Okie-dokie, Daddy-O... here we go... you in italics, okay?
<i>The account of Adam and Eve as a literal event is so full of logical contradictions that it is mind-boggling. It only takes a minimum of scrutiny to discover that fact, too.</i>
Perhaps. Let's see.
<i>There is something God did not want Adam and Eve to know.</i>
Well, actually, it wasn't that He didn't want to know ABOUT something; He didn't want to them to KNOW it, as in <i>experience</i> it. You can understand that, yes? I mean, I want my kids to know ABOUT crack, but I don't necessarily want them to <i>experience</i> it. I want them to know ABOUT teenage pregnancy and HIV... but I don't necessarily want them to <i>experience</i>. I want, then, for them <i>know</i> only good... and not bad.
<i>No, there is something He didn't want them to know...</i>
Sorry, addressed that already.
<i>He didn’t want them to know the difference between good and evil.</i>
Addressed that, too.
<i>Why wouldn’t he want them to know that? Beats me. Furthermore, if God didn’t WANT them to know the difference between good and evil, then before they ate of that tree, they did NOT know the difference. It could be no other way.</i>
Your 'argument' falls apart here because of your <i>assumption</i> of what is meant by the word 'know'. And really, that takes care of the entire REST of your argument, and you know it, but I will continue... for the SAKE of argument.
<i>Without knowing the difference between good and evil, Adam and Eve would remain ethical and moral idiots without any frames of reference on how to conduct their lives.</i>
Not true. I don't have to <i>know</i> evil... that is, <i>experience</i> it... to know how to live my life. I don't HAVE to be abused, contract disease, etc., etc., to know how to conduct my life.
<i>By virtue of putting that tree in the garden and by virtue of God telling them it was the tree of “knowledge” of good and evil, then it is clear they could only get that knowledge if they did eat of that tree. It could be no other way.</i>
Again, your misassumption of the word 'knowledge' defeats your argument. Hey, I LIKE this... you have taught me quite well, dearest Daddy-O. Let's go on, shall we?
<i>They wouldn’t know that roasting their children live and eating them was evil, for example. They wouldn’t know that helping others was good, either. They simply wouldn’t know.</i>
Sure they would. This is a different rendering of the word 'know', in that they have 'knowledge of'. See, you have fallen into the 'trap' of holding onto WTBTS 'baggage'. They are the same ones that taught you the misrendering of the word 'know' and 'knowledge' in Genesis, as they taught you the misrendering of it at <B>John 17:3</B>. It's that old 'taking in knowledge of' thing. It's wrong. The verse literally says 'their KNOWING you'... as in personally knowing my Lord... and 'experiencing' him.
You know, like how a man 'knows' a woman?:
1. He may know her ("Hey, Susie!"); or
2. He may know OF her ("Hey, isn't that your friend, Susie?"); OR
3. He may <i>know</i> her ("Heeeyyyyyy, Suuuuzziiiie!").
You get my 'drift'.
<i>What if one argues that Adam and Eve were made in God’s image as the Bible clearly states?</i>
Uh, actually, ADAM was made in God's image. Eve... and us... were made in Adam's. Remember, woman being man's 'glory'?
<i>Since God knows what is good and what is evil, then God must have given them the ability to recognize good from evil.</i>
He certain did. That is why their sin was held against them. If they <i>hadn't</i> known, He could have faulted them. Remember, 'where there is no law, there is no transgressing of law'?
<i>If that were the case, then there would be no NEED for that stupid ol’ tree in the first place!</i>
There was a NEED. It just doesn't HAVE to be explained to us. Much like YOU don't have to explain to your neighbors why you have, say, a pot-bellied stove in your house (which you bought for asthetic reasons), while you have little kids and perfectly good central heating. It's YOUR house... and it's none of THEIR business, really.
But, I guess since we all <i>think</i> God is answerable to US... rather than the other way around... we to HIM... my 'argument' here is 'moot'. Yes?
<i>They would already have the godly qualities of knowledge of what is good and what is evil.</i>
It's not like that ran hopping, skipping OVER to the Tree the first chance they got.
<i>But since there WAS a tree, then they didn’t have those qualities.</i>
Sure, they did. It's just that one of them was deceived (why wouldn't she be? There had been no 'bad', right? Why would she have been suspicious?). But the OTHER one most probably had a rebellious streak in him anyway. Truly, what man doesn't? What man actually RELISHES another man telling him what he can and cannot do? I mean, he might go along with it, but sooner or later, he going to 'test the mettle'. You ALL do it, put your fathers to the test sooner or later. It's part of 'becoming a man'.
<i>Therefore, they were NOT made in God’s image as the Bible states.</i>
Uh-huh, yes they were. Just like your little boy might have your big ears, long nose... and, uh, 'testy' disposition. He is the 'image' of you... but not you. And what YOU might or might not do, may or may not be what HE might or might not do.
<i>A major quality that separates humans from beasts, is that we have ethics and morals and we have choice about how to apply those ethics and morals. Beasts don’t.</i>
Uh, yes they do. In fact, they have more. Beasts rarely kill for anything other than food or fear. We, on the other hand, will kill for... say... oil. Petroleum. Black gold. Texas 'tea'. Many of will kill because we were simply looked at the wrong way. And many of us will even kill our own offspring because we were not 'ready' to be a parent. We were 'ready' to do what it TOOK to become a parent, though.
Nope, if you look at it TRUTHFULLY, our morals and ethics SUCK... when compared to mere beasts. Most of them just want some water, a meal, a piece of ground to lie on, a little mating 'dance' every now and again... and to be left the heck alone! And unlike us... they know how to mind their own business, as well as don't go around trying to put all the other animal 'under law'.
<i>Without knowing right from wrong, i.e. “good” from “evil” we would not be truly made in God’s image.</i>
Well, dear one, an IMAGE... is just that, isn't it? It is NOT the 'real thing'... but an IMAGE of it. That means, something is NOT completely... uh, complete. (I couldn't think of a better word, sorry.) A photograph... is an IMAGE. It is NOT the people themselves, literally standing there grinning like goofs until time indefinite. I mean, at some point they WOULD have to take a pee, yes? And, well, there goes your 'image' just with that 'graphic'.
<i>Therefore, “perfect” Adam and Eve were not made in God’s image at all and the Genesis account has already and directly contradicted itself.</i>
Sorry, you're wrong. Adam was taken from the dust; Eve was taken from Adam. There's NO WAY they could have reflected God... <i>perfectly</i>. You have been misled. You show ME where it says Adam was perfect in the way that God is perfect. Adam didn't even love his wife enough to not eat himself and remain 'clean' so that he could beg forgiveness on her part... and perhaps save her. Nope, he BLAMED her... and blamed God. Some husband, yes?
<i>So Eve says to Adam, “Hey Adam! Do you know what ‘good’ is?”
Adam replies, “Nope, I don’t have a clue. The only way to find out is to eat some of that there fruit over there.”
Eve: “Aren’t you the least bit curious about what ‘good’ is?”
Adam: “Hell, yes I am! They haven’t even invented television yet! This place is totally boring. I could use some excitement. What do ya say we go eat some of that fruit and find out?”
Eve: “Sounds good to me. Let’s do it!”
They ate of the fruit.
Adam: “Tastes good!”
Eve: “Ummmm, yummy. Did you learn anything yet, Adam?”
Adam: “Yes. NOW I know what God was talking about.”
Eve: “Yeah, me too. I have this strange urge to put on clothes, and I didn’t even know what clothes were before I ate.”
Adam: “I have the same feeling, hon. Clothes must be GOOD then. Or maybe they’re EVIL. Yeah, they HAVE to be evil, since we just disobeyed that command; because if clothes were good, we would have worn them from the start. This is true since God is Good and we’re made in his image. Hell, Eve, I’m more confused now than EVER!”</i>
Okay, now YOU'RE making stuff up. And thus, you SHOULD be confused. Oh, sorry... you say that next.
<i>(So am I at this point, by the way……)</i>
See comment directly above.
<i>And so Adam was not himself deceived, but he thoroughly deceived Eve.</i>
Now THAT could be. Maybe Adam and Satan were in cahoots. I am sure there are women out there would NOT have a hard time believing <i>that</i> one:
SATAN: "Hey, let's get Eve!"
ADAM: "Nahhh, she won't eat it; she hates EVERYTHING!"
SATAN & ADAM: "She LIKES it! Hey, EVE!"
<i>That’s ANOTHER contradiction with the Bible. J No woman worth her head covering would “run ahead” of her husband, especially since he was the only husband to be had on the entire planet. But, I digress.</i>
You should. You don't really know woman at all well, do you? Been hangin' round the Watchtower too long, dear one. Women... RULE! No, wait, I'm sorry. Seriously, women 'run ahead' of their husbands every moment of every day. Some even run OVER them. Whether they're 'worth (their) head covering' is another story altogether and really depends on whether they follow the teachings of Paul or not. Or if they're even 'christians'. (Oh, wait, there ARE the women currently being oppressed by the Taliban. Oh, well, you get my point.)
<i>So they ate the fruit...</i>
Yep...
<i>And God was really pissed.</i>
Nope. He was sad... for them. The same way a father today would be if his child had disobeyed him and ate something that would eventually kill them. VERY sad. So, he PROLONGED their life by 'covering' their 'sin'. Uh, 'the wages of sin... IS death." They were SUPPOSED to die right away. But he gave them a little more time. They just had to leave the Garden 'cause if they DIDN'T, they could eat again from the Tree of Life... and live FOREVER.
And He couldn't have THAT, could He? Disobedient, ruinous, dying folks running around having kids that they would most probably also induce to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Then it wouldn't have been about 15 generations before the 'Nephilim' started to wreak havoc; it would have started right away. Create everything in seven days and have to tear it down before the month was over... Sheesh! Can't a man admire His work for a LITTLE bit of time before someone comes and sticks their foot all in it?!
<i>He states that they have now become one of US and now know the difference between good and evil.</i>
Yep, they now KNEW 'bad'... and you know what happens to people when HUMANS 'know' bad... the influence of badness. It's corrupt and they become corrupt. And nothing and no one is safe anymore. They will destroy everything... and everyone... that gets in their way. Individually, and by the millions. For indeed, the 'inclination of (earthling) man... is bad... ALL THE TIME.
<i>Once again, this shows that they did not know the difference before they ate.</i>
Sort of. They knew there was good and bad. They just didn't KNOW bad... hadn't experienced it yet.
<i>Herein lies another problem: what exactly happened that caused them to know this?</i>
Uh, they no longer had a 'clean' conscience. You know, like you no longer had one the time you did such-and-such and just KNEW your mome or dad was gonna find out.
<i>The Bible said they became ashamed and fearful.</i>
Well, DUH! Here they've gone and disobeyed... AND they were told that such disobedience was gonna result in their death. What was there to be fearful of? THEY HAD NEVER <B>KNOWN</B> SIN AND DEATH! Think they KNEW what to expect? Heck, we see people die all the time... and we're STILL afraid of it!
<i>But being ashamed is not good, nor is it evil. Neither is being fearful. Those are just feelings.</i>
Yep. But being ashamed OF something and fearful OF something... can be 'bad'. For YOU.
<i>SOMETHING caused them to gain this knowledge, though. It HAD to be something in the fruit! The fruit was rigged with some sort of DNA or chemicals or magical potion, or something.</i>
You are ABSOLUTELY correct. And the Bible backs you up. There WAS something in the fruit! What was it? SPIRIT... but not HOLY SPIRIT. Holy spirit was the 'fruit' of the Tree of Life (do you recall my Lord say, 'Buy from ME eyesalve'?). It was the 'spirit' of another one... the SPIRIT... of Death. JAH's brother. Darkness. He, too, is a spirit and he, too, begets children, and he, too, give 'sight' by HIS 'light'. But his 'light'... is 'darkness'... and his 'sight' actually renders people blind. Blinder than they were BEFORE they ate of his fruit. For although they could see things they couldn't before... BAD... they could not now see things they DID before... GOOD.
<i>God boobie-trapped the fruit.</i>
Sorry, but my Father would say as the song would say... "Wasn't me!"
<i>If you want to argue that it wasn’t the fruit, but that God himself instantly wired their brains the minute they ate of that fruit, then God is to blame for the whole damn thing.</i>
Nope, I don't want to 'argue' that. I told you who it was... and who it wasn't.
<i>He didn’t have to wire their brains if he didn’t want to. Neither did he have to boobie-trap the fruit if that’s the way he did it. Either way, God screwed them both and all of humanity to follow. He didn’t have to put that darn tree there in the first place for that matter!</i>
Hey, it WAS His garden, wasn't it? He could've planted 20 foot cactuses with 10-inch needles every 2-feet apart... if He wanted to.
<i>And here is another thing that really pisses me off:</i>
You're pissed off? REALLY?! I honestly couldn't tell. At least, not until you said so.
<i>Did God put that tree someplace that made it difficult for Adam and Eve to approach? You know, like at the very far end of the garden, or on some little island on a lake or across a raging river? NO! He put it smack-dab in the middle of the garden. Whenever they crossed the garden from any direction that tree was staring them in their face. Not only that, God went out of his way to make that tree “something to be longed for the eyes” and “desirable to look upon” (Gen. 3:6)</i>
No different than the CHOICE He set before ancient Israel this side of the Jordan... and us: "I set BEFORE you... a blessing... and a malediction. CHOOSE life... or CHOOSE death." Hey, we ALL have a choice. Starting with Adam and Eve.
<i>Simply put, God went out of his way to induce them to commit a crime. We have a word for that: it is called “entrapment.”</i>
You ARE pissed off, aren't you? Uh, 'entrapment' is only illegal in this and other, uh, 'developed' republics. Eden... was not a republic... of any kind... 'developed' or 'undeveloped'.
<i>If he had made the tree difficult to access and unattractive looking, it would have been good evidence that Adam and Ever were just plain jerks, bent on doing bad when they ate of it.</i>
But they WEREN'T. They were smart, intelligent creatures, capable of making a reasonable and intelligent choice... and capable to telling Satan to piss off! But... they DIDN'T. Perhaps they weren't any more 'intelligent' than many of the people today who wish to decide... FOR THEMSELVES... what they should and should no do. Things that make you go, "hmmmmmm....".
<i>Wait a minute! They didn’t know what BAD was, so how could they have known that eating of that tree was bad?</i>
Okay, is this one of those 'red herring', 'non sequitir' whatchamajigits you're always carrying on about? Or that 'circular' thing you like to mention so often?
<i>Because God told them not to do it?</i>
Yep. How did little Susie know not to ride her bike in the road? 'Cause Daddy told her not to do it?
<i>How would they know that whatever God told them to do was bad or good.</i>
How did little Susie know?
<i>They didn’t have a clue about the concept of good OR bad!</i>
Okay, you're back on THAT again. WRONG rendering of the word 'know'.
<i>And if they did know that what God told them to do was for their own good, then they had SOME knowledge of good and evil, yet according to the Bible they didn’t have that until they ate of that tree. This circular reasoning is giving me a headache.</i>
Aha! Circular 'reasoning'! I KNEW you would use it sooner or later. Again, they DID have knowledge of good and evil. Like Adam knew that if he tried to pinch Eve too hard in some particular spot, she was gonna slap the... well, you know what I mean. What they DIDN'T know... what they hadn't EXPERIENCED... was 'bad'. Sin... and death. C'mon, Daddy-O, this is NOT 'rocket science' here!
<i>But I digress again.</i>
Whew! Thought that 'flood' would NEVER 'crest'. Moving on... (Lord, I am SO sleepy... it's 1:29am, Daddy-O, so you better had of read ALL of this, 'cause I was permitted to share it JUST FOR YOU...)
<i>God made sure they 1) had tons of time on their hands and 2) an irresistibly attractive tree would be staring at them as frequently as possible.</i>
Uh, having a little bit of 'self-control' issues, Pops? You can always ask for a bit of the 'fruit'... of the spirit, that is.
<i>It was a set-up.</i>
No, sounds like YOU were set up... and blaming God. (Did you already blame the woman? LOL! Sorry, just 'joshin'. It's 1:30am, for heaven's sake!)
<i>If they were perfect humans at the start as the WTS claims...</i>
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!! And therein lies our dilemna. Of COURSE their teaching is wrong. You have NO argument from me there!
<i>... and if they were “made in God’s image” as the Bible claims...</i>
Asked and answered, Counselor...
<i>... they would have HAD to know the difference between good and evil.</i>
That again. They DID. "You've got me goin' in CIRCLES... round and around I gooooooooo..."
<i>Otherwise, they would have been worse than we schmucks who are imperfect yet do know the difference: they would have been morons without any moral compass for life whatsoever.</i>
Idiot savants, maybe? Geniuses with no COMMON sense? Happens all the time. But that wasn't their excuse. Theirs is easier to explain: they... were... SELFISH!
<i>But they DIDN’T know the difference or there would have been no need for that tree. (One simple damn fruit tree doomed the entire human race. Isn’t THAT ironic?)</i>
Ennnt! (Buzzer sounding). Tree didn't do nuthin'. Just stood in the garden mindin' its own bizness. Wuz Satan, who was sneaky and knew what HE was doin'... Eve, who was greedy and knew what SHE wuz doin'... and Adam, who was haughty, rebellious... and a blame-throwin' coward. THAR's yer culprits! True that!
<i>Is it just me, or are you beginning to see all the obvious contradictions here?</i>
Well, if'n I wuz to understand it the way YOU understanding it. But why in the WORLD would I want to do THAT? Just to go 'round in CIRCLES? I think not. Might get one've kes's headaches (and to be perfectly truthful, I am NOT far from one right now. STILL haven't eaten. YOU'RE gonna get the hospital bill, too, you Snarkel-ly.)
<i>Now, we have another few sticky details to look at.</i>
NOOOOOooooooooo! I TIRED! I wanna go 'mee-mees' (is that how you say it? Sleep? Beddie-bye? Nite-nite?) Awwww, shoot! Okay, carry on... rachafracharachafracha...
<i>Genesis 2:5 states that there were no bushes and no vegetation that had sprouted because it hadn’t rained and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Duh! No rain, no bush: nothing to cultivate! But then immediately after that it said that a “mist” came UP from the ground (instead of rain falling DOWN to the ground) that watered the earth. Well, duh! If there was water available to those bushes and other vegetation they WOULD have sprouted, but the Bible said they HADN’T spouted because “there was no rain!” Man, this headache is turning into a migraine!</i>
Let me see if I can 'soothe' that headpain for ya: take a look at <b>Genesis 2:4</B>. THAT was the earth... OUTSIDE THE GARDEN. Starting in verse 5, and continuing to verse 9, that is the 'earth' INSIDE the garden.,, 'where 'righteous' is to dwell. Adam was created from the dust OUTSIDE the garden, God PLANTED a garden, put Adam and Eve IN it, and gave them the job of CULTIVATING it. Ooooh! WAY to simple, Fark.
<i>Verse 8 of Chapter 2 in Genesis stated that Eden was to the “East.” East of WHAT? East of God?</i>
Uh, wrong rendering of the Hebrew word here. Why do you CONTINUE to 'trust' what the WTBTS says. Dear one... look it up. (Sorry to sound 'snippy'... just 'punchy' is all...)
<i>If that’s true, then God is in a “place” that has three dimensions.</i>
Actually, He is in a place that has unlimited dimensions. WE... are limited to three... for now.
<i>East from the perspective of the Bible writer of that book? Well, that makes more sense, but why was the respective direction of Eden important to mention at all?</i>
See reply above about looking it up.
<i>God made sure the place was “hidden” until it was over-grown with crabgrass and stuff.</i>
I'm not sure where you got that... crabgrass, eh? Hmmmmm....
<i>Well, one darn good reason for that was to hide the evidence! If Eden could never be found by anyone then you sure can’t prove it did not exist!</i>
Eden is still there. It never WENT anywhere. You just can't SEE it because you cannot see with eyes of (physical) flesh... and you can't ENTER it, because flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom. Eden... is EVERYWHERE. Indeed, the kingdom 'is in you MIDST' and neither my Father nor my Lord... are 'far off'.
Most likely, Abel could see it. Most definitely, Cain... could not. Most probably, that is one of the causes of dissention between them.
<i>(That’s sort of like those invisible comings and heavenly kingdoms and demons and heavenly battles the WTS is so fond of: you can’t prove us wrong!) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!</i>
Well, not like the WTBTS interprets them to be (they're 'idgits', Fark), but... YEP!
<i>God could have done one simple thing to convince everyone on this planet that the Adam and Eve story and their fall and its consequences were all absolutely true. He could have preserved that Garden and stationed a few well-armed angels to take care of it and give guided-tours. Hey, if you were able to take a tour and when you got to the entrance you saw these angles with those whirly-blade sword thingama-jobbers, would YOU doubt the Genesis story? I sure the hell wouldn’t! If you walked through the grounds and saw lions eating grass who also would let you pet them, would YOU doubt the Genesis story? Not me, bubba. No, God didn’t do that. He destroyed all the evidence. It wouldn’t have been that difficult for him to preserve a few grass-eating lions, piranha, and crocodiles to keep in a little garden.</i>
Okay, stick a fork in ME... 'cause THAT one did me in. I'm DONE!
<i>The WTS claims that Adam and Eve were created to live forever, but Gen. 3:22 says God kicked them out of the Garden so they couldn’t eat of the “tree of life” and live to “time indefinite.” This implies that until Adam and Eve ate of that tree of life, they would not be able to live not only forever, but even to “time indefinite.”</i>
This is correct. As long as they ate from the Tree of Life... they would live. And that Tree could sustain them... forever. Indefinitely.
<i>This is the final sticky issue I want to address.</i>
(Weakly) Yay!
<i>Adam and Eve’s bodies were not made to live a long, long time.</i>
Yes, they were. Yawwwwnnnn!
<i>If they were, there would have been no need for a “tree of life.”</i>
Sure there would. They STILL had to eat. ANGELS have to eat.
<i>Either they were pre-rigged in such a way that they would die unless they ate of that tree of life and that tree contained some magic potion that would undo that rigging...</i>
Yep. YYYAAAAWWWNNN!
<i>... or God would have had to tinker with their genes after they ate of that tree to make them live long, long lives or even forever.</i>
Nope, one Tree cancels out the other. Simple equation, really. YYYAAAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNN! Whew! ExCUSE me!
<i>This is important to remember.</i>
No, it's not.
<i>They were NOT initially set-up to live long, long lives.</i>
Yes, they were.
<i>One cannot argue that they were, because of that pesky “tree of life” verse.</i>
Yes, one can. Their bodies were 'machines' that, as long as they got good Premium, they needed no oil changes, no tune ups, no tire rotations, and could just 'keep on going'. Energizer rabbits, they were.
<i>God COULD have been a little more optimistic and created them to live long, lives, and later messed them up when they disobeyed him, but it turns out that God was a pessimist from the get-go and assumed the worse by the was he set things up. He didn’t even trust his OWN creation. Strange God, that.</i>
You're making stuff up, again. Why?
<i>Therefore, the God of Genesis created the first pair pre-supposing they would be doomed. He made the tree of knowledge overwhelmingly resistible, they succumbed and he doomed them.</i>
Perhaps. But... does not life... <i>come out of death</i>? Does not SOMETHING have to die, in order for their to BE life?
<i>And us.</i>
Nope. Unlike Adam and Eve... WE have the opportunity for a resurrection... to LIFE. They have a resurrection, too... to judgment... and eternal destruction. Are we DONE yet?
<i>Worse than that, that same God doesn’t have an ounce of logic. But he was smart enough to figure out that billions of people who believe all that crap don’t have any logic, either. So he got one thing right!</i>
What's 'illogical' is that you BELIEVE in Him, but let your lack of UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING of Him cause you much grief. Why in the world would let someone you don't even KNOW, let along understand, cause you so much frustration? Why not simply GET TO KNOW HIM... or let Him go?
<i>We all still got screwed, though.</i>
'Got' screwed? What, is it all over? Why didn't somebody TELL me? Hopefully, though, this post is all over. Good night, Daddy-O. You too, Unk, et al. And all you everywhere, who call on the name of my Lord, the Son of God, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. May you all have peace!
Your servant, friend and a slave of Christ,
SJ