EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[Harel13]

*Looks at picture of Yehudit on wall*

I fail to see the connection. There was no battle of egos there.

 

[Rival]

I fail to see the connection. There was no battle of egos there.

Heroes.

 

[blü 2]

God's law at the time was that they should not eat the fruit of the tree and the penalty was given.

As I said before, it's not phrased as a law ─ it's phrased as a warning. Don't eat the fruit because you'll die the same day, NOT, Don't eat the fruit because I dang well said so!

And even it were phrased as a law, that would make no difference to Eve's ability to sin ─ having through no fault of her own no knowledge of good and evil, she was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong, hence was incapable of sin.

Yes the purpose was to get them away from the tree of life so they would not live forever. (It looks like God knew that they would live longer than a day it seems)

God knew that because it was a ─ polite choice of words ─ "bluff" on [his] part ─ the snake was right on the money.

There is nothing in there about motive except that God did not want them living forever now that they knew good and evil.

And thus threatened to "become like one of us". God was protecting [his] own position, both here and in the Babel story, out loud and unashamed.

That made them like God in that way but there was never any question that we humans could become the rivals of God.

God (in the story) disagrees with you, plain as can be.

What? Vindictive towards His Son?

Crucifying your own son when being omnipotent you could achieve whatever you wanted to achieve without bloodshed ─ that sounds like sheer self-indulgence, doesn't it?

We are told pretty much that God could not achieve what He wanted with a snap of the fingers. But you insist He could. I guess you must know.

Yes, I know for two reasons ─ first I know what "omnipotence" and "omniscience" mean.

And second, no one seems able to tell me what was different in reality after Jesus' death ─ it apparently has no point other than to be a human sacrifice to God, as engineered by God.

 

[blü 2]

only if you assume that the tree of knowledge must mean knowing right from wrong.

I don't assume it, I read it off the page.

We have discussed it, already. / Please don't make me go round in circles with you again.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[blü 2]

Please explain, if that is true, how then she could say this:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food…
Gen. 3:6

Because 'good and evil' refers to moral knowledge, not just to knowing that it hurts if you stub your toe, or that strawberries taste better than dirt.

 

[Brian2]

You obviously haven't read it.

Judges 11:29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites.
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering."
32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them;​

Note that the Spirit of the Lord was on Jephthah when he made that vow. Jephthah, we assume, had no idea who'd first come through the door. God, we assume, did. And so knowing ─

[32] and the LORD gave them into his hand.
​

And when Jephthah carries out his part of the vow, God raises him up to be Judge (Boss) of the show:

Judges 12:7 Jephthah judged Israel six years.​

God had already made Jephthah to be a judge, that is why the Spirit of God was on him, and for no reason other than to be a judge. That does not mean that he did not sin or make silly decisions in his life. Look at Samson. God used Jephthah and Samson even and others even though they were flawed humans.
​

Who told David [he]'d sent the famine because of Saul's blood-debt to the Gibeonites?

Who knew in advance what the Gibeonites would ask for?

Who looked on while the sons of Saul died by impalement?

Who, only after that was done, lifted the famine?

You know the answer to those questions is, God. So who set up these human sacrifices of innocent people and saw to it they were carried out?

Yup, you got it! ─ God.

They were hung according to my Bible. It was the Gibeonites who asked for the 7 descendants of Saul and it was David who gave them. Do you think that God is responsible for what the Gibeonites asked for and what David did?
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.

 

[Brian2]

You're the apologist, you're the defense attorney, you're the whatever-it-takes man here.

I don't require the documents to say one thing or another thing. My only concern is to find what they in fact say.

You demand whatever reading can be contrived to make the contradictions go away, Like the defense attorney, truth is not your aim. Truth is only something the defense attorney uses when it suits him.
Unbelievers have morality just as believers do. There are times, according to the customs you're dealing with, when it's appropriate to be naked, and times when it isn't. Clearly the morality of the Garden, which I assume reflects the morality of the Hebrews writing the story, requires modesty, the covering of at least the genitals. (Modesty of that kind is very usual around the world, both in advanced and primitive cultures.)

In post 150 and others I am quoted as saying something I don't think I said. I think the quote must have come from thomas t.
This sort of thing happens in other posts of yours where quotes of mine are attributed to others and visa versa. Whatever are you doing to make this happen? Could you avoid doing it if possible.

 

[Brian2]

If GOD didn't want Man to live forever, then why is it written that Enoch pleased GOD and lived without dying at all? And what of Elijah who also lived forever? And finally, what of the Gospel of Ever lasting Life that Jesus His Pre-Eminence preached.

What that was pointing to, is that if they then ate from the tree of life, the altar that was set for mortality, would be now reset to a higher degree of immortality than they had before the fall. And the reason that is not good, is because the Fall of Man was needed for the Procreation of the Mankind Race. So here it is simplified.

1. Man before the fall could not die. Else eating the fruit that would cause death doesn't make sense. And stating that Man is like GOD but can die is also a blasphemy against GOD.
2. Man in the fall can now die.

If they now ate from the tree of life, it would have brought them not to the state before the fall, to a state where the fall is no longer possible.

Saul Paul preached a message in 1 Cor 15:50-56, and he revealed that Man must put off mortalilty, and corruption,and put on immortality, and incorruption.

That incorruption, is what im referring to here. That what they had before the fall was not at a level of immortality that the tree of life gives. If they ate from the tree of life, it would have been impossible to migrate the body once again to the state where procreation is possible... That is to say, that even if they ate from that tree called "The knowledge of good and evil" it would not be able to cause the fall again. That name is a parable, the actual name of the tree is the tree for procreation.

1. Man before the fall could not procreate, but can be altered to a state where procreation is possible.
2. man in the fall now has the kind of body that can procreate.
3. The tree of life would have made it impossible to procreate.

This was revealed in the lives of Sarah, and Mary, who both were not in state where Procreation was possible.Sarai was 90. After she fell pregnant, her name became Sarah, the mother of many. Like Father Adam said to Mother Eve, thou shalt be called Eve because thou art the mother of all the living. Yet, she had not had any children. What woman can conceive and give birth at that age of 90? Mary was 12, not even knowing a man. These Great Women of GOD were pointing to that body that could not procreate because the systems of their body were not in a state where procreation was possible.

And what made procreation possible is the blood cell system; the cell system that reproduces itself, the cell system that divides and can die. And that blood cannot inherit the kingdom. That blood is why the body is mortal. That is why it is when a woman menstruates for the first time, it is a sign that she can now conceive. Because the Woman is defining the body, the Man is defining the Spirit. (Epehsians 5).

So the reason why GOD did not let them eat from the tree of life, is because the fall was required to procreate. And that is the mission they were given: Be fruitful and multiply, and subdue the earth.

God wants as many as possible to have eternal life.
On day 6 God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth and this was before He told them about the tree they were not to eat from. I think they could procreate before the fall.
The fall of man meant that they were denied access to the tree of life. Before the fall they would have been able to die imo but would have been kept alive by the tree of life.
After eating the fruit they were said to be like God in that they knew good and evil, just as God does. There is no reason to say that humans were exactly like God before the fall.

 

[Brian2]

The Bible does mention other "gods," Brian. Even Paul says that while there are others who are called gods, to us there is only one God. That's what Mormons really believe. No other beings except God have anything to do with our universe. They had no part in creating it and have no part in controlling it today. But if you're going to deny the mere existence of other "gods," and explain them away as being "false gods" or "fake gods," you're going to have to explain what the Bible means when it speaks of God as being the "God of gods." Is He the God of false gods or the god of fake gods? Of course He isn't. Mormons worship the very same God you do. We may understand Him in somewhat different terms, but it's just not fair to make statement like the one you just did, which misrepresent our doctrine.

I don't think I am misrepresenting your doctrine, which from memory includes a whole pantheon of gods other than the God who made this universe. From memory to a Mormon this God is the only God "we have to do with". He is a God who is limited and once was not God.
The Godhead of the Mormon consists of 3 Gods.
And I am sure there are many other differences.
This is not the teaching of the Bible about God.

 

[Yahcubs777]

God wants as many as possible to have eternal life.
On day 6 God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth and this was before He told them about the tree they were not to eat from. I think they could procreate before the fall.
The fall of man meant that they were denied access to the tree of life. Before the fall they would have been able to die imo but would have been kept alive by the tree of life.
After eating the fruit they were said to be like God in that they knew good and evil, just as God does. There is no reason to say that humans were exactly like God before the fall.

GOD doesn't know evil. And HE revealed it when HE said:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

It wasn't the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that was a parable. But im not going to go into to much detail.

What makes you think they could procreate before the fall? It is written: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

AND

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Where did that image come from?

And my last question.

Why would GOD plant the kind of tree there that they can't eat? What was the purpose of the tree? GOD is all knowing, HE knew already that they would eat from it.

And how did Enoch please GOD, and return to heaven alive if Man was separated from GOD?

 

[Brian2]

As I said before, it's not phrased as a law ─ it's phrased as a warning. Don't eat the fruit because you'll die the same day, NOT, Don't eat the fruit because I dang well said so!

I gave you a link that explains that it is judicial warning. It was a command given in a judicial way.

And even it were phrased as a law, that would make no difference to Eve's ability to sin ─ having through no fault of her own no knowledge of good and evil, she was incapable of forming the intention to do wrong, hence was incapable of sin.

Eve could form the intent to go against what God had told her not to do. Thus she could sin.
Are you saying that an innocent child cannot do what is wrong even when they know it to be against the wishes of it's parents? A child certainly starts sinning at some stage in life. That shows that an innocent can do their first sin, their original sin.

Crucifying your own son when being omnipotent you could achieve whatever you wanted to achieve without bloodshed ─ that sounds like sheer self-indulgence, doesn't it?

Jesus prayed in Gethsemane. If it is possible take this cup from me. God did not because what Jesus did on the cross was needed.

Yes, I know for two reasons ─ first I know what "omnipotence" and "omniscience" mean.

And second, no one seems able to tell me what was different in reality after Jesus' death ─ it apparently has no point other than to be a human sacrifice to God, as engineered by God.

Do you think that omnipotence means that God can make a circle into a triangle without changing the shape of the triangle? God can do whatever is possible to do.
Your do not believe in Jesus and so you say the sacrifice was for nothing in the story. You refuse to see the changes in people's lives and the changes that have come to the attitudes of almost the whole world because of Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

What makes you think they could procreate before the fall?

What makes you think they could not? The command to fill the earth was given before the command to not eat from the tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is what the tree is called.

Why would GOD plant the kind of tree there that they can't eat? What was the purpose of the tree? GOD is all knowing, HE knew already that they would eat from it.

God also knew all things that would happen and could see the final outcome and could see that the end was worth it all.
God planted the tree in the garden as a test and maybe as training and who knows, maybe He would have allowed them to eat from it after a time.

And how did Enoch please GOD, and return to heaven alive if Man was separated from GOD?

Enoch was a good boy who trusted and walked with God.
Man is not completely separated from God. Man calls to God and God reaches out to man.

 

[Yahcubs777]

What makes you think they could not? The command to fill the earth was given before the command to not eat from the tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is what the tree is called.



God also knew all things that would happen and could see the final outcome and could see that the end was worth it all.
God planted the tree in the garden as a test and maybe as training and who knows, maybe He would have allowed them to eat from it after a time.



Enoch was a good boy who trusted and walked with God.
Man is not completely separated from God. Man calls to God and God reaches out to man.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. There is a tree of life that was mentioned. What does the tree of life give to someone? What kind of fruit was it? Do know that to claim they had no wisdom is a blasphemy against GOD? GOD said that they were made after HIS image and HIS likenes. The tree was planted for them to eat from, to migrate their physical body to mortality so that procreation can be possible.

Enoch is a Man not a good boy. Enoch lived 365 years. Man was never separated from GOD , what separated us from heaven is the mortal body.

GOD speaks in parables, so that them hearing will not understand. For it is not given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. GOD was telling them what that fruit would cause. And what it caused was mortality, which is the reason why the tree was planted. And all of this took place in the Garden of Eden, which is in Eden, the heavens world for Mankind.

 

[Brian2]

Ye shall know them by their fruits. There is a tree of life that was mentioned. What does the tree of life give to someone? What kind of fruit was it? Do know that to claim they had no wisdom is a blasphemy against GOD? GOD said that they were made after HIS image and HIS likenes. The tree was planted for them to eat from, to migrate their physical body to mortality so that procreation can be possible.

Enoch is a Man not a good boy. Enoch lived 365 years. Man was never separated from GOD , what separated us from heaven is the mortal body.

GOD speaks in parables, so that them hearing will not understand. For it is not given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. GOD was telling them what that fruit would cause. And what it caused was mortality, which is the reason why the tree was planted. And all of this took place in the Garden of Eden, which is in Eden, the heavens world for Mankind.

The tree of life gave life so that if they ate from it Adam and Eve would not die.
I did not claim Adam and Eve had no wisdom/knowledge. However even Jesus grew in wisdom and stature.
Jesus spoke in parables but most of the Bible is not in parables.
You seem to want all the Bible to be in parables and allegory so that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

 

[Yahcubs777]

The tree of life gave life so that if they ate from it Adam and Eve would not die.
I did not claim Adam and Eve had no wisdom/knowledge. However even Jesus grew in wisdom and stature.
Jesus spoke in parables but most of the Bible is not in parables.
You seem to want all the Bible to be in parables and allegory so that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

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

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?

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.

And the way to know this, is in the life of dignitaries of the kingdiom. In the life of Samson for instance, whose life story was retelling of the fall of Man. The Life of Job; which is an allegory of the fall of Man. The life of King David, whose life was in the shoes of the Son of GOD, Adam. That is why he was called a man after GOD's own heart. And finally, in the life of Jesus His Pre-Eminence.

That is why Jesus His Pre-Eminence prayed those prayers in a Garden, because Father Adam prayed them in the Garden of Eden. That is why HE was betrayed with a kiss, pointing to what Mother Eve did. Notice in the life of Delilah, she discovered Samson's weakness from him, and then told the philistines. There is what that was pointing to, all pointing to the Garden of Eden where Mother Eve befriended the Seraph (serpent). All that Jesus His Pre-Eminence did in the shoes of the Son of GOD, HE did because Adam did them.

Jesus His Pre-Eminence is GOD, the GOD and Father of Adam. Adam means Man. HE came to Bail, as A bail (Abel) price, for the release of Father Adam and Mother Eve from prison (hell). For they were held by the Law of Procreation which HE stated in John 12:24 So what they needed was not resurrection only, but a bail price to be freed from Prison. And that Bail Price has to step into the shoes of the Son of GOD, so that the Law holding them would scan HIM out to be the Son of GOD, and take HIM, releasing Adam and Mother Eve.

That is why GOD came in the shoes of the Son of GOD.

 

[blü 2]

God had already made Jephthah to be a judge, that is why the Spirit of God was on him, and for no reason other than to be a judge.

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

They were hung according to my Bible.

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

properly, to sever oneself, i.e. (by implication) to be dislocated; figuratively, to abandon; causatively, to impale (and thus allow to drop to pieces by rotting):—be alienated, depart, hang (up), be out of joint.properly, to sever oneself, i.e. (by implication) to be dislocated; figuratively, to abandon; causatively, to impale (and thus allow to drop to pieces by rotting):—be alienated, depart, hang (up), be out of joint.​

It was the Gibeonites who asked for the 7 descendants of Saul and it was David who gave them. Do you think that God is responsible for what the Gibeonites asked for and what David did?

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.

In post 150 and others I am quoted as saying something I don't think I said.

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

 

[blü 2]

Are you saying that an innocent child cannot do what is wrong even when they know it to be against the wishes of it's parents?

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?

Do you think that omnipotence means that God can make a circle into a triangle without changing the shape of the triangle?

I'd just redefine the meaning of 'circle' to solve that one. I don't know what tactic God would use.

you say the sacrifice was for nothing in the story.

NO. I asked you why Jesus' death was necessary. You haven't answered me. If you don't know, just say, "I don't know". If you know, tell me, because I certainly don't know.

And I asked you what changed in reality as a result of Jesus' death. You haven't answered that either. If you don't know, just say, "I don't know". If you know, tell me, because again I certainly don't know.

 

[1213]

Because 'good and evil' refers to moral knowledge, not just to knowing that it hurts if you stub your toe, or that strawberries taste better than dirt.

Sorry, I don’t see any meaningful difference there. They also had the knowledge what will happen if they do so, but didn’t believe it. And I think eating the fruit was not necessary evil, or it is not necessary to call it evil, it was just a choice that had painful consequences.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think I am misrepresenting your doctrine, which from memory includes a whole pantheon of gods other than the God who made this universe. From memory to a Mormon this God is the only God "we have to do with".

Well, that wouldn't be your call, Brian. If I, as a knowledgeable Mormon, say you are misrepresenting our doctrine, then you are. Paul actually did a much better job of explaining what we believe than you do. He said, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Neither he nor we are denying the existence of others whom the Bible refers to as gods, existing not only here on earth but in Heaven as well. Psalm 95:3 says, "For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods." If you want to continue to insist that other beings referred to as "gods" in the Bible really don't exist at all, then you're the one who's denying the Bible.

He is a God who is limited and once was not God.

God is not limited in any way. Just how do you think we believe He is limited?

The Godhead of the Mormon consists of 3 Gods.

The Godhead of Mormonism and of the Bible consists of three divine personages who are one in will, purpose, mind and heart. They are physically distinct from each other, as Luke 3:21-22 indicates when it describes Jesus' baptism: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." God the Father was not baptized Himself but spoke from Heaven, indicating His approval of the event. This is Biblical. This is Mormonism.

The unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is, in all things except the physical, perfect and absolute.

And I am sure there are many other differences.

And I am 100% willing to acknowledge that those differences do exist. It's simply a matter of interpretation.

This is not the teaching of the Bible about God.

I beg to differ with you on that.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, I don’t see any meaningful difference there. They also had the knowledge what will happen if they do so, but didn’t believe it.

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.

And I think eating the fruit was not necessary evil, or it is not necessary to call it evil, it was just a choice that had painful consequences.

I've pointed out in the OP and ever since that the knowledge of good and evil ─ that's to say, the fruit ─ was an excellent thing, even though it's only a legend.