Why would a perfect garden need anyone to look after it?

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  Because, as I told you before, Walt and I have already covered that subject. 

 

Yes, we are going round and round in circles.

[mwc]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So my answer is No, I disagree.

 

Eve had no moral interaction, tuition, instruction or teaching from god.

 

Why would he bother to do that when he made her unable to understand the moral concepts of good and evil?

 

     What if we change it so it's not so much a moral decision to more a hierarchical one?

 

     When we were talking (in another thread I think?) it was touched on that a hierarchy was established regarding food.  It would seem that a hierarchy was also established that placed animals below humans.  I haven't looked to see if it actually laid out any specifics that god was at the top of the hierarchy or if it evens implies it (I think we tend to infer it).

 

     Nonetheless, perhaps the bigger issues here, consider the times, is that Eve listened to a subordinate?  If we assume Adam was her equal at this point then god would be her superior and the serpent an inferior.

 

     In addition, going back to the idea of hierarchy, the animals do get broken into a further set.  I don't recall exactly, but I noticed in something you posted in response to me that there seemed to be a distinction between what it translated domesticated animals and wild animals which I thought was strange considering the setting.  I seem to recall that the serpent is placed among the "beasts of the field" and in various translations of Isaiah this becomes wild or savage animals.

 

     This would place the serpent at the bottom of the hierarchy and so the worse sort of "person" to take advice from in such a society.  

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, mwc said:

     What if we change it so it's not so much a moral decision to more a hierarchical one?

 

     When we were talking (in another thread I think?) it was touched on that a hierarchy was established regarding food.  It would seem that a hierarchy was also established that placed animals below humans.  I haven't looked to see if it actually laid out any specifics that god was at the top of the hierarchy or if it evens implies it (I think we tend to infer it).

 

     Nonetheless, perhaps the bigger issues here, consider the times, is that Eve listened to a subordinate?  If we assume Adam was her equal at this point then god would be her superior and the serpent an inferior.

 

     In addition, going back to the idea of hierarchy, the animals do get broken into a further set.  I don't recall exactly, but I noticed in something you posted in response to me that there seemed to be a distinction between what it translated domesticated animals and wild animals which I thought was strange considering the setting.  I seem to recall that the serpent is placed among the "beasts of the field" and in various translations of Isaiah this becomes wild or savage animals.

 

     This would place the serpent at the bottom of the hierarchy and so the worse sort of "person" to take advice from in such a society.  

 

          mwc

 

 

Well, first off mwc, Adam and Eve were not created equal.

 

1 Corinthians 11 : 2 - 12

 

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. 

5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 

8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 

9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 

10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 

11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 

12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, mwc said:

     What if we change it so it's not so much a moral decision to more a hierarchical one?

 

     When we were talking (in another thread I think?) it was touched on that a hierarchy was established regarding food.  It would seem that a hierarchy was also established that placed animals below humans.  I haven't looked to see if it actually laid out any specifics that god was at the top of the hierarchy or if it evens implies it (I think we tend to infer it).

 

     Nonetheless, perhaps the bigger issues here, consider the times, is that Eve listened to a subordinate?  If we assume Adam was her equal at this point then god would be her superior and the serpent an inferior.

 

     In addition, going back to the idea of hierarchy, the animals do get broken into a further set.  I don't recall exactly, but I noticed in something you posted in response to me that there seemed to be a distinction between what it translated domesticated animals and wild animals which I thought was strange considering the setting.  I seem to recall that the serpent is placed among the "beasts of the field" and in various translations of Isaiah this becomes wild or savage animals.

 

     This would place the serpent at the bottom of the hierarchy and so the worse sort of "person" to take advice from in such a society.  

 

          mwc

 

 

This is an interesting assumption, mwc.   Let's test it.

 

If there was such a hierarchy in Eden, how would Eve know the following?

 

1.  That such a hierarchy existed.

2.  How it worked.

3.  What the serpent's place in it was.

4.  What her place in it was.

 

To find the answers to these all you have to go on is what's in the bible.

 

Furthermore, you can't use any verses, passages or conversations that Eve was not party to.  For example, Genesis 2 : 15 - 18 reads like this.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

 

God commanded Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree BEFORE Eve was created and he didn't speak directly to her at all until AFTER they had both sinned.

 

So, the only way she could have known about that command is if Adam told her.

 

You see the restriction?

 

 

So, please supply those four answers from scripture, using the restriction I've just explained.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito,

 

 

Genesis chapter 1 provides further evidence that god created Adam and Eve without the ability to know, see or understand the good around them.  The goodness plainly visible in god's creation.  

 

In verses 10, 12, 18, 21 and 25 god sees that the various things he created were good.  Here he is using his innate moral sense to understand and recognise what is good.  But even if Adam and Eve had been made with an inbuilt moral sense, they weren't around yet to see any of these things and recognise them as good, in the same way that god could.

 

They hadn't been created yet.

 

From verses 26 to 30 we see god create them, tell them to be fruitful and multiply and then give the whole of creation into their hands.  If there was ever going to be a time when the bible told us that Adam and Eve recognised the good in god's creation it would be then, after verse 30.  They were fully made and all of creation and Eden was there before them to be seen.

 

But what do we read?

 

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

It was god who saw that all he had made was very good.  Not Adam.  Not Eve.  Only god.

 

Why only god?  Because at that time, before Satan entered Eden and before they ate the forbidden fruit, god was the only being in Eden with an inner moral sense that was capable of discerning good from evil.  Once Satan entered the garden another being with a moral sense was there.

 

This is very strong evidence, from the bible itself, that Adam and Eve were created without the ability to see or recognize either good or evil.  The goodness of creation and in Eden would have been lost on them.  They just couldn't see it. 

 

And this explains why the the bible describes the trees in Eden as pleasing to the eye and good for food.  That was all Adam and Eve needed to know.  That was all they COULD know.  Their moral software hadn't been uploaded yet, so they couldn't see and understand the goodness of god's creation.  They were blind to its goodness.

 

This also why Eve couldn't see and understand Satan's evil.  To her he was just a talking snake.  In her eyes he wasn't the Father of Lies, the Devil or anything evil.  He was just a talking animal.  A talking serpent asking her a question about a conversation between Adam and god that she hadn't been party to.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

There's just one explicit mention of goodness in Genesis 2.

 

 

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 

11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 

12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 

13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.

14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 

 

Even if we assume that this gold was morally good, it was located in the land of Havilah, outside of Eden.

 

But god placed Adam and Eve within Eden to work it and tend it.

 

So they would have been unable to go to Havilah and see and experience the 'morally' good gold of that land.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is an interesting assumption, mwc.   Let's test it.

 

If there was such a hierarchy in Eden, how would Eve know the following?

 

1.  That such a hierarchy existed.

2.  How it worked.

3.  What the serpent's place in it was.

4.  What her place in it was.

 

To find the answers to these all you have to go in is what's in the bible.

 

Furthermore, you can't use any verses, passages or conversations that Eve was not party to.  For example, Genesis 2 : 15 - 18 reads like this.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

 

God commanded Adam not to eat from the forbidden tree BEFORE Eve was created and he didn't speak directly to her at all until AFTER they had both sinned.

 

So, the only way she could have known about that command is if Adam told her.

 

You see the restriction?

 

 

So, please supply those four answers from scripture, using the restriction I've just explained.

 

     I have to admit I'm hard pressed to do so at the moment.  A very rough take would consider:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

     Unfortunately, I recalled the events out of order and so the hierarchy is stated before humans come onto the scene.  In v28, where it would be useful for me, the groups more loosely defined.

 

     Now in the next chapter the groups are repeated when Adam is naming them:

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

 

     The problem here is that, like a lot of what is relayed in the Genesis tale, is should we consider what is stated here knowledge that was known to those who were supposedly there at the time or something more like a narration so only the reader is aware?  If it's for everyone then Adam was aware of this division of animals from this point.

 

     Then, of course, we come the the crux of it, with Genesis 3:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 

     The serpent is grouped with the wild animals.

 

     However, as a quick aside, how did the serpent know the command?  It's only on scene at the same time as Eve so it also suffers from the same limitations she does.  It can't possibly know anymore than she could.  This discussion is quite literally impossible if we stick strictly to what has been revealed in the text to this point.  There is one other way but it's not explicitly stated:

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

     It's kind of assumed in all re-imaginings that Eve eats the fruit then wanders off to serve some up to Adam.  Although the verse seems to indicate he's standing right there the whole time.  If there was ever a time to interject it was when Eve was debating a snake and it looks like he, literally, stood there with his dick in his hand.

 

     Later in the same chapter god starts his curse in v14:

“Cursed are you above all livestock
    and all wild animals!

 

     Once again there's a distinction here and wild animals appear to be not as good.

 

     If all animals lived in peace and harmony there's no actual distinction between livestock (or domestic) and wild animals.  A lion is the same as a house cat.  Unless we're to assume that they were taking milk and other items from the  livestock.  They're not in the list of foods given to them unless we're to imagine only solids are foods and liquids are something else?  Something to be inferred?

 

     I'm off on a bit of a tangent.  So Eve gets questioned:

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 

     She admits right away it was the serpent.  We know he's a wild animal by this point but, as I posted above, god restates it in v14 when he curses the snake.

 

     When the woman is cursed we're told:

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

 

     As you posted from the NT the woman was subordinate to the man but that only happens here.  Prior to that she was his helpmeet which seems to indicate a different sort of relationship.  I've seen it compared more to a mentorship on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Bible#Creation_narratives

Trible and Frymer-Kensky find the story of Eve in Genesis implies no inferiority of Eve to Adam; the word helpmate (ezer) connotes a mentor in the Bible rather than an assistant and is used frequently for the relation of God to Israel (not Israel to God).[49][2]

 

      But in v17:

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’...

 

     God seems to indicate there's a hierarchy in place.  Of course this is the first time anyone is hearing of it.  At no point is anyone told that Eve is less than Adam.  Coming from his rib does not automatically denote such a position yet here we are and it would be strange to assume that the hierarchy started between verses.  Eve was cursed to be subordinate to Adam and now that is retroactive come this verse.  Even the position of helpmeet is not defined except in the narrative so if it means Eve is less than Adam we must infer it because wherever the hierarchy is coming from it's being fully enforced here.

 

     This being the case it's reasonable that the hierarchy across humans and species existed and we're left to infer it.  Otherwise enforcement such as this makes no real sense.

 

     Anyhow, that's my long and very rough take on this.  I'd have to work harder to work it out into better defined answers for your four questions.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, I stand corrected about the equal status of Adam and Eve at the time of their creation.

 

Thanks for that, mwc.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Fyi and if you want to look into it further...

 

Created kind - Wikipedia

 

I'm aware that YEC's use of the word Baramin to mean 'kinds' of animal.

 

But as you'll read, that term was formulated in 1990 and was never an original Hebrew word.

[walterpthefirst]

    However, as a quick aside, how did the serpent know the command?  It's only on scene at the same time as Eve so it also suffers from the same limitations she does.  It can't possibly know anymore than she could.  This discussion is quite literally impossible if we stick strictly to what has been revealed in the text to this point.  

 

 

Yes, if we do as you say and stick only to the text up to that point.

 

But I would submit, in my role as Devil's Advocate, that we can expand our search parameters to include the whole bible, because that's what Christian apologists do.  They use one part of the bible to throw light on another.  Using that methodology I would answer the question of how the serpent knew of god's command to Adam, like this.

 

The serpent wasn't just a lowly animal but a powerful archangel (Satan) in the guise of a serpent.  So he would have immense supernatural powers and be able to know things that a simple snake could never know.

 

Would you accept that?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

If all animals lived in peace and harmony there's no actual distinction between livestock (or domestic) and wild animals.  A lion is the same as a house cat.  Unless we're to assume that they were taking milk and other items from the  livestock.  They're not in the list of foods given to them unless we're to imagine only solids are foods and liquids are something else?  Something to be inferred?

 

 

Perhaps the books of Isaiah and Revelation can help us out here?

 

Revelation 22 : 1 - 5

 

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 

3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 

4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 

5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

Many versions of the bible refer this passage as Eden Restored.

The idea being that all that was lost in the Fall is restored in the New Heaven and the New Jerusalem.  So, the curses laid upon all mankind, through Adam and Eve are lifted.  After they sinned in Eden they couldn't bear to look upon god's face.  But when all is restored, all who are saved by the blood of Jesus will, see god's face.

 

 

Isaiah 11 : 6 - 9

 

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

 

Isaiah's prophecy seems to be about the restoration of Eden.

That being so, he gives us a possible glimpse of how the animals behaved in Eden, before the Fall.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[mwc]

33 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Fyi and if you want to look into it further...

 

Created kind - Wikipedia

 

I'm aware that YEC's use of the word Baramin to mean 'kinds' of animal.

 

But as you'll read, that term was formulated in 1990 and was never an original Hebrew word.

     I'm getting low on time but I'll quote from elsewhere:

 

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of each kind, cattle and crawling things and wild beasts of each kind. And so it was. 25 And God made wild beasts of each kind and cattle of every kind and crawling things on the ground of each kind, and God saw that it was good.

 

*24. wild beasts. Literally, the phrase would mean "beast of the earth," but the archaic construct form for "beasts of," hayto‚ elsewhere regularly occurs in collocations that denote wild beasts. In verse 25, the archaic form is not used, but given the close proximity of hayat ha’arets there to hayto ’erets here, it seems likely that the meaning is the same.

(Genesis: Translation and Commentary, Robert Alter, p.4)

 

     I dislike quoting sources that others may not have access to but I'm doing it here just to clarify that I'm more interesting in the broad categories that are presented (ie. cattle vs. wild).  The author is clearly making a distinction here and it continues in the other verses.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

36 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

    However, as a quick aside, how did the serpent know the command?  It's only on scene at the same time as Eve so it also suffers from the same limitations she does.  It can't possibly know anymore than she could.  This discussion is quite literally impossible if we stick strictly to what has been revealed in the text to this point.  

 

 

Yes, if we do as you say and stick only to the text up to that point.

 

But I would submit, in my role as Devil's Advocate, that we can expand our search parameters to include the whole bible, because that's what Christian apologists do.  They use one part of the bible to throw light on another.  Using that methodology I would answer the question of how the serpent knew of god's command to Adam, like this.

 

The serpent wasn't just a lowly animal but a powerful archangel (Satan) in the guise of a serpent.  So he would have immense supernatural powers and be able to know things that a simple snake could never know.

 

Would you accept that?

     I might.  I'd have to know how being supernatural allows for this.

 

     If the assumption is that Satan is acting on god's behalf then we might be able to assume he was allowed access to god's command to Adam.  However, if he is not acting in that capacity then we'd have to find another way for him to discover this information.

 

     The argument so far seems he's working on god's behalf.  The only thing that seems to go against that point would be the curse in chapter 3.  To punish your own agent for obeying you, even if they're already your "enemy" is dishonorable at best.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

30 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

If all animals lived in peace and harmony there's no actual distinction between livestock (or domestic) and wild animals.  A lion is the same as a house cat.  Unless we're to assume that they were taking milk and other items from the  livestock.  They're not in the list of foods given to them unless we're to imagine only solids are foods and liquids are something else?  Something to be inferred?

 

 

Perhaps the books of Isaiah and Revelation can help us out here?

 

Revelation 22 : 1 - 5

 

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 

2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 

3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 

4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 

5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

 

Many versions of the bible refer this passage as Eden Restored.

The idea being that all that was lost in the Fall is restored in the New Heaven and the New Jerusalem.  So, the curses laid upon all mankind, through Adam and Eve are lifted.  After they sinned in Eden they couldn't bear to look upon god's face.  But when all is restored, all who are saved by the blood of Jesus will, see god's face.

 

 

Isaiah 11 : 6 - 9

 

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
    the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
    and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
    their young will lie down together,
    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
    on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
    as the waters cover the sea.

 

Isaiah's prophecy seems to be about the restoration of Eden.

That being so, he gives us a possible glimpse of how the animals behaved in Eden, before the Fall.  

 

     I'm familiar with these passages.  It also raises the question of why the distinction between cattle and wild if there are no functional difference.  Ignoring fish and birds animals should simply be animals.  If a calf and a lion or cow and bear are the same, which they are not here in Isaiah (they are domestic and wild), then why are they divided the same way in Eden?  Which leads us to why the serpent is placed in with the wild animals?

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, mwc said:

     I might.  I'd have to know how being supernatural allows for this.

 

     If the assumption is that Satan is acting on god's behalf then we might be able to assume he was allowed access to god's command to Adam.  However, if he is not acting in that capacity then we'd have to find another way for him to discover this information.

 

     The argument so far seems he's working on god's behalf.  The only thing that seems to go against that point would be the curse in chapter 3.  To punish your own agent for obeying you, even if they're already your "enemy" is dishonorable at best.

 

          mwc

 

 

Ok, that's interesting.

 

But when it comes to god acting honourably to others, what about the way he acted towards his children?

 

He gave them a warning they couldn't understand.

He didn't protect them from the most dangerous and harmful of the fallen angels.

He had the means and opportunity to bind Satan in chains of darkness to protect his children - but didn't.

He added curses to the punishment he said he was going to give them. 

He never gave them a chance to be reconciled with him during their lifetimes.

 

Honourable? 

 

Loving?  Fair and just?  Caring and compassionate?  Protective and nurturing?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I might.  I'd have to know how being supernatural allows for this.

 

     If the assumption is that Satan is acting on god's behalf then we might be able to assume he was allowed access to god's command to Adam.  However, if he is not acting in that capacity then we'd have to find another way for him to discover this information.

 

There is another alternative, mwc.

 

What if god let him rebel in heaven so that he could be cast down to earth and then tempt Eve?

 

That way Satan would believe that he would be doing grievous harm to god's children and all creation.

 

But god (who knows all things and therefore Satan's thoughts and plans) was just playing him for a fool.

 

That's what clever generals do in war - get the enemy to believe that they're doing you great damage.

 

But in reality they're just doing what you want them to do.

 

12 minutes ago, mwc said:

 

     The argument so far seems he's working on god's behalf.  The only thing that seems to go against that point would be the curse in chapter 3.  To punish your own agent for obeying you, even if they're already your "enemy" is dishonorable at best.

 

          mwc

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I'm familiar with these passages.  It also raises the question of why the distinction between cattle and wild if there are no functional difference.  Ignoring fish and birds animals should simply be animals.  If a calf and a lion or cow and bear are the same, which they are not here in Isaiah (they are domestic and wild), then why are they divided the same way in Eden?  Which leads us to why the serpent is placed in with the wild animals?

 

          mwc

 

 

Can't answer that one, mwc.   Sorry!  

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

This also why Eve couldn't see and understand Satan's evil.  To her he was just a talking snake.  In her eyes he wasn't the Father of Lies, the Devil or anything evil.  He was just a talking animal.  A talking serpent asking her a question about a conversation between Adam and god that she hadn't been party to.

What Ed also seems to be overlooking in his idea that Eve first gained insight into morality through her conversation with the snake, as opposed to being created with it, is the implication that a mere serpent could overwrite whatever code god had initially uploaded into his android children.  If that were the case, then (obviously) either god is not omnipotent, or evil was god's plan all along.  Ed really doesn't think his theology through very well.

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What Ed also seems to be overlooking in his idea that Eve first gained insight into morality through her conversation with the snake, as opposed to being created with it, is the implication that a mere serpent could overwrite whatever code god had initially uploaded into his android children.  If that were the case, then (obviously) either god is not omnipotent, or evil was god's plan all along.  Ed really doesn't think his theology through very well.

Dude, this was your idea....I'm literally agreeing with what you and Walter have proposed that God interfered.  You have cited bias human technology AI, chromatographs, etc., but you say Adam and Eve were not created with a bias....or have remained noncommittal on the subject.  Then it was suggested that no influence was given by either God or Satan through the verbal/person interactions....  YET SOMEHOW Eve made a selection.  She garnered, good, pleasing, and desirable somehow.....YET NEITHER OF YOU CAN DEFINE THE MECHANISM.  

 

Again, you both have perpetually claimed that A&E were so innocent that they were interfered with, but you can't define the interference.  "God wrote the biased code....eeeeh, I mean unbiased"

 

You got nothing except obfuscation...both of you.

 

<cue Walter>  "I didn't say that".... 

[Edgarcito]

Just say it and quit dodging.  "God created us without free will and incapable of righteousness....and I have no proof because, well, I don't know."

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Dude, this was your idea....I'm literally agreeing with what you and Walter have proposed that God interfered.  You have cited bias human technology AI, chromatographs, etc., but you say Adam and Eve were not created with a bias....or have remained noncommittal on the subject.  Then it was suggested that no influence was given by either God or Satan through the verbal/person interactions....  YET SOMEHOW Eve made a selection.  She garnered, good, pleasing, and desirable somehow.....YET NEITHER OF YOU CAN DEFINE THE MECHANISM.  

 

I have already shown you that Eve did not garner anything in Eden to be morally good before she conversed with Satan or ate the fruit, Ed.

 

The fruit of the tree Satan was talking to her about was 'good for eating' not morally good.

 

The fruit was ripe and ready to eat, not righteous or holy or morally good.

 

That's what the bible says.

 

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Again, you both have perpetually claimed that A&E were so innocent that they were interfered with, but you can't define the interference.  "God wrote the biased code....eeeeh, I mean unbiased"

 

You got nothing except obfuscation...both of you.

 

<cue Walter>  "I didn't say that".... 

 

If you agree with us that god interfered with Adam and Eve's free will, then why do you need us to define the mechanism by which he did it?

 

Do you need to define the mechanism by which god raised Jesus from the dead to accept that the bible says it happened?

 

We've shown from the bible that god did violate their free will.

 

If you agree with us that the bible says this, then surely your next step is to ask yourself this question?

 

'Was god violating the free will of his children a morally good act carried out by a loving, nurturing and protective father?'

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just say it and quit dodging.  "God created us without free will and incapable of righteousness....and I have no proof because, well, I don't know."

 

 

 

Why are you asking for proof of this when you've agreed with us that the bible says it?

[walterpthefirst]

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What Ed also seems to be overlooking in his idea that Eve first gained insight into morality through her conversation with the snake, as opposed to being created with it, is the implication that a mere serpent could overwrite whatever code god had initially uploaded into his android children.  If that were the case, then (obviously) either god is not omnipotent, or evil was god's plan all along.  Ed really doesn't think his theology through very well.

 

Amen.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Why are you asking for proof of this when you've agreed with us that the bible says it?

I don't agree Walter.  

 

1) No bias in creation.

2) Basically hardware, no software, just interactions.

3) She chose before eating anything.

 

How did she choose?  How did she choose?  How did she choose?

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't agree Walter.  

 

1) No bias in creation.

2) Basically hardware, no software, just interactions.

3) She chose before eating anything.

 

How did she choose?  How did she choose?  How did she choose?

 

I've already told you.  I've already told you.  I've already told you.

 

She didn't choose.  She didn't choose.  She didn't choose.

 

God made her do it.  God made her do it.  God made her do it.