quite plainly that they would die if they ate the fruit. They ate the fruit anyway. They died. Notice that what actually happened is the same as the plain meaning of what God said (you know, like, dead, as in not alive). The meaning can't be any plainer or simpler. But according you (sic), because God said it, we can't trust the plain meaning. We have to look deeper, twist the meaning, spin ;-)
We're not even sure that the snake is aware of God's commandment.
Eve told him the commandment immediately before he lied about it (check it out at Genesis 3:1-5).
So, the snake was honest with as much as he knew.
The snake told the first lie. What sharing does truth have with the lie? Besides, if he really didn't know, and was acting in all honesty, what motivation could he possibly have for trying to convince Eve to do something potentially lethal (totally lethal, as it turns out)? This shady serpent character just isn't worthy of our worship. Remember, too, that Adam didn't fall for it one bit. He deliberately ate, with full knowledge of the penalty.
Come on, you're not even making it hard anymore. I think you afford your arguments too much slack ;-)
Go ahead, troll somewhere else. You don't have to waste any more time on me ;-)
But you see, that's exactly what you've been saying. The Bible says that God told Adam and Eve that they'd die if they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they ate the fruit, and the Bible says that they died. Now, if you want to argue that that somehow means something different, twist away. But don't sit there and tell me you truly gave it an honest read. You may fool yourself, but you don't fool me.
Interesting point. The command came from the One who gave them life, and who therefore had authority over them. Having a death penalty on such a command only makes sense if they knew it would be wrong to eat it. Therefore, the Knowledge of Good and Bad could only refer to their everyday life. Remember, they were imbued with an instinct to only do good. They were physically and mentally perfect, so they would have to deliberately choose to eat the fruit, therefore they would not eat it accidentally (being perfect, they wouldn't just forget the command either). As pointed out at First Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived the very first lie in history, so he definitely knew who to trust regarding the command.
I still don't see why the tree was made accessible to Adam and Eve, if it was to never be messed with. If it were to test them, then I don't understand why they needed to be tested.
Another good point. As pointed out above, they had no conception of doing anything bad, except on the command about the fruit. Also, being perfect, they wouldn't eat the fruit except by deliberate choice, and with full knowledge of the consequences. Therefore, the tree wasn't there to test them, but to give them this choice: they could trust that God wanted what was best for them, live without choosing whether to do good or bad (having the instinct to always do good), and show that they served God by choice, out of love for him; or, they could say, "we don't like the restriction you've placed on our behavior, even though you are the one that gave us our lives", and choose for themselves what to do, good, bad, whatever they felt like doing, even knowing that they would die for it.
And if they fail the test... God created them, so it seems like it should be his bad.
They didn't fail a test, they made a choice, knowing that it would be wrong to do the only thing he told them not to do, and knowing it would mean death (Eve was fooled into thinking that disobedience wouldn't cost her, but Adam was not deceived).
It's all about freedom of choice. God didn't want to be worshiped by robots, he wanted to be worshiped only by intelligent persons who loved him. So, he left it up to them to choose whether they really, truly wanted to serve him.
God only created the being that *became* Satan, however I still don't understand why God would even allow that to happen, being all-knowing and all-powerful.
Another good question. Genesis 3:22: "God went on to say: 'Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad'". So, then, the spirit creatures all knew what would be right or wrong in any circumstance. They had total free will, so any one of them could, if he so chose, decide not to serve God, no tree required. God granted them that choice (as for why he apparently skipped the 'tree' step with the angels, I'm not sure--in any case, he makes the rules, and by definition can't do wrong; furthermore, he has a perfect sense of justice--see Deuteronomy 32:4). He has a purpose, and even though he allowed Satan to try his best to mess up that purpose, Satan has utterly failed. Furthermore, there is nothing that Satan has brought upon us that God cannot undo. The only bad things that God will not reverse are the decisions of those people who have deliberately made an informed decision to reject God despite knowing the truth about him; so far, there have been fewer of those than one might think (besides, that's what the choice was in the beginning anyway: whether to accept or reject God as one's master). Satan has complicated things in the meantime, but God will fix that. He's not going to let 1 rebel or 10 billion rebels keep him from doing what he purposes to do. That's one way you can tell he's all-wise and all-powerful--he gave every person he created the ability to rebel against him, but he knew that his purpose
If I said to you, "Don't drink the orange juice in the fridge; if you do you will surely die", I could only conclude that you didn't want me to drink it. If you were my Almighty Creator, I would also take seriously your threat on my life. So would any reasonable person.
How could they know that [it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit]?
Because God gave them a command. They had no free will to do something wrong in any other case, but they had free will on this point, for the sake of simplicity. As the Creator, God made the rules of right and wrong. He imprinted upon their minds the tendency to automatically do good, but he gave them the free will to decide on one thing: the command about the fruit. It was up to them to obey or disobey. Disobeying a command made by one with authority over you is wrong by definition, from the beginning of creation, so they knew it was wrong to eat the fruit he commanded them not to eat.
If God lies in the beginning, we shouldn't trust him later on.
Red herring. God said they would die, and they died. God told the truth. Are you trolling, or what?
However, the eating of the fruit actually doesn't kill them. It just gives them knowledge of good and evil...Then the snake comes along, and says "Die? Of course you won't die. It's Fruit of Kowledge of Good and Evil, not Deadly Fruit." So then they look at it, and eat it.
Again, First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived." This shows that at least one of the serpent's statements was intended to deceive. Since we know that they did get the Knowledge of Good and Bad (in other words, free will in everything), the false statement could only be "You will positively not die", so the serpent (Satan) knew exactly what would happen to them. But Adam was not deceived, so he knew that he would die for eating the fruit.
Why would you try to excuse something like that, especially coming from a man with a perfect mind, a man who deliberately worked against his inborn tendency to do good in order to do this? You think it wasn't Adam's fault? You wish the whole thing would just go away? You got some kind of grudge against God for making sure that when he says you'll die for something, he actually means it? I mean, it's not as though you ate the fruit.
I don't know whether to think you're a troll or just scared that what the Bible really says will just shatter your comfortable life.
That's pretty far down the chain of cause and effect. God tells them, 'If you eat the fruit you will die'. Not, 'If you eat the fruit, I will kill you as a punishment.'
Um...what's the difference how they would die? He said for them not to eat it, and he said they would die for eating it ("You must not eat from it, for...you will positively die", New World Translation; "thou shalt not eat of it: for...thou shalt surely die", King James Version). Where's the ambiguity?
They knew it was wrong to eat it. But here's something interesting: Eve was totally fooled into thinking she wouldn't die for rebelling against God's command (which she knew was wrong). First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived."
Okay, so she was fooled. But Adam was not fooled at all. He knew it was wrong, and he knew the penalty was death. He ate the fruit anyway, and they both died for it.
An open-minded reading clearly shows that God mislead the people and then took out a punishment on them.
An open-minded but accurate reading, however, shows that they knew full well the consequences, and that God did what he said he would do.
"As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying."
No, it really looks like he told us the truth. He told Eve that the fruit would give them knowledge, which God neglected to mention.
What exactly did God call it, anyway? Genesis 2:17: "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat". Sounds like you missed that part, or neglected to mention it.
He also said the fruit wouldn't kill them -- and it didn't.
Actually, he said, "Thou shalt not surely die" (KJV), or "You will positively not die" (NWT).
They died, Satan lied.
So you are saying that it was fair of God to create this Tree of Knowledge, which seems to serve no purpose other than being something that Adam and Eve are told to stay away from?
What did the command to stay away from the tree stand for? Exercise of free will. Up until they ate the fruit, they were, shall we say, "instinctively programmed" do only do what was right. They didn't have free will to just go and kill somebody. They did, however, know it was wrong to eat the forbidden fruit, and they did have the free will to decide whether they would eat it or not (after all, they did choose to eat it, didn't they?). It made the whole issue of free will neat and simple. One rule, one consequence. Or would you rather we were all just robots? Keep in mind that that question affects the entire population. Basically, all of humanity could choose whether or not they wanted to only do good, in a very simple, easy to understand way. (It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.)
Then, for some reason, God has created a world in which there is a Satan...?
Slow down, cowboy! God created the perfect spirit person we now know as Satan, but did He really create him with evil inside? Let's see what *really* happened.
Ezekiel 28:13-15: "In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering, ruby, topaz and jasper; chrysolite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. In the day of your being created they were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you." Jesus says at John 8:44 (and he should know) that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth". This shows us that the one now called Devil and Satan was "in the truth" when he was created, but he let a desire develop and grow for the worship that rightfully belonged to God, and he worked to overcome his tendency to do good, and began to sin. He totally changed. He was like a completely different person. He's been a manslayer ever since. He even convinced thousands--if not millions--of faithful angels to join him in his rebellion.
Revelation 12:9: "So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him." So he and his spirit cohorts are helping people along the path of wickedness, influencing people, as much as they can, to do more wickedness than ever before, trying to see just how wicked they can make the world. The vast majority of humankind is being misled by them, and most people don't even know these wicked spirits are misleading them.
it was fair of God to allow this evil serpent to trick Eve, who at this time has no concept of good or evil, and then hold Eve responsible for doing something wrong?
Remember that Eve, while not having "the knowledge of good and bad", still knew it was wrong to take the fruit (see the statement about simplicity earlier). If God had stopped Satan from convincing Eve to eat the fruit, then the entire command not to eat it--indeed, the whole tree --would have been pointless. It's about free will. In other words, "You must not do this bad thing. You're gonna die if you do this bad thing." God didn't say he'd stop anyone from doing it. He told them not to do it, and he told them they'd die if they did it. They knew who God was, namely, their Creator, and they knew it was wrong. But notice something else. First Timothy 2:14: "Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly dec
People have natural tendencies to do all sorts of things, presumably designed by god. Omniscient? Apparently god knows we're all going to sin
Remember, though, that the first humans had natural tendencies to do only good. They decided that it wasn't good enough. Would it have been unrighteous of God to withhold it from them? No, since he, by definition, makes the rules. But, out of love and fairness, he chose to give them the ability to decide whether they truly wanted to serve him.
He's 'personally' responsible for intentionally killing nearly everyone on the planet.
Is God to blame when Adam and Eve are the ones that screwed us? Kind of like blaming the parent when some kid deletes the files on his own machine. God gave them their lives, and said, 'You can do what you like, but these are the consequences if you do this one thing.' They knew what would happen. They did it anyway. And we're still paying for it. It's a real good thing for us that God loved the rest of us enough to send his own son to make a way out, or we'd be eternally screwed.
he sends his son...So we can kill him, and by doing that we're cleansed of sin?!
You and I certainly didn't kill him. Those that killed him were wicked people anyway, and took many lives; if not by murder, then by keeping them from finding the way to eternal life. Jesus said: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Gehenna twice as much so as yourselves." -- Matthew 23:15.
So what would it matter if it was them to carry out the sacrifice? Better that they commit the greatest single murder of all time than someone righteous.
what is he so worried about with the whole sovereignty issue? Why would god have to prove anything to anyone?
He doesn't. He chose to. He wanted to answer the question, he wanted to settle the issue. And because he chose to settle the issue, you and I and billions of other human beings actually do have a shot at eternal life in accord with God's original purpose.
He also refused to give up on that purpose--a paradise planet filled with happy people living forever in perfect health, and love among all--including between God and humans (First John 4:8, "God is love"). Is it rational to criticize God for not being a quitter?
I would like to know the reality about how things came about...I hope you find your happiness
I too have been determined to avoid self-delusion. That is why I set out to know what the Bible really says. I have found out a great deal, and I have found much happiness. I can tell you more if you like, not just based on the Bible, but from the Bible itself (most Christian churches I've seen are 'based on the Bible' like some movies are 'based on a true story'). There's a lot more to the Bible than most people realize. But I think it would be better to discuss it off of Slashdot.
My email is available; if you'd like to know more, just give me a shout.
As you say, it's not really about when they died. But they wouldn't have died if they hadn't eaten it.
He said, "If you eat this fruit, you will surely die". Correct.
They ate the fruit, and God killed them as a punishment for disobeying his command. Also correct.
They ate the fruit, and they surely died. God was telling the truth. They gained certain knowledge that the serpent said they would gain, but remember that the serpent was the one that said, "Thou shalt not surely die."
As you can plainly see, the serpent was the one lying.
Did God lie to the first man and woman?...he later makes them mortal as punishment for eating the fruit, but that wasn't a direct result of eating the fruit.
Actually, he did not lie. Hebrews 6:18 states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible for God to lie. So, what does this mean, the not dying within 24 hours of consuming the fruit?
First, from God's standpoint, they *were* dead that day. There was no way they would live forever as he had intended. Second, God had already blessed them in Genesis 1:28 and told them to fill the earth with offspring. Third, Second Peter 3:8 states that from God's viewpoint, a thousand years is as one day. Psalm 90:4 is similar. Both Adam and Eve died well within that timeframe. Fourth, you may recall that the six creative "days" are together called one "day" at Genesis 2:4, so the term "day" does not always mean 24 hours, but can mean "epoch, age, time period". And finally, when you're looking at a lifetime that extends infinitely into the future, as Adam and Eve were (imagine being alive long enough to see and remember huge changes in the geology of the earth, even cosmic scale changes), nine hundred-odd years is no time at all.
So, yes, the penalty for eating it was death, as God said, and no, God certainly did not lie.
Why would a "Just God" create a world where young children are sometimes tortured and killed? If God valued "free will" so much, why would there be...
Okay, first of all, excellent point. Many Christians believe that everything we see around us, including the most evil things ever to occur, all of it is God's Will. This goes completely against what the Bible says.
God gave all his intelligent creatures (heavenly and earthly) free will. The real question is, Did he instill a sense of evil therein or not?
"But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it". -- Genesis 2:17
Adam and Eve had a built-in tendency to always do good. This is often referred to as being Perfect or Sinless. They would have to consciously work to overcome that tendency in order to do anything bad, and having the tendency to do good, they wouldn't really want to do that. But They Could (that's free will). That was the entire point of that command from God--indeed, the only one with any penalty. God did this out of love and out of his sense of justice, or fairness. He wanted any and all those who would serve him to do so of their own free will. (As a side note, Genesis 1:27 notes that humans were made "in God's image", or having the same predominant qualities, so it's evident that the angels have free will also, as we shall see.) The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad was a physical symbol of freedom of choice, eating the fruit of which would take away that built-in tendency to always do good, as God defines good.
Anyway, the Devil (Satan) gave Eve the idea that God was withholding something. "At this the serpent said to the woman, 'You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.'" -- Ge 3:4, 5
In other words, "Decide for yourself what's good and what's bad. You can do whatever you want to. You don't want this silly restriction on your behavior. God's being unfair to you. Oh, and he lied when he said you'd die for it." Now, why would Satan do this?
"When under trial [to clarify, the scripture is here talking about temptation to sin], let no one say, 'I am being tried by God.' For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin". --James 1:13-15. The angel now known as Satan, originally as perfect as could be, started to want something that wasn't his to have, namely, the worship of humans. He cultivated that desire and allowed it to cause him to overcome his own inborn tendency to do good, and became evil. Now, he couldn't possibly argue that he was greater or more powerful than God. He couldn't even argue against the fact that, as the Creator, God is the Sovereign Lord of Everything, answerable to no one. So he challenged the rightfulness of God's Sovereignty. He said, in effect, "I'm a better ruler." Satan couldn't offer people anything good that they didn't already have: they already were perfect, would live forever in perfect health in Paradisaic conditions, and had some satisfying jobs to do (multiply and fill the earth with perfect offspring, extend the Garden of Eden worldwide, for example). But Satan could offer them the opportunity to rule their own lives, which interestingly enough would really mean serving him.
Okay, so Eve thought about it. She decided to just go ahead and exercise her right to disobey, and Adam did the same, and they doomed us all, since in gaining the right to decide for themselves what was right and wrong, they lost Perfection. Nope, God wasn't lying. "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." -- Romans 5:12. And, "The wages sin pays is death." -- Romans 6:23.
Well, God had a choice (free will, remember that humans were c
Toshiba 60GB notebook drive issued the Bleating Squeal of Death
I can't believe it. Someone else with the same problem, and the same sound. It's not just coincidence, then, eh? We've gone through 2 or 3 of them now on the same laptop (40GB drives, actually), and I always thought it was from having a Pentium 4 cooking them. Thank goodness for warranties.
I really wish I had mod points right now. Even more convincing than the apparent non-necessity is its Trinity-like identity (it's three, and yet one; sphere, yet string; all, yet nothing).
That must be a great way to get tax dollars: ask for billions to research something that doesn't exist, and give it impossible characteristics.
One of the funniest comments I've seen in a while... keep the flave, man.
The reason it doesn't make sense to me is that it doesn't appear that compression of the gas would even require as much energy as one acquired going up. Is there some way of calculating how much energy the compression would require (and, for that matter, how much energy one acquires through negative falling, although that figure seems to be rather straightforward, like the energy water gathers falling a certain distance in a hydro plant), and thus coming to an accurate conclusion about whether this could work?
I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to put some numbers to your reasoning.
Well, sure, I understand that fine...but here's what I mean (apologies for not being specific about this earlier):
Suppose, firstly, that you don't let the gas out, but you compress it. Secondly, suppose you don't harness the energy from forward, but from up and down motions. You use some kind of turbine to extract energy, but still use wings and such to get forward movement.
Now, let's say you get pushed up from 1000 feet to 20 miles. Why couldn't you extract enough energy from that to compress enough gas to descend back to 1000 feet (and vice versa)? Seems eminently feasible from my understanding. Am I missing something?