EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[thomas t]

My apologies. It's the sort of thing that happens when I get exasperated from having to repeat myself.

well, I could back my point up several times, showing you in Strong's Dictionary that the word used for evil is the word for evil in the sense of bad.
After, you reiterated yourself again and again that it must be evil in the sense of wrong.
Regardless of what the dictionary has to say concerning the word used for describing the tree of knowledge.

You had to reiterate yourself again and again in order for your "contradiction" to still hold water, it seems ....

Ironically, you still keep on reiterating yourself effortlessly expressing your view that the tree was about the knowledge of right and wrong...

For goodness' sake! Don't you know what 'knowledge of good and evil' means? Don't you understand that Eve through no fault of her own did not have that knowledge?

Eve, with no perception of right and wrong, hence of deceit, simply believed it.

 

[blü 2]

After, you reiterated yourself again and again that it must be evil in the sense of wrong.

Of course. No other interpretation makes sense. Eve knew it wasn't 'good' to stub her toe on a rock, that strawberries taste 'good' and dirt tastes 'bad' ─ that was not the knowledge that God kept from her.

Regardless of what the dictionary has to say concerning the word used for describing the tree of knowledge.

Now now, not in the slightest regardless, but persuaded 14 to nothing (in the end 15-1) of expert translations.

You had to reiterate yourself again and again in order for your "contradiction" to still hold water

What contradiction? I'm the one who's stuck to what the text actually says.

And you're the apologist, the defense attorney, who's forbidden to admit any departure from the party line, even when it's right there on the page. Because if you could do that, if you were in search of the truth, you wouldn't be an apologist and you'd feel insulted if someone said you were,

 

[Brian2]

All of it is in similitudes and adumbrations. Thats why it was written: There is no new thing under the sun.

Nature repeats itself and man uses things that happen naturally to make things. Man does seem to create new purposes for natural processes however and God can bring completely new things to the earth.

If Jesus His Pre-Eminence is the second Adam, then why do you think Adam failed or sinned against GOD? If there is no new thing under the sun, how is what Jesus His Pre-Eminence did new? And then how is transfiguration new; how is being born again new? How did Enoch and Elijah enter heaven if they were not born again?

We don't know that Enoch or Elijah entered heaven, the may have gone elsewhere.
As I said, God brings new things.
Jesus is the second Adam who did what the first could not do. He lived a sinless life and was able to be the sacrifice without blemish, acceptable to God for the redemption and ransom of humanity. Why do you say that Adam did not sin when the Bible clearly says that he did?

The events that really happened in the Garden of Eden, really happened; they just didn't happen as Moses said they did. For Moses lifted up the serpent in that story, and made out like the seraph (the serpent) was telling the truth, and GOD was not. That story is not what happened. That is why in the wilderness, GOD told Moses to make a brazen serpent coiled around a pole, and everyone that was bitten by a snake, should look at that for their healing, showing that he lifted up the serpent.

It sounds as if you don't believe parts of the Bible and twist other parts. If that is adumbration then it is making God out to be a liar.
It is certainly easier and more sure to believe what is written than to make it allegories and making connections which make one part of the Bible disagree with other parts.
That is one way to know that your understanding of the Bible is faulty,,,,,,,,when one interpretation means that you have to alter the meaning of something else and go from place to place in a chain doing that.
In the end you have something completely different to what the plain meaning in scripture tells us.
Why not go back and start from the beginning and just believe without the allegories.

 

[Yahcubs777]

Nature repeats itself and man uses things that happen naturally to make things. Man does seem to create new purposes for natural processes however and God can bring completely new things to the earth.



We don't know that Enoch or Elijah entered heaven, the may have gone elsewhere.
As I said, God brings new things.
Jesus is the second Adam who did what the first could not do. He lived a sinless life and was able to be the sacrifice without blemish, acceptable to God for the redemption and ransom of humanity. Why do you say that Adam did not sin when the Bible clearly says that he did?



It sounds as if you don't believe parts of the Bible and twist other parts. If that is adumbration then it is making God out to be a liar.
It is certainly easier and more sure to believe what is written than to make it allegories and making connections which make one part of the Bible disagree with other parts.
That is one way to know that your understanding of the Bible is faulty,,,,,,,,when one interpretation means that you have to alter the meaning of something else and go from place to place in a chain doing that.
In the end you have something completely different to what the plain meaning in scripture tells us.
Why not go back and start from the beginning and just believe without the allegories.

No, it means that everything is either a similitude or an adumbration concerning the LOGOS..

We do know. Enoch was taken by GOD into heaven. Elijah entered into heaven. And neither of them died at all; they transfigured in life.

 

[Brian2]

Quote me the part that says what you say. I can find nothing of the kind in my copy.

The judges are people God raised up to defend different parts of Israel at various times before the time of the Kings. What they did apart from that is not God's responsibility. But I can see why you might say that because God knew Jephthah's daughter would come out first then it is God who sacrificed the daughter. Wrong thinking however imo.

Yes, that's often used. However, the primary meaning of the verb used, yaqa, is. says Strong,

There are options in Strongs as to the means of death but that is not the point.

​

Yes, of course, He told David just that; and only when it was done did [he] lift the famine. I've told you all that already.
God was already punishing Israel for the blood guilt of Saul's reign with a famine. The Gibeonites came and the consequence was that God lifted the famine which may have gone on a lot longer otherwise.

God told David why there was a famine and David came to a settlement about what would satisfy them. It was in David's hands how he handled things.

My apologies. It's the sort of thing that happens when I get exasperated from having to repeat myself.

Yes it is easy to get exasperated from having to repeat oneself.

 

[thomas t]

Now now, not in the slightest regardless, but persuaded 14 to nothing (in the end 15-1) of expert translations.

I answered this already!
I wrote:

only if you assume that the tree of knowledge must mean knowing right from wrong.
We have discussed it, already.
Your scholars say: knowledge about good and evil.
And you have nothing in your hands to rule out that it was evil in the sense of bad.

see above. It could mean evil in the sense of bad

[...]

Please don't make me go round in circles with you again.

how often do I have to repeat myself?
Even before, I answered this already repeating myself at that point already:

I answered it in the previous post.
I permit myself to copy-paste, as I did last time you reiterated yourself:

...in blue color bolding the important parts

ok.
But that was not the question.
Evil in what sense?

please stop going round in circles with me!

It's so rude to just step over what I said already, ignore it, and pretend you can still uphold your point.


Two other points from your post I answered already, too:

Regarding your argument that I am the "defense attorney":

you're bringing forward the accusation against God for witholding knowledge that would have been necessary for a dilemma they were supposed to solve.

As in court: the onus is on the side that accuses.
Let God profit from the benefit of the doubt here, please.
Same rules for God, too.

later you pretended that knowing right from wrong was purprotedly the only interpretation that made sense (as you did in this post here)... but see below:

regarding feeling pain vs knowledge about pain I wrote this already:

With regards to your example with feeling pain: feeling something does not necessarily imply knowledge about it, as I see it.

I had to copy-paste what I've already said three times now...

your only new point in your post is this

What contradiction?

I meant your whole point: that God did something wrong in withholding knowledge of right and *wrong* (which is what you claim to be what the text "actually says")

EDITED to add last paragraph

 

[blü 2]

The judges are people God raised up to defend different parts of Israel at various times before the time of the Kings.

So you agree you just made up the part about Jephthah already being a Judge of Israel when God made that deal with him. This is progress.

God told David why there was a famine and David came to a settlement about what would satisfy them. It was in David's hands how he handled things.

You're trying to impose your meaning on the text. What it says is what I told you first up ─ God sent the famine because, as [he] told David, of Saul's blood guilt. And God only lifted the famine AFTER the impalement of the descendants of Saul ─ that is, AFTER God got what [he] wanted.

 

[blü 2]

I answered this already!
I wrote:

Let the record show you choose to be an unregenerate apologist.

Your sins upon your head, then.

Me, I'll keep looking for what's textually and historically true and leave you to look after the party line.

Live long and prosper, amigo!

 

[Brian2]

We do know. Enoch was taken by GOD into heaven. Elijah entered into heaven. And neither of them died at all; they transfigured in life.

Neither are said to have gone to heaven.
at 2 Chron 21:12 it even has King Jehoram receiving a letter from Elijah many years after his ascent of the ladder. This does not mean that Elijah was still around but John 3:13 tells us that no one has ascended to heaven at any time. Where Enoch and Elijah went is not stated but I would say it was not heaven.

 

[Brian2]

So you agree you just made up the part about Jephthah already being a Judge of Israel when God made that deal with him. This is progress.

The Spirit of God came on him in verse 29 and that was what pushed him to go to the battle. He made the vow in verse 30 and had no reason to except for being uncertain of a victory.

You're trying to impose your meaning on the text. What it says is what I told you first up ─ God sent the famine because, as [he] told David, of Saul's blood guilt. And God only lifted the famine AFTER the impalement of the descendants of Saul ─ that is, AFTER God got what [he] wanted.

God sent the famine because of the blood guilt and told David that. David wanted to end the famine and maybe to sort out grudges that the Gibeonites may have had. They were satisfied and so was God since He ended the famine. What David negotiated with the Gibeonites was between them. It does not say that God wanted the deaths but God would have known what was going to happen. God was bringing some sort of justice with the famine and no doubt wanted David to deal with the situation personally and not let those suffer who had personally nothing to do with the situation.

 

[blü 2]

The Spirit of God came on him in verse 29 and that was what pushed him to go to the battle. He made the vow in verse 30 and had no reason to except for being uncertain of a victory.

None of that made him a Judge of Israel. That came after he'd won. Which is the point we were discussing.

God sent the famine because of the blood guilt and told David that.

Yes. [He} told David to get it sorted.

David wanted to end the famine and maybe to sort out grudges that the Gibeonites may have had. They were satisfied and so was God since He ended the famine.

Yes. The sons of Saul were impaled "before the Lord" and this pleased God, so [he] ended the famine.

Human sacrifice, and once again happening exactly as God intended.

 

[1213]

No. Beforehand, the snake informed Eve that she would not die. And this was accurate information, whether or not it had to be. Eve, with no perception of right and wrong, hence of deceit, simply believed it.
....

Basically, you are saying Eve didn’t die. So, if she still lives, where we can find her?

Interesting question is also, why didn’t she believe God, but instead of the serpent?

 

[Yahcubs777]

Neither are said to have gone to heaven.
at 2 Chron 21:12 it even has King Jehoram receiving a letter from Elijah many years after his ascent of the ladder. This does not mean that Elijah was still around but John 3:13 tells us that no one has ascended to heaven at any time. Where Enoch and Elijah went is not stated but I would say it was not heaven.

No, John 3:13 says: For no man has ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.

Now Christians claim that Jesus His Pre-Eminence is the Son of Man. But HE has said the Son of Man is in heaven, while HE is in the earth.

Elijah is the Son of Man, who descedend from the fathers Bososm, and ascended into heaven.
Enoch, also descedend from the fathers Bosom, and ascended into heaven.

What was being revealed here, is that if you are not a descendant, meaning that GOD sent your Spirit Being, programmed in the soul, into the physical body that you picked up in your biological mothers womb, then you are not a descendant, you are an ascendant, and cannot enter into heaven. See the parable of wheats and tares Matt 13:24-30

The Proof is in Mark 9, where Moses who died, and Elijah who never died, both went to the Mountain of olives, transfigured, and Jesus His Pre-Eminence transfigured. And the proof of that is Aposltle Peter saw them as Equals, and said: Let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elijah, is proof they were in heaven, with their transfigured bodies. And then we found by Jude, that Arch Angel Michael came for Moses, which means he was not buried. Though he did taste death, he was not buried. Jude 1:9

Enoch, it was only written that GOD took him. Then saul gave his own interpretations on that. Enoch transfigured in life, but it was hidden from us. And then Nimrod tried to build a tower that will reach heaven. Why? What was he trying to achieve? Nimrod, was not a servant of GOD,Nimrod was a wizard, a hunter of souls who married his own biological mother trying to create a special child that will stand against the seed of the woman said to crush them.

So wheredid Nimrod get the idea to do this? And they wrote wrongly, that it moved GOD to now confuse everyone, giving them different tongues and languages. A Blaspehemy against the Character of the Most Holy Spirit of GOD. For GOD is not an author of confusion. So there is much more to that story. But, why did Nimrod try to build it, what was he trying to achieve?
Nimrod built 4 cities: Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh in the land Shinar. Why?

Look at the journey that Moses and Joshua took to the Promised Land, and also the Journey sign posted in 2 kings 2 by Elijah.
Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho, Jordan. 4 Again.

Then look at the systems of babylon that was also:
Babylon, Medes Persia, Grecia, Rome.

What Nimrod was trying to achieve, was to build a tower that will reach heaven alive, which the building of it begins in babel, because he attained teachings and messages coded about the kind of body that is 60 ft tall, that when that body is built, you can reach heaven alive, and that is transfiguration. That is why they said things like: we must burn the bricks thoroughly. Compare that to Moses talking about burning the fat of the sacrifice. But Nimrod,and his cohorts (unholy alliance with tare Cherubim/Seraphim, and Angels) could not understand the nucleus, the hidden Revelations in those teachings. They saw (Speaking of lucifer and his cohorts) Enoch transfigure,and tried to replicate it. But those teachings were sealed; written in Prophetic Language, and that landed them in confusion.

At that time in the earth, there was one language, which was edens language, and the Cherubim and Seraphim, Angels also spoke Edens Language, but in their own tongue. So GOD pluralised that Language, so that they could not conspire, communicate with celestial beings anymore, and so that every man would spread accross the earth, for it is the WIll of GOD that they spread and populate the earth.

Enoch, And Elijah, the Great Prophets, transfigured in life, without dying at all.

 

[Yahcubs777]

So you agree you just made up the part about Jephthah already being a Judge of Israel when God made that deal with him. This is progress.
You're trying to impose your meaning on the text. What it says is what I told you first up ─ God sent the famine because, as [he] told David, of Saul's blood guilt. And God only lifted the famine AFTER the impalement of the descendants of Saul ─ that is, AFTER God got what [he] wanted.

This is not exactly true. GOD doesn't send famines. I know thise sounds contrary to what the bible says, but when you understand the Laws of cause and effect; the laws of justification which GOD ordered, and set in operation in the earth, you will begin to understand what Jesus His Pre-Eminence meant when HE said:

Whatsoever ye would that men do to you, do so even to them: For that is the Law and the Prophet.

So whenever there is a famine, or some sort of calamity, it is because that is what the people called for, in their words and deeds. Which means the Law of justification in effect, that awards Man according to his works, is what brings the famine, or any calamity, except that of the thing that Elijah did, which was very different.

Just as it was written: Moses said: GOD said to let HIS people go. And Pharoah ignored that divine warning, and it brought plagues to his nation. This is the law of justification. And Moses messages is what brought the plagues. For GOD said to Moses: I have made thee a god unto pharoah, and they brother Aaron, thy Prophet.

Duetteronomy 28, a badly misinterpreted chapter by the church, is the GOD revealing to them the forces that are against them, the Laws of justification which are in effect. GOD does not bless and curse with the same mouth. But Moses being in the similitude of the body, was not able to reach the height of the Prophet in understanding, For the Prophet is in the similitudes of the Spirit; the Law is in the similitude of the body; for the laws are what are recognising the body, not the Spirit.

So, GOD was revealing to them, what will happen if they do not do as HE commanded them, because there is the Law of justification; and there are the enemies of the Mankind Race, which are principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world...Not that GOD sent evil to them that is WRONG!

 

[blü 2]

Basically, you are saying Eve didn’t die. So, if she still lives, where we can find her?

No, I'm saying what the text says.

God's threat is "for in the day that you eat of it you will die". And she eats of it, and just as the snake says, she doesn't die, that day or anywhere in the immediate future.

As for the long term, she was always going to die (Genesis 3:22-3).

 

[Yahcubs777]

No, I'm saying what the text says.

God's threat is "for in the day that you eat of it you will die". And she eats of it, and just as the snake says, she doesn't die, that day or anywhere in the immediate future.

As for the long term, she was always going to die (Genesis 3:22-3).

It's not a threat, it's a caution.

 

[blü 2]

This is not exactly true. GOD doesn't send famines.

Who is theologically responsible for famines, then?

I know thise sounds contrary to what the bible says, but when you understand the Laws of cause and effect; the laws of justification which GOD ordered, and set in operation in the earth, you will begin to understand what Jesus His Pre-Eminence meant when HE said:

Whatsoever ye would that men do to you, do so even to them: For that is the Law and the Prophet.

The Golden Rule, versions of which are found in ancient cultures long before Yahweh was around. It arises from the evolved morality of H sap sap as gregarious primates, and includes dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, conscience and the capacity for empathy.

So whenever there is a famine, or some sort of calamity, it is because that is what the people called for, in their words and deeds.

That idea is embraced after the event by eg the authors of Isaiah to account for their defeat by the Babylonians and the resulting captivity. It's not found in the earlier parts, where these stories come from.

Just as it was written: Moses said: GOD said to let HIS people go. And Pharoah ignored that divine warning, and it brought plagues to his nation.

But you'll notice that Pharaoh didn't choose to ignore the pleas of Moses ─ God intervened to make Pharaoh ignore them (Exodus 7:3-4).

Human sacrifice was part of the deal in those days. It's found in other Semitic religions at the time, the Greeks and the Romans occasionally did it, and more recently God thought it was a great idea for Jesus,

 

[blü 2]

It's not a threat, it's a caution.

Quite right. My error.

 

[Yahcubs777]

They wrote it was GOD who hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it was pointing to the Word of GOD that hardened his heart. Like Jesus His Pre-Eminence said: My Word does not abide in you.

 

[Yahcubs777]

The Golden Rule, versions of which are found in ancient cultures long before Yahweh was around. It arises from the evolved morality of H sap sap as gregarious primates, and includes dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, conscience and the capacity for empathy

Whatsoever ye would that men do to you. Do so even unto them. For that is the Law and the Prophet.



The above is not the golden rule, or morality; this is justice. It has nothing to do with high moral standards exactly. It has to do with what you sowed by what you said or did, is what you reap.