If Adam had not sinned.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nay....'you will die'...
refers to the spiritual life.

A spiritual life is merely an apologetic concept made up to cover the obvious lie. God NEVER discusses any such spiritual life with them. In fact, if Adam were incapable of even understanding what good and evil were, there isn't a chance in Hell [pun intended] he could understand a separation between his physical and 'spiritual life'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not so.

Whether you understand what you are doing...before you do it...
there are consequences pending...good or bad.

If you don't really understand....as you raise your hand...
you will....afterwards.

Nay.

Judging sin is based on the morality of the choice. The intent of a sinful action is ALWAYS based on the knowledge of disobeying God being evil. It's not merely the practical application of doing other than what God says; it's KNOWing God doesn't want you to do it, then doing it anyway, that makes the sin. Even the 10 commandments speak of intent.

Without knowledge of Good and Evil it was impossible for the humans to understand the morality. Inf ac with all aspects of the tale considered, the lack of sin in the world up to that point made it literally physically impossible for them to understand it.

Seriously, I totally understand it.

Also, can you cut the affected prosy singsong statements and pay a bit more attention to content? Thank you.

 

[Thief]

A spiritual life is merely an apologetic concept made up to cover the obvious lie. God NEVER discusses any such spiritual life with them. In fact, if Adam were incapable of even understanding what good and evil were, there isn't a chance in Hell [pun intended] he could understand a separation between his physical and 'spiritual life'.

Step back from the puzzle and you will see.

Picture yourself as God ...yes you can.

Having a freshly created universe, it responds to your will and touch...
but it does not really respond.

So you create Man. A blend between spirit and form.
This linear existence insures an individual perspective.
You cannot think or feel as does God.
But that won't stop you from understanding what I say.

Man was a species on Day Six...and behaved like one.
You might be able some training, simple commands...but no more.
His obedience is enough?
Is that all you want?

No.

So you set before him a situation...and you let him choose.
and you tell him only that he will die for the choice.

When he does choose, you can then see....he has what it takes...
He is willing to set aside his life for knowledge.

He can then be taught....that preparation for when he does die.

As for that tree of life?...spiritual life?...physical life?
The book doesn't say...and most people think...physically.
People think we die because one man offended God a long time ago.
Not true.
That much is no more than a widely held misconception.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Step back from the puzzle and you will see.

Picture yourself as God ...yes you can.

Having a freshly created universe, it responds to your will and touch...
but it does not really respond.

So you create Man. A blend between spirit and form.
This linear existence insures an individual perspective.
You cannot think or feel as does God.
But that won't stop you from understanding what I say.

Man was a species on Day Six...and behaved like one.
You might be able some training, simple commands...but no more.
His obedience is enough?
Is that all you want?

No.

Unfortunately this is precisely why I understand this puzzle, and have shown it is incorrectly presented.

Man was simple. So simple, that he could not understand the moral choice I placed before him. In fact, by the very words of scripture, the only thing man was capable of accomplishing at that point, was naming animals.

How young of a child can one be, and still be capable of making up names for one's fuzzy toys? No other work can man perform yet.

As a God I >deliberately< denied this man the understanding of what Evil was. He didn't grasp, and could not grasp, that to disobey me was 'wrong'. In addition I allowed the free roam of a speaking animal in the Man's environment; an animal who would, technically, tell the Man the truth, that he would not die the day he ate of it, but would know things afterward. And, since the Man did not know of Evil yet, he could not have distrusted the snake. It would make no sense to do so; he is told one thing by one being he trusts, and another thing by another creature he has no reason not to trust. It makes him curious, and so, he does the thing. This makes perfect sense, especially to me, a God, who knows all outcomes.

In order for your assertion to stand, man must have already been artificially fed a perspective on morality. He could not have been pure; in order to be morally responsible, he must have ALREADY had the Knowledge contained in the Tree. Eating of it as an act would make no nevermind.

Without that knowledge, the choice is that of an infant. He cannot be held responsible. Unless you find it morally acceptable to pronounce a death sentence for an accident, of course. Which is what we have here.

So you set before him a situation...and you let him choose.
and you tell him only that he will die for the choice.

Which as we saw, did not occur. Not for 800 years, which essentially makes it a non-consequence.
And you must also face my earlier conundrum that Adam was denied the Tree of Life, and thus, was ALREADY going to die anyway.

When he does choose, you can then see....he has what it takes...
He is willing to set aside his life for knowledge.

That's not what I see.

In fact, at this moment I will add yet another problem with the tale: how is it exactly that Man knows what 'you will die' means? You appear to be forgetting that Death had not yet entered the world, when Adam was given this edict. So, a person who does not know what Good and Evil are.. how can he also comprehend the concept of his own death, when Death itself literally does not exist? [yet]

The correct answer would be: he cannot.

He can then be taught....that preparation for when he does die.

As for that tree of life?...spiritual life?...physical life?
The book doesn't say...and most people think...physically.

The scripture specifically states 'Tree of Life' and does not make false, post hoc distinctions.

People think we die because one man offended God a long time ago.
Not true.
That much is no more than a widely held misconception.

Alluding to another meaning would be more beneficial if you actually explained what it was.

 

[waitasec]

Nay again....

The tree of knowledge....of good and evil.....
was a necessary step in the Garden event.

that would make sense had god only warned them but he forbade them.
"you are free to eat from any tree but you must not partake..."
god placed a boundary.

Adam was given a situation...eat and you will die.
He was not told of his mortality was pending...anyway.

"...or you will surely die" what are you talking about?
this spiritual death you are eluding to has no grounds...
where did god say you will spiritually die?
it is &#1502;&#1493;&#1514;
to die, kill, have one executed
(Qal)
to die
to die (as penalty), be put to death
to die, perish (of a nation)
to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
(Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
(Hiphil) to kill, put to death
(Hophal)
to be killed, be put to death 1d
to die prematurely

Interlinear Study Bible on SearchGodsWord.org

Man was never intended to live forever...physically.

then why is one of the definitions for this word is to die prematurely or to be executed?

But to live forever...spiritually....'the knowledge' is required.

in this story i would say, acquiring knowledge is why we die.
everyone acquires knowledge and everyone dies...

That same knowledge you must be willing to risk...even at the point of a sword.

adam wasn't being threatened to eat of it...

 

[waitasec]

A spiritual life is merely an apologetic concept made up to cover the obvious lie. God NEVER discusses any such spiritual life with them. In fact, if Adam were incapable of even understanding what good and evil were, there isn't a chance in Hell [pun intended] he could understand a separation between his physical and 'spiritual life'.

spot on.
and to add...if they were free agents, the thought of setting a boundary was
also useless...as babies do not innately know what a boundary is which would be contingent on the knowledge of good and evil in the 1st place...everything therefore was a yes to a & e...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

spot on.
and to add...if they were free agents, the thought of setting a boundary was
also useless...as babies do not innately know what a boundary is which would be contingent on the knowledge of good and evil in the 1st place...everything therefore was a yes to a & e...

Didn't Jesus say only God is good?

So, only God has absolute perfection.
All creation [heavenly and earthly] only has 'relative perfection' being subordinate to God's absolute standards of right and wrong.

Adam would know the assignment of Genesis 1v28.
Adam, with healthy human perfection of sound heart, mind and body, would have been able to carry out that assignment. Adam could have also studied animal personalities and after observing them gave each a fitting or suitable name accordingly.

 

[waitasec]

Didn't Jesus say only God is good?

So, only God has absolute perfection.
All creation [heavenly and earthly] only has 'relative perfection' being subordinate to God's absolute standards of right and wrong.

who's talking about perfection?

i think the subject at hand is if adam hadn't sinned we would be oblivious to our actions...like a baby is.

Adam would know the assignment of Genesis 1v28.

awareness of the assignment is contingent on the knowledge of good and evil.
the conundrum you need to solve.

Adam, with healthy human perfection of sound heart, mind and body, would have been able to carry out that assignment.

adam was in a state of innocence and ignorance of good and evil...

Adam could have also studied animal personalities and after observing them gave each a fitting or suitable name accordingly.

stupid isn't ignorant...
a baby can name their toy...as Heathen Hammer pointed out in another post

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Didn't Jesus say only God is good?

Jesus certainly never said it to Adam. Non sequitur

 

[Thief]

Unfortunately this is precisely why I understand this puzzle, and have shown it is incorrectly presented.

Man was simple. So simple, that he could not understand the moral choice I placed before him. In fact, by the very words of scripture, the only thing man was capable of accomplishing at that point, was naming animals.

Nay....Adam walked with God.
He had immediate interaction.
And you say he lacked understanding?

How young of a child can one be, and still be capable of making up names for one's fuzzy toys? No other work can man perform yet.

As a God I >deliberately< denied this man the understanding of what Evil was. He didn't grasp, and could not grasp, that to disobey me was 'wrong'. In addition I allowed the free roam of a speaking animal in the Man's environment; an animal who would, technically, tell the Man the truth, that he would not die the day he ate of it, but would know things afterward. And, since the Man did not know of Evil yet, he could not have distrusted the snake. It would make no sense to do so; he is told one thing by one being he trusts, and another thing by another creature he has no reason not to trust. It makes him curious, and so, he does the thing. This makes perfect sense, especially to me, a God, who knows all outcomes.

In order for your assertion to stand, man must have already been artificially fed a perspective on morality.
An incorret line of assumption.
He could not have been pure; in order to be morally responsible, he must have ALREADY had the Knowledge contained in the Tree. Eating of it as an act would make no nevermind.

Morality requires law.
On Day Six there is no law....no restriction.

Without that knowledge, the choice is that of an infant. He cannot be held responsible. Unless you find it morally acceptable to pronounce a death sentence for an accident, of course. Which is what we have here.

Which as we saw, did not occur. Not for 800 years, which essentially makes it a non-consequence.
And you must also face my earlier conundrum that Adam was denied the Tree of Life, and thus, was ALREADY going to die anyway.

That's not what I see.

Obviously.

In fact, at this moment I will add yet another problem with the tale: how is it exactly that Man knows what 'you will die' means? You appear to be forgetting that Death had not yet entered the world, when Adam was given this edict. So, a person who does not know what Good and Evil are.. how can he also comprehend the concept of his own death, when Death itself literally does not exist? [yet]

The correct answer would be: he cannot.

The scripture specifically states 'Tree of Life' and does not make false, post hoc distinctions.

The tree of life is mentioned but not explained.
You have assumed it means immortality...physically.
Most people make that same assumption.....too bad.

Alluding to another meaning would be more beneficial if you actually explained what it was.

You lean to heavily on traditional teaching....
and you are conversing with a rogue theologian.
Try reading my previous post with more patience and open mindedness.

 

[Thief]

that would make sense had god only warned them but he forbade them.
"you are free to eat from any tree but you must not partake..."
god placed a boundary.


"...or you will surely die" what are you talking about?
this spiritual death you are eluding to has no grounds...
where did god say you will spiritually die?
it is &#1502;&#1493;&#1514;
to die, kill, have one executed
(Qal)
to die
to die (as penalty), be put to death
to die, perish (of a nation)
to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
(Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
(Hiphil) to kill, put to death
(Hophal)
to be killed, be put to death 1d
to die prematurely

Interlinear Study Bible on SearchGodsWord.org


then why is one of the definitions for this word is to die prematurely or to be executed?


in this story i would say, acquiring knowledge is why we die.
everyone acquires knowledge and everyone dies...


adam wasn't being threatened to eat of it...

Like another participant....you're not reading between the lines.

Acquisition of knowledge is the focus.
With acquisition comes responsibility....and consequence.

The warning prior to partaking was fair enough....though the details were withheld.

The acquisition of knowledge leads to answering for what you say and do.
Wisdom keeps the consequences from becoming sever.

 

[waitasec]

Like another participant....you're not reading between the lines.

Acquisition of knowledge is the focus.
With acquisition comes responsibility....and consequence.

i've been saying that...
god intended for a & e to remain innocent of their actions

The warning prior to partaking was fair enough....though the details were withheld.

they wouldn't be able to understand the warning anyway.
knowing obedience was a good thing or that disobedience was a bad thing was contingent upon the knowledge of good and evil

The acquisition of knowledge leads to answering for what you say and do.
Wisdom keeps the consequences from becoming sever.

:yes: that is what i've been saying
god intended for mankind to remain innocent of their actions in order to keep them from being accountable for their actions for not knowing.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Nay....Adam walked with God.
He had immediate interaction.
And you say he lacked understanding?
Absolutely. My dogs walk with me daily yet they do not understand even basic math. There is zero indication Adam was somehow educated by God. None. IN addition he completely lacks any basis of philosophy based on a culture or history, or communication with more learned elders of his own kind. No words of God appear in Genesis where He clarifies ANYthing; he merely issues a command. This conclusion is sound.

An incorrect line of assumption.
It is completely rational. I take into account all the information provided in the tale. I see no actual effort at refutation, so, my point stands.


Morality requires law.
On Day Six there is no law....no restriction.
Well, then I am glad you are forced to agree that holding them morally responsible was a dishonest act by God.

The tree of life is mentioned but not explained.
You have assumed it means immortality...physically.
Most people make that same assumption.....too bad.
Well, your own assumption is less than mine even, since yours is based on extrapolation based without any foundation in the text, but rather an appeal to silence it seems. So I feel better about it.
You make a bland statement that you have a better one, but present nothing based on actual scripture.


You lean to heavily on traditional teaching....
and you are conversing with a rogue theologian.
Try reading my previous post with more patience and open mindedness.

I am not sure what bona fides you think being 'a rogue theologian' makes in this - which don't also apply to anyone else on this forum.
Also, I would ask: how is claiming the Garden of Eden story is riddled with errors, traditional thinking? Reading that made me laugh aloud.
As for patience and understanding, I possess both, which, again, is why I feel fine correcting and explaining this to you. If you try reading what I have written with an open mind, you will gain in wisdom. I have explained it clearly, and the conclusions are sound.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The tree of life is mentioned but not explained.
You have assumed it means immortality...physically.
Most people make that same assumption.....too bad.

'And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)'

I am afraid that the words of the scripture itself show that you are the one making an assumption. The Tree of Life is CLEARLY explained, right in Genesis.

Genesis itself shows conclusively that Adam and Eve were doomed to die irregardless of eating of the Tree of Knowledge and suffering God's punishment for doing so.

Otherwise, as I have already shown, there is no reason to place a Tree of Life in the Garden in the first place.

 

[Thief]

i've been saying that...
god intended for a & e to remain innocent of their actions


they wouldn't be able to understand the warning anyway.
knowing obedience was a good thing or that disobedience was a bad thing was contingent upon the knowledge of good and evil


:yes: that is what i've been saying
god intended for mankind to remain innocent of their actions in order to keep them from being accountable for their actions for not knowing.

You are still assuming Adam and Eve understood the consequence fully.
They did not.

They understood dying.
Man was created on Day Six....went forth became fruitful...multiplied....
and died as we do now.

Now the next question should be...did they understand dying as in....
spiritual?

I don't think so...not having partaken of the tree of life.

 

[Thief]

I am not sure what bona fides you think being 'a rogue theologian' makes in this - which don't apply to anyone else on this forum.
Also, I would ask: how is claiming the Garden of Eden story is riddled with errors, traditional thinking? Reading that made me laugh aloud.
As for patience and understanding, I possess both, which, again, is why I feel fine correcting and explaining this to you. If you try reading what I have written with an open mind, you will gain in wisdom. I have explained it clearly, and the conclusions are sound.

You have not shown me error.
I read the King James straight forward.

I simply see it clearly.
Man was created as a species on Day Six.
Day Seven God rests....no more will be created.
THEN Chapter Two....a story of manipulation.

I refrain the church taught methods. (rogue theologian)
Such methods are shallow and immature.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You have not shown me error.
I read the King James straight forward.

King James is a modern interpretation; it's a bit far from the original, and contains many modern words and ideas not found in the original. Perhaps you should read closer to the source?

I simply see it clearly.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Man was created as a species on Day Six.
Day Seven God rests....no more will be created.
THEN Chapter Two....a story of manipulation.

I refrain the church taught methods. (rogue theologian)
Such methods are shallow and immature.

I am not using any method espoused by your church, or any church like it.
By pointing out the many philosophical errors, I am using the opposite of 'church methods'.

 

[Thief]

King James is a modern interpretation; it's a bit far from the original, and contains many modern words and ideas not found in the original. Perhaps you should read closer to the source?

I don't think that word means what you think it means

I am not using any method espoused by your church, or any church like it.

Then you are as I am.....a rogue.

That we disagree is not unexpected.
That you say I have error is error on your part...not mine.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then you are as I am.....a rogue.

That we disagree is not unexpected.
That you say I have error is error on your part...not mine.

No, it's an error on your part, actually.

We can do that all day, but the difference between us is, I have shown why

 

[Thief]

No, it's an error on your part, actually.

We can do that all day, but the difference between us is, I have shown why

Fine. We agree to disagree....I'm right...your wrong.