Why does God hide?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do you dishonestly believe anything else?

Yes, I am fairly certain that all four gospels derive large portions from each other or a common source. The fact that they contain significant differences is evidence that as the stories were copied and rewritten, changes were made contradicting your original claim that we have no evidence of such changes.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Nonetheless, this particular story was written for people who understood the terms and concepts used; there was nothing foreign about the same.

OK, so again we have the argument that the story was perhaps modified to make it clear to the readership, but there are two objections: 1) How do we know the original terms were communicated and understood ...[text shortened]... our point. The word 'die' is used twice instead of once. How does this change anything?[/b]

1) How do we know the original terms were communicated and understood clearly?
Because there is nothing--- save wild speculation--- to say otherwise. We don't know, for instance, whether or not the man and the woman were visited by UFO's, the pilots of which perhaps gave conflicting information regarding the tree's fruit. Seriously: who's to say?

In your scenario, God simply cannot be trusted. There's no reason for such blasphemy; just your assertion that He cannot.

2) The argument does not address the problem of their lack of experience of death.
Extraordinarily assumptive. According to your own words, only experience can impart "real learning." Was it experience which taught the young Messiah who He was, or was it doctrine? Did it take the cross before He realized that He was, indeed, a member of the Trinity, or did He learn it through what was written?

In contrast to your take on the story, are the facts. Exactly how clear the issue was to the man and the woman can be seen in their choice. They were told by God not to eat of the fruit because they would die. They were told by the serpent that God was afraid they would be as smart at Him. The woman clearly weighed her options and chose the scenario offered by the serpent.

Would she chose differently in hindsight? Apparently, your penchant for experience being the best teacher answers in the affirmative. A better questions would be: do you? Do any of us? If experience is such a great teacher, why do we continue to do things we know are not good?

Writers are capable of forgetting to include details, failing to remember events perfectly, and even outright lying about what happened to deceive or further an agenda.
I can only assume you are lying.

Again, there is no guarantee of this.
There's more for it than against it.

I also pointed out that the story is not specific with respect to the [b]degree of their understanding of the concept.[/b]
And to what degree do you understand death? Other than losing those you know or hearing of the death of those you don't, you certainly know very little about it. Does that mean you don't understand it?

Well, yes, it would be better if the kid never touched the hot stove, but still they do. Only then does the real learning take place.
Well, I guess that makes the Lord Jesus Christ about the most ignorant person who ever walked the globe then.

Sorry, I still don't get your point. The word 'die' is used twice instead of once. How does this change anything?
This gets into the really boring area of exegesis, study and all that mundane stuff that goes with understanding the Bible. No sense bothering yourself with it too much.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I am fairly certain that all four gospels derive large portions from each other or a common source. The fact that they contain significant differences is evidence that as the stories were copied and rewritten, changes were made contradicting your original claim that we have no evidence of such changes.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good luck with that.

Well I guess your argument is meaningless then as when any conflicts do arise you simply declare that they are different angles that had different origins. But such is the nature of delusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I guess your argument is meaningless then as when any conflicts do arise you simply declare that they are different angles that had different origins. But such is the nature of delusion.

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This gets into the really boring area of exegesis, study and all that mundane stuff that goes with understanding the Bible. No sense bothering yourself with it too much.

Translation: "I'm too lazy to actually back up my own statements."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Translation: "I'm too lazy to actually back up my own statements."

At length, I have exegeted the passage, offering the original Hebrew and translating the same. That isn't the issue.

What is the issue is that you attempt to make the passage say something it clearly doesn't--- even from poorly translated sources. Nothing within the story gives even a hint of an indication that the man and the woman were a little cloudy on what was at stake. You superimpose your thoughts onto it and then marvel at the outcome.

The woman took the bait, bamboozled into thinking she would be just as smart as God. In the story, God addresses her trespass and appropriately judged her actions. What was her sentence? Increased labor pains and made her accountable to the man.

The man knowingly ate of the fruit, and, for his tresspass, the earth was transformed, mankind was banished from the Garden, and made to labor for his sustenance. In other words, suffering.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The woman took the bait, bamboozled into thinking she would be just as smart as God. In the story, God addresses her trespass and appropriately judged her actions. What was her sentence? Increased labor pains and made her accountable to the man.

The man knowingly ate of the fruit, and, for his tresspass, the earth was transformed, mankind was banished from the Garden, and made to labor for his sustenance. In other words, suffering.

So the woman was at simultaneously crystal clear about what was at stake and bamboozled.
You say 'appropriately judged' yet I am sure that the 'appropriateness' of that judgment can only be seen by God who holds the 'bigger picture'.
Do you have any argument as to why they would be punished for their actions?
Do you have any argument as to why we should be punished for their actions?
Or is it one of those cases where you simply put your faith in God that what he did must have been right?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The woman took the bait, bamboozled into thinking she would be just as smart as God. In the story, God addresses her trespass and appropriately judged her actions. What was her sentence? Increased labor pains and made her accountable to the man.

This little story reminds me of other stories of the same kind:
Why the elephants have long trunks. Why the owl are so wise. Why the rainbow are so colourful.
And now this: Why a woman must suffer so much pain in her labour.

What would the adult answer when the young ones are asking sillh questions. They would like to answer "Noone knows, now shut up!", but instead they invent a good story. A fabel. These stories they tell the kids at the camp fires.

We shouldn't read in so much in them, but appreciate them as good stories...

By the way, have you heard the story of how... Now listen!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

The woman took the bait, bamboozled into thinking she would be just as smart as God. In the story, God addresses her trespass and appropriately judged her actions. What was her sentence? Increased labor pains and made her accountable to the man.

So are caesarian sections an affront to divine justice?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So are caesarian sections an affront to divine justice?

Apparently you've never had one.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This little story reminds me of other stories of the same kind:
Why the elephants have long trunks. Why the owl are so wise. Why the rainbow are so colourful.
And now this: Why a woman must suffer so much pain in her labour.

What would the adult answer when the young ones are asking sillh questions. They would like to answer "Noone knows, now shut ...[text shortened]... reciate them as good stories...

By the way, have you heard the story of how... Now listen!

Thanks for your recollections. Now kindly go back to sleep.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So the woman was at simultaneously crystal clear about what was at stake and bamboozled.
You say 'appropriately judged' yet I am sure that the 'appropriateness' of that judgment can only be seen by God who holds the 'bigger picture'.
Do you have any argument as to why they would be punished for their actions?
Do you have any argument as to why we shoul ...[text shortened]... those cases where you simply put your faith in God that what he did must have been right?

So the woman was at simultaneously crystal clear about what was at stake and bamboozled.
As stated, God made the issue clear to her; the serpent tricked her into wrong thinking.

You say 'appropriately judged' yet I am sure that the 'appropriateness' of that judgment can only be seen by God who holds the 'bigger picture'.
That's ironic, because you seem to be unsure about the rest of God's actions, too. Probably just a coincidence.

Do you have any argument as to why they would be punished for their actions?
There were consequences to their actions; I can't say the consequences were payment, however. Due to their tainted state, neither of them were in any position to atone for their actions. That came at the cross.

Do you have any argument as to why we should be punished for their actions?
As with the answer above, no one--- save the Messiah--- has ever received punishment for any sin. We all suffer the consequences, but that's a small price to pay in comparison to the cost of what the Lord Jesus Christ paid.

Or is it one of those cases where you simply put your faith in God that what he did must have been right?
That's really not a bad spot to be in. Imagine if the woman had been of that mindset and where we would be today.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You superimpose your thoughts onto it and then marvel at the outcome.

My interpretation of the story is valid and I've already made the case for it.

You have also made your own assumptions about the story, even if you will not admit it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
My interpretation of the story is valid and I've already made the case for it.

You have also made your own assumptions about the story, even if you will not admit it.

You've made no such case. In fact, the story itself flatly contradicts your wild claims, without requiring any leaps in logic.

I assumed nothing in my approaching the story, but instead, let the story tell itself. What is says, I believe. What you try to make it say, I reject.