The Garden of Eden

[blü 2]

If we go only by what is said in the Bible, we can't really know what was the actual reason.

You appear to be claiming a license to make things up.

Bible tells what happened after they ate the fruit. But, the reason why their eyes were opened could be that then they just realized what they had done and felt naked.

No, the reason their eyes were opened and they were suddenly able to tell right from wrong was, exactly as the snake said in the story, because they'd eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I believe the garden still exists.

Without the slightest evidence to support that belief.

Why should it exist, any more than Fairyland should exist?

 

[blü 2]

a) You don't know everything that has ever occurred in history.

No argument there. But some things ─ for example, magical things ─ are easily ruled out.

b) There is no evidence that the Garden of Eden story is legend / folktale.

Other way round. There is no evidence that it ever existed.

And why would there be when humans have been around for tens or hundreds of thousands of years before there was writing, whereas there's no evidence for the existence of the bible god before around 1500 BCE.

 

[1213]

You appear to be claiming a license to make things up.

You appear to be projecting.

No, the reason their eyes were opened and they were suddenly able to tell right from wrong was, exactly as the snake said in the story, because they'd eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

My point was, the fruit is not necessary itself the reason. The reason is what happened:
1) they rejected God and rather believed the person they just met, because they liked the message.
2) After they had eaten, they saw it was a lie, and then they understood that the serpent was evil and they had made a mistake.
3) And after what they had done, they also understood that they are not protected anymore, which is why I believe they felt naked.

 

[1213]

You can see from the headline on that link that five were killed, which is the only matter in contention.

By what I know, that is false information. Only person who was killed that day was unarmed Ashli Babbitt, by police or a guard.

Why were their eyes opened, do you say, if not because of the fruit?

Because then they saw the serpent had lied. And then they also understood the serpent was evil.

 

[blü 2]

You appear to be projecting.

My point was, the fruit is not necessary itself the reason. The reason is what happened:
1) they rejected God and rather believed the person they just met, because they liked the message.
2) After they had eaten, they saw it was a lie, and then they understood that the serpent was evil and they had made a mistake.
3) And after what they had done, they also understood that they are not protected anymore, which is why I believe they felt naked.

Well, you're free to believe as you please, which is what you're doing.

That doesn't alter the text or its plain meaning.

Because then they saw the serpent had lied. And then they also understood the serpent was evil.

That's nonsense, but it's your nonsense, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Muffled]

It sometimes happens that a person may be aware that others consider something evil, but they do not have this awareness from within themselves, it's not something they themselves believe. This is why covering up a crime is not evidence that a person knows right from wrong.

As for why any Christian would support a felon and abusive misogynist? I haven't a clue. I think some of them successfully lie to themselves that the justice system is corrupt, and that 26 women can all be lying.

I believe if the money is good ten thousand women would be willing to lie. I agree that it is an intended politically motivates attempt to diminish Trumps chances of winning by a weaponization of the justice system. It is contrary to democracy but so is cheating and the Democrats have no problem with that either. Throw in two politaically motivated impeahmesnts and you see a definite political concept by the Democrats.

 

[Muffled]

The Hebrew text good used in this verse is תַֽאֲוָה־ translating as "pleasant to the eye" or attractive. The Hebrew for good as in ethically good is וָרָע.

She is seeing the fruit with innocent eyes. It looks good because she has no knowledge of evil.

 

[jimb]

It sometimes happens that a person may be aware that others consider something evil, but they do not have this awareness from within themselves, it's not something they themselves believe. This is why covering up a crime is not evidence that a person knows right from wrong.

As for why any Christian would support a felon and abusive misogynist? I haven't a clue. I think some of them successfully lie to themselves that the justice system is corrupt, and that 26 women can all be lying.

Great post!

 

[jimb]

I believe if the money is good ten thousand women would be willing to lie. I agree that it is an intended politically motivates attempt to diminish Trumps chances of winning by a weaponization of the justice system. It is contrary to democracy but so is cheating and the Democrats have no problem with that either. Throw in two politaically motivated impeahmesnts and you see a definite political concept by the Democrats.

a) This is total nonsense!

b) Why are you a misogynist??? 10,000 women would be willing to lie???

c) Weaponization of the justice system? LOL!!!

d) Both your thinking and your English are deplorable!

 

[Argentbear]

She is seeing the fruit with innocent eyes. It looks good because she has no knowledge of evil.

The fruit wasn't evil

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe if the money is good ten thousand women would be willing to lie.

There is no credible evidence that any of the 26 women have received money from anyone. It does appear that all 26 made their accusations simply because that was their experience.

 

[jimb]

I believe if the money is good ten thousand women would be willing to lie. I agree that it is an intended politically motivates attempt to diminish Trumps chances of winning by a weaponization of the justice system. It is contrary to democracy but so is cheating and the Democrats have no problem with that either. Throw in two politaically motivated impeahmesnts and you see a definite political concept by the Democrats.

When you become knowledgeable and have a command of both English and the truth, then people may pay attention to you. But maybe not!

 

[Hawkins]

Huh? When you say that "God would not have wanted people to know," do you mean know about good and evil? Here's what God said:

So God did not want Adam and Eve to know about good and evil. And what about God's reaction when he found out that Adam and Eve had both eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge as described in Genesis 3:8-19? God sounds mad.

Ancient humans lack the ability to convey a truth. A truth will decay into a myth just as all the flood stories in the various culture. The maximum human capability to convey a truth is for God to embed it into a story form for ancient humans to convey it generation by generation, under God's supervision.

That said. The best way to protect Adam and Eve from violating the defined Law, is to keep them as innocent as possible, instead of say, teaching them what stealing murdering is. That's the point of not knowing good from evil.

On the other hand, it's prophecy on how humans fall at the end, by using their knowledge of good and evil to judge God, just as the OP is doing.

 

[jimb]

Ancient humans lack the ability to convey a truth. A truth will decay into a myth just as all the flood stories in the various culture. The maximum human capability to convey a truth is for God to embed it into a story form for ancient humans to convey it generation by generation, under God's supervision.

That said. The best way to protect Adam and Eve from violating the defined Law, is to keep them as innocent as possible, instead of say, teaching them what stealing murdering is. That's the point of not knowing good from evil.

On the other hand, it's prophecy on how humans fall at the end, by using their knowledge of good and evil to judge God, just as the OP is doing.

Judging by your reply, it's not just "ancient humans that lack the ability to convey the truth" (which is grammatically incorrect. There are no ancient humans alive today.) And the Bible did not "decay" into anything. It is clearly one of the greatest works ever written; it has lasted for thousands of years and is treasured by many millions of people.

Interestingly, your second sentence conveys just the opposite: The maximum human capability to convey a truth is for God to embed it into a story form for ancient humans to convey it generation by generation, under God's supervision.

 

[Hawkins]

Judging by your reply, it's not just "ancient humans that lack the ability to convey the truth" (which is grammatically incorrect. There are no ancient humans alive today.) And the Bible did not "decay" into anything. It is clearly one of the greatest works ever written; it has lasted for thousands of years and is treasured by many millions of people.

Interestingly, your second sentence conveys just the opposite: The maximum human capability to convey a truth is for God to embed it into a story form for ancient humans to convey it generation by generation, under God's supervision.

Conveying truth means how historical events/figure are conveyed. You reply is junk. It's has nothing to do with how humans die. All history conveys under the circumstances that humans keep dying but truth still conveys.

 

[jimb]

Conveying truth means how historical events/figure are conveyed. You reply is junk. It's has nothing to do with how humans die. All history conveys under the circumstances that humans keep dying but truth still conveys.

1) My reply is junk -- to you. It is not junk to others. BTW, "You reply is junk" is poor English!
2) What kind of riddle is your last sentence?