Eve and the Serpent - Jews and Christians

[viole]

yeah. If you use money to bribe others, it's good for you (you get the contract), but it is also evil.

That is not what I asked. What I asked is: is it possible for something to be right and evil, for isntance?

And if they could not tell between good and evil, how could the threat « if you disobey you will die « sort any effect? For what they knew, dying was maybe something good for them.

i think that instead of getting crazy, we should reach the most obvious conclusion: whoever wrote that did not pay attention to logical consistency.

ciao

- viole

 

[Clear]

Hi @viole

Viole said : “That is not what I asked. What I asked is: is it possible for something to be right and evil, for isntance?" (Post #61)

Hi Viole : I like the ability you have to realize there are important nuances that one can consider.

If we are speaking in terms of "the ends justifying the means" then I think that temporary evil can occur inside a greater purpose to accomplish a greater good.

For example :
If the ends are to create a morally educated and sifted population of eternal beings, then I think the means of experiencing evil and oppression during a temporary mortal experience can be justified.

This actually WAS the dilemma presented in early Christian literature (e.g. abbaton pre 4th century). The controversy concerned the creation of Adam and the plan to populate the world with individuals of varying moral characteristics (some good, some evil) and the fact that evil and suffering would occur.

The justification was that the evil would be limited in both scope and time and the resulting moral education with it's sifting into those who would chose good would have eternal beneficial effects.


Good journey to you Viole


Clear
σεακσιω

 

[thomas t]

I believe this story to be highly consistent. Logically.

That is not what I asked. What I asked is: is it possible for something to be right and evil, for isntance?

Ah, this I don't know.

And if they could not tell between good and evil, how could the threat « if you disobey you will die « sort any effect? For what they knew, dying was maybe something good for them.

they knew it was wrong. That's enough to not eat the fruit, I think.

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting. Which also makes sense since Adam and Eve didn't physically die within a day and there is no hint that they were immortal to begin with.

I believe they would have become immortal had they eaten of the Tree of Life before God cast them out of the Garden, which is why God placed "Cherubims, and a flaming sword" in the way of their getting to the tree. Evidently this was a concern to Him so even though Adam and Eve did not die on the very day they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became subject to death at that time.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Technically, he did

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

Did God say that?

Technically, the lie was in the question.

However, through ignorance, she fell for the lie as he had a hook in the bait.

Technically he was planting an idea in her head by making her think whether it is what God really said. But I would class that under manipulation not lying.

 

[viole]

Ah, this I don't know.

I postulate that there cannot be anything that is morally right and evil at the same time. Ergo, their lack of knowledge of good and evil is de-facto equivalent to their knowledge of right and wrong. So, they were not morally responsible for their decision, considering that the knowledge thereof could only be acquired post-hoc.

Another question. Do we have that knowledge? If yes, was that inherited by Adam and Eve via some sort of hereditary transmission, or some form of reincarnation? I ask because I never had to eat any forbidden apple.

I actually hate apples: if God had created Adam and Viole, instead of Adam and Eve, we will probably still be having fun in a magic and awesome garden, with vegetarian T-Rexes and all, forever.

Ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

Ergo, their lack of knowledge of good and evil is de-facto equivalent to their knowledge of right and wrong. So, they were not morally responsible for their decision, considering that the knowledge thereof could only be acquired post-hoc.

I kindly stay with my opinion:
the use of the Hebrew word referred to as adversity in English Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity points to the difference between good and bad rather than right/wrong.

Another question. Do we have that knowledge? If yes, was that inherited by Adam and Eve via some sort of hereditary transmission, or some form of reincarnation? I ask because I never had to eat any forbidden apple.

In my opinion, we do have access to this knowledge. Adam passed that knowledge on to his children, and they would teach their children... up to the present day,
every parent wants their children to suceed (good) instead of suffering a loss in status (bad).
I think it is this knowledge that the tree was about.
And even if parents don't teach you, your friends will, or your sibblings, ... or your grand parents.
They all have the recipe for succes for you.
And they offer it for free.

I love apples by the way.

 

[Brian2]

Where does it say that Eve ate the tree of life in the first place? It was never mentioned until they exited the garden.

God also says that if they eat from the tree of life then they would live forever, so does that mean that they didn't eat from it yet or did they have to eat from it continuously?

Adam and Eve became like God knowing good and evil, which is what God says. Did he fear that?

It does not say Eve ate of the tree of life. I did not say it said that. That was the tree that would have kept them alive if they had eaten it's fruit.
I don't know about the forever or continuously bit.
I don't think God feared that Adam and Eve knew good and evil. God knew it was going to happen. I think that God would have gradually introduced good and evil to Adam and Eve, but being introduced to it by actually doing evil sort of messed things up inside Adam and Eve and they weren't able to continue on in life without participating in evil, and some people would be completely overcome with it and do evil all the time in their thoughts and life. (hence the flood)
God could not just let them go on living forever with this tendency. God had to make sure they died even if He wanted to save as many people as possible eventually and not without a mechanism to reverse the harm that Satan had initiate in humans by introducing them to evil through the practice of evil.

 

[Kenny]

Technically he was planting an idea in her head by making her think whether it is what God really said. But I would class that under manipulation not lying.

You could list it as manipulation... but that could be a "disguised" lie. Regardless... it was Eve adding to what God said that ultimately culminated the deception. Incidentally, scripture does say she was deceived. Deception gives the understanding of lying.

 

[moorea944]

You could list it as manipulation... but that could be a "disguised" lie. Regardless... it was Eve adding to what God said that ultimately culminated the deception. Incidentally, scripture does say she was deceived. Deception gives the understanding of lying.

Sure it does. Scripture does tell us that Eve was deceived. 1 Tim 2 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Adam knew it was wrong, Eve didnt.

 

[Katzpur]

I postulate that there cannot be anything that is morally right and evil at the same time. Ergo, their lack of knowledge of good and evil is de-facto equivalent to their knowledge of right and wrong. So, they were not morally responsible for their decision, considering that the knowledge thereof could only be acquired post-hoc.

I'm having a hard time believing it, but I actually agree with you 100% on this.

I actually hate apples: if God had created Adam and Viole, instead of Adam and Eve, we will probably still be having fun in a magic and awesome garden, with vegetarian T-Rexes and all, forever.

I'm definitely not crazy about apples myself. I've always said that I could have easily stayed away from an apple tree (which, of course, the fruit is never actually said to be), but if God had put me there with a raspberry bush, I'd have been a goner.

 

[WhoIsBeast 750]

in terms of interpretation
and a woman (church) and a man (man) talk about man and the church
and the woman deceived the man
or at best the church has succumbed to the people
you do not know the truth even though you say it or you do not know what the last prophet is or nothing if you want to understand it you will begin to purify all religions
and rococones are not they are called into the pedigree it was given by ancestors and when it comes to names something is really a name and something is a parable
Like Adam and Eve there is a parable
Don't be loved imagine a jigsaw puzzle of the Holy Letter scattered word in all the books
therefore they wrote and scattered the branches and learned to graft the tree
There is talk of a book and words, and it is iniquity, and they have paid off and paid for it
spoiled the world that has no hope of survival if you are interested in what is happening at the moment according to the font according to the chronology of the unsealed book I'll tell you it didn't make me a problem unlike the rabbi and those who know the secret
exactly a third of the world will die of the plague and the people who do not die of the plague will be slashed by wars and those who survive will be small
for a long time God gave him time to repent but they did not want so he did not force anyone and her fornication is scattered in all chapters of the verse
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna; I will give him a white stone, and a new name is written on it, which no one knows but the one who receives it. "
you hear me hear what the spirit says to the church to the one who rises ladies clean from a hidden word and I give him white stones and on that stone is written a new name that no one knows but the one who arrives
Revelation 15: 4 Who is not afraid of thee, O Lord, and giveth not the glory of thy name: for thou art the only Holy One; all nations shall come and bow down before thee; for thy righteous judgments are made manifest.
no one writes about Jesus' name even though the Christian advises everything they say that Jesus is not there his name is a prophet
And if you really want to open a scripture saint it's not enough for you to clean one book
for the god of men deceived in their own religion (and sent new prophets) and the word how they wanted to deceive God and plotted themselves caught themselves in them
therefore, here is an example
nesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. It will crush your head, and you will crush his heel. "
Genesis 3:16 16 And he said unto the woman, I will greatly multiply thy affliction and sorrow of pregnancy;
Revelation 12: 1 And there appeared a great sign in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
Revelation 12: 2 And the woman was with child, and cried in pain, because her hour was come.
there is talk of a sign in heaven
and a sealed book
Revelation 5: 1 And in the right hand of him that sitteth upon the throne, I saw a book fully described, sealed with seven seals.
Ezekiel 2:10 And he put it before me, and it was described both within and without; lamentation, lamentation, and lamentation were written thereon.
don't let me love this math formula
and of him that shall come, his name was hidden until he came
from it comes what he said (his name was pronounced before the creation of everything) and also that he was hidden from everyone (the scroll of Enoch the new law only confirms this)

 

[Brian2]

I postulate that there cannot be anything that is morally right and evil at the same time. Ergo, their lack of knowledge of good and evil is de-facto equivalent to their knowledge of right and wrong. So, they were not morally responsible for their decision, considering that the knowledge thereof could only be acquired post-hoc.

Another question. Do we have that knowledge? If yes, was that inherited by Adam and Eve via some sort of hereditary transmission, or some form of reincarnation? I ask because I never had to eat any forbidden apple.

I actually hate apples: if God had created Adam and Viole, instead of Adam and Eve, we will probably still be having fun in a magic and awesome garden, with vegetarian T-Rexes and all, forever.

Ciao

- viole

What does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil mean?
Was it a head knowledge or was it an experiential knowledge.
They seemed to have only one prohibition. They were not to eat of that tree, and they probably knew that to eat it would be the wrong thing to do. They ate it and they then knew experientially what evil felt like. It felt bad for them, they hid from God because they had done it, they felt guilty and naked, ashamed for the first time.

 

[viole]

What does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil mean?
Was it a head knowledge or was it an experiential knowledge.
They seemed to have only one prohibition. They were not to eat of that tree, and they probably knew that to eat it would be the wrong thing to do. They ate it and they then knew experientially what evil felt like. It felt bad for them, they hid from God because they had done it, they felt guilty and naked, ashamed for the first time.

But how could they know it was wrong?

Do you mean, that was the tree of experiential knowledge, and not of general knowledge?
Apart from this being a complicated rationalisation for something that has no obvious explanation (actually, with only one very simple, and obvious explanation), I wonder why would God forbid to eat from it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

But how could they know it was wrong?

Do you mean, that was the tree of experiential knowledge, and not of general knowledge?
Apart from this being a complicated rationalisation for something that has no obvious explanation (actually, with only one very simple, and obvious explanation), I wonder why would God forbid to eat from it.

Ciao

- viole

It is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They may have known about the existence of good and evil, but the experienced it when they ate from the tree, because this is the one that God said they should not eat from.
I don't think it was a special magical sort of tree whose fruit gave them a certain knowledge. It could have been any type of fruit and to have something forbidden them would give them a bit of practice resisting any temptation to eat the fruit and let God know if they were ready to eat from the tree of life.

 

[viole]

It is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They may have known about the existence of good and evil, but the experienced it when they ate from the tree, because this is the one that God said they should not eat from.
I don't think it was a special magical sort of tree whose fruit gave them a certain knowledge. It could have been any type of fruit and to have something forbidden them would give them a bit of practice resisting any temptation to eat the fruit and let God know if they were ready to eat from the tree of life.

That does not add up. Knowing that good and evil exist, but lacking knowledge of what is what is useless. Also the threat they received is useless. For, how could they know that dying, or whatever happened to them if they ate the fruit, is not good?
I can imagine it went like this

Adam: That looks like a nice apple
God: That is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Adam: Why such a complicated name? Apple tree would be simpler.
God: Because you know there are things like good and evil, but you have no epistemology to tell which is which. I don't give names randomly, you know? SO, if I called it that, it means it gives you that knowledge
Adam: Cool, I like to learn new things
God: Don't even think about it. If you eat it, you will die
Adam: Cool. Dying sounds exciting, even though I have no idea what it means. Did you see someone else dying Eve? We could be the first
God: no no. Dying is not good.
Adam: I have to trust you to tell me what is good and not good. But if I do, why do I need a tree? Incidentally, if I am in your image, assuming you did not mean my physical hairless gorilla look, why don't I know already?
etc

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

That does not add up. Knowing that good and evil exist, but lacking knowledge of what is what is useless. Also the threat they received is useless. For, how could they know that dying, or whatever happened to them if they ate the fruit, is not good?
I can imagine it went like this

Adam: That looks like a nice apple
God: That is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Adam: Why such a complicated name? Apple tree would be simpler.
God: Because you know there are things like good and evil, but you have no epistemology to tell which is which. I don't give names randomly, you know? SO, if I called it that, it means it gives you that knowledge
Adam: Cool, I like to learn new things
God: Don't even think about it. If you eat it, you will die
Adam: Cool. Dying sounds exciting, even though I have no idea what it means. Did you see someone else dying Eve? We could be the first
God: no no. Dying is not good.
Adam: I have to trust you to tell me what is good and not good. But if I do, why do I need a tree? Incidentally, if I am in your image, assuming you did not mean my physical hairless gorilla look, why don't I know already?
etc

Ciao

- viole

The evil of eating the fruit was not just in the eating, it went deeper than that and the eating showed a lack of trust in God, the one who made them and gave them all they had, and a preference to trust someone else with a message they preferred to hear.
Adam took his chances and found that God was right and meant what He had said.
In our ignorance also we can think we know it all and ignore what God has told us..........especially these days when even the existence of God is rubbished by a vocal minority in the wold.

 

[Muffled]

Technically the serpent didn't lie to Eve.

1. Eve didn't die by eating the fruit. Nowhere in the account is her death recorded. We do not know when she died.

2. The Serpent was right that by eating the fruit, Eve would be like God, knowing good and evil. Even God agreed, which is why he stopped them from eating from the tree of life.

God punished The Serpent for revealing the truth.

So says the devils advocate...

Things that I don't care about:
- Proof texting. Rather focus on context. I hate retcons.
- Other biblical books besides the Torah/Pentateuch.
- Your faith. I care about what the text says.

I am very interested in hearing Jewish interpretation of these verse.

Jewish and Christian commentaries are allowed.

Note: Changed Satan to Serpent.

I believe it is magnanimous of you to include Christian in this biblical debate.

I believe the lack of information about Eve does not mean that she didn't die. The truth is that after eating the fruit they no longer had eternal life and did die.

 

[Muffled]

the catch word .....Serpent
is NOT a description of form

it is notation of character

I believe Quetzalcoatl is representative of a serpent god.

 

[Thief]

So the serpent caused their death

nay

the target the serpent desired was the death in spirit

Man was made to die......always

eternal life is in spirit

acquisition of knowledge first
life AFTER death