You can talk the hind leg off a donkey but you can't convince me that Adam could have had knowledge of good and evil before he ate the fruit that conveyed knowledge of good and evil!
Originally posted by lucifershammer Knowing right from wrong wasn't his problem - standing up for what he knew to be right was.
So it was Gods fault for making women so persuasive?
What does it mean to know right from wrong?
If I know something is wrong I would never do it unless the definition of wrong is defined by someone else, that is I think it is right but know that someone else thinks its wrong.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You can talk the hind leg off a donkey but you can't convince me that Adam could have had knowledge of good and evil before he ate the fruit that conveyed knowledge of good and evil!
Thanks for letting us know what an open mind you have.
Originally posted by twhitehead So it was Gods fault for making women so persuasive?
What does it mean to know right from wrong?
If I know something is wrong I would never do it unless the definition of wrong is defined by someone else, that is I think it is right but know that someone else thinks its wrong.
In the Genesis context, "knowing right from wrong" is about asserting that X is right/wrong simply because you say it to be so.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You can talk the hind leg off a donkey but you can't convince me that Adam could have had knowledge of good and evil before he ate the fruit that conveyed knowledge of good and evil!
The donkey called: he wants his leg back.
When Adam was given the choice between living under God's system or living under Satan's system, it is doubtful that God supplied him with the myriad applications which would eventuate from a decision for the latter. He did, however, give Adam the two salient points of the misuse of his choice: dying (physically, eventually), you will die (spiritually, immediately).
One can make all kinds of hay whether Adam knew what dying was, but as the case has been made pretty obvious for us, it is highly improbable (and downright un-Godlike) to presume any sense of vagarity in Adam's considerations.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH One can make all kinds of hay whether Adam knew what dying was, but as the case has been made pretty obvious for us, it is highly improbable (and downright un-Godlike) to presume any sense of vagarity in Adam's considerations.
I think that Adam knew what death was - and was afraid of it. That's why he said nothing when the serpent was having a go at Eve - even though he was standing right there.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I think that Adam knew what death was - and was afraid of it. That's why he said nothing when the serpent was having a go at Eve - even though he was standing right there.
While the account does not specifically mention Adam as being separated from the woman during her discourse with the serpent, it does not specify that Adam was immediately present, either.
The fact that the serpent directs his conversation toward the woman lends credibility to the idea that Adam was not present. And, on the other side of application, if he was present during the entire conversation and not merely faced with the results (and subsequent choice of fallen woman or perfect God), to put it mildly, he was woefully remiss in his duties.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH While the account does not specifically mention Adam as being separated from the woman during her discourse with the serpent, it does not specify that Adam was immediately present, either.
The fact that the serpent directs his conversation toward the woman lends credibility to the idea that Adam was not present. And, on the other side of application, i ...[text shortened]... choice of fallen woman or perfect God), to put it mildly, he was woefully remiss in his duties.
Exactly. It was Adam's job to protect the garden of Eden (Gen 2:15) and he failed.
The question of whether Adam was present or not isn't clear in the English translation but, in the Hebrew text, the serpent uses the second person in the plural when speaking to Eve - which means that Adam was right there and listening.
In fact, as Irenaeus (2nd cent.) commented, only the woman had the guts to even try to refute the serpent's arguments.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Exactly. It was Adam's job to protect the garden of Eden (Gen 2:15) and he failed.
The question of whether Adam was present or not isn't clear in the English translation but, in the Hebrew text, the serpent uses the second person in the plural when speaking to Eve - which means that Adam was right there and listening.
In fact, as Irenaeus ...[text shortened]... commented, only the woman had the guts to even try to refute the serpent's arguments.
Are you referring to the "you," as in "you and the man" as being in the second person?
While the woman (not yet Isha/Eve) refuted, she was wrong. God did not prohibit touching the fruit, only eating it. She added to the command of God, and was therefore wrong. Had she stuck to the script, she would have fared much better.
Would you eat the apple?
30 May '06 22:16
Back to Top