why did god let adam and eve get decieved by the serpent

Greywolf,

And what’s the problem with being deliberate? He had no concept of deception or subterfuge, since that would require knowledge of evil.

You are arguing from your own perspective where you understand what is good and what is bad, Adam couldn’t do that. Put yourself in his place.

I’ve had 4 (ages now are 25 thru 31) and they’ve all grown and left home now. Early attempts at punishment never resulted in any effective education so we simply never punished – it was simply unnecessary.

Kat

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for the reply, Katazia, and here are my responses.

Agreed

Agreed

Which we agreed adam could not measure since he didn’t know what it was.

Agreed, which would involve trusting God’s word in this regard since they didn’t know what was good & evil.

Same scenario as above since they would have to trust God for the definition of what is good & bad at this point.

FICTION, since they did have an understanding of what is a good action & bad action from God’s definition (See Facts 4 & 5).

FICTION, since God did define what was good and bad before eating the fruit. They did have knowledge of God’s definition of what was good and bad in regards to eating the fruit. Adam & Eve had knowledge what was good & bad behavior according to God’s definition. Eve recited the rule while conversing with the serpent. Therefore she understood that eating the fruit was something she was not suppose to do.

Actually the issue is whether Adam knew what to do and what not to do. Adam understood God’s definition of what was good & bad behavior in regards to the fruit, and Eve recited the rule while conversing with the serpent. They understood eating the fruit was something God told them not to do.

But God had already told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit. They already had God’s definition of good & bad behavior in regards to the fruit before they ate it. Yet they chose to disobey His command. (What part of “DO NOT EAT… ” did they not understand?)

Agreed, but then I made the chose of playing chess without consulting a Grand Master of Chess in regards of how to play the game. If the Grand Master’s advise was not to play the game until I know the rules, or else I will lose, the fault would be mine since I chose to continue playing and disregard the advice of the Grand Master.

Agreed. There are written and unwritten laws that govern our lives that we inherently obey because they provide security and order in our society. And our daily lives are made up of choices, which are derived from what we know to be good or bad (although the end results may prove to be different). But if we know these laws and chose to disobey these laws, the consequences are our responsibility. We are accountable for our actions when we chose to disobey, not the lawgiver. Adam & Eve knew from God what was good & bad behavior in regards to eating the fruit. God told them not to eat, Eve recited the rule to the serpent, but yet they disobeyed God’s command. (Again, what part of “DO NOT EAT… ” did they not understand?)

And would you call babies hardly human even when they have a lack of knowledge of the world around them? You should rethink the logic in that statement.

God was providing for Adam’s needs in the Garden of Eden. And creating Eve to be by Adam’s side, and for sexual pleasure, is a reason to distrust God?

But this is a wrong assumption. What you are implying is that children should have the ability to judge who is the good parent and bad parent at birth, or children should know what is the good rule or bad rule at the moment of birth, when you know that is not the case. Children get their sense of values from their parents since they provide for their children's needs.
We get our sense of good & bad behavior from obeying our parent’s rules. Since they provide for us & protect us, we in turn love & trust them.
But even when we begin to gather knowledge of what is good & evil, it does not guarantee obedience.

True, but they knew of God’s definition of what was good & bad behavior before they ate the fruit. Therefore, it depended on how much they trusted and respected God’s authority.

Wrong assumption, since history can show you people who had the foreknowledge of what was right and wrong, yet chose to disobey & trust dictators and mass murderers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

where does it say that?

The serpent asked what he'd said, to which she replied they would die. The serpent disagreed. With no understanding of good and evil, a comparison between god and the serpent cannot be made - and any such choice that comes afterwards is mere guesswork. Without knowledge of good and evil, why would god's word be any more relevant than the serpents? You can't turn round and say "they did have knowledge of good and evil beforehand", because they quite clearly didn't. Even god agrees with this by saying "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil", after they've eaten the fruit.

How do you end up with this conclusion? Being told something does not mean you understand it. In this instance, (with them having no knowledge of good and evil), it's overwhelmingly obvious they didn't understand it. The term "do not" has no meaning when you have no understanding of good and evil.

You have no place with which to draw this conclusion. He'd been told not to eat it, and then got told to eat it by someone else. Unable to make a comparison between the two over who's good and who's evil - he can only make a completely uninformed 50/50 guess.

You're missing the key point which is that although god had told him not to, he had no reason to listen to a word god said, because he could not understand good and evil.

He could have said anything he wanted to say, but without them having knowledge of good and evil, they have no reason to listen to him.

It's like someone you don't know telling you to do something, and someone else you don't know telling you not to. Without being able to judge who you should be listening to, all you can do is make a wild guess.

But god and the serpent could both be seen as chessmasters. One says "do this move", and the other says "don't do this move". There's no way of comparing the two to see who is the real chessmaster, so you're left with no choice but to guess.

A) Where does it say anything about sexual pleasure?

B) I always find it amusing when someone says "god was providing for adam's needs", when it's actually the opposite. god decided to make man, make a garden, and make man need to eat to survive. If god didn't supply adam with food, then adam would have died of starvation and god would have to start from scratch. Adam would be dead without food- and being dead, wouldn't care one way or the other- so the only need that is being fulfilled is gods need for living people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SVRP,

So if God had already given them the knowledge of good and evil what then was the purpose of the tree?

Kat

 

Kat-

You make a valid point. I am arguing from my own personal perspective but as you said, to put myself in his place he is being told this by his GOD whom he had a full understanding of. imagine yourself in those shoes. would u still eat it?

I congradulate you on a feat I thought damn near impossible!

 

A man was walking through the forest enjoying the cool of the day, when he happened to bump into a monkey. The man thought for a moment, and realised that this monkey might just eat his picnic which he'd left lying on the floor in the middle of the forest. The man did not want the monkey to eat his picnic and so he looked at the monkey and said "Do not eat the picnic or you'll die".

The monkey looked at him as he spoke, and then proceeded on it's way. Eventually it stumbled upon a picnic, and due to its hunger and want for food, it ate the picnic.

----

You guys really blame the monkey?

 

Yes if their was only one picnic the monkey couldn't eat, when there were several others that he could.

 

Evolutionary theory, mtDNA, Y chromosome etc. rule out the possibilty that Adamn or Eve ever existed and that we are all descendants of their childrens incest and polygamy. Basically, everyone here is wasting their time on this board.
Unless of course you believe Adam and Eve were premitive Apes. That would explain why the idiot ate the apple.

 

Esoteric,

Please don't spoil the fun. We all know Adam and Eve didn't really exist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Kat

 

Greywolf,

And he might understand the words but does he understand the concepts of things like good and evil? Apparently not because that understanding is only obtained if he eats from the tree that gives that knowledge.

What does that mean?

If I still don’t understand that it is a bad thing to to disobey God then why not?

Kat

 

@ Kat

Where in the Bible does it say Adam did not know good and evil till he ate from the tree?

 

The fact that the tree which they were forbidden to eat from was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" sort of implies that unless the fruit from this tree is eaten then the knowledge is not had... Also, Adam and Eve ran about naked "and were not ashamed." If they had knowledge of good and evil then they'd know that being naked is evil, worthy of shame. It wasn't until they ate the fruit that this knowledge was granted.

You're still trying to get out from under this shadow? Might as well give up. There's no escaping here. Might as well just eat the fruit and get on with your life, SouthStar. After you do, you'll wonder why you were so reticent to eat it before. Knowledge is a wonderful thing. Regardless of what your god says about it.

 

Well then, you too must admit that you are basing your assumption that Adam and Eve did not "know" the concepts of good and evil without eating from the tree, just because of it's name. Seems to me like a mere guess with no basis.

Did God ever say if they ate it they would gain knowledge? Could it have been possible that they may as well (as in they and their future offspring) could have made technological advancements without ever eating from the tree?

Does the Bible ever say/show that the knowledge you are talking about was a result of them eating from the tree? Is it not coincidence that their improvisation happened after eating from the tree?

Remember after eating from the tree, they still did not even know how to make clothes.

 

Some coincidence. And they didn't know how to make their own clothes, but they knew how to hide behind bushes. You're grasping at straws, man.

Why would it be called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil if it was just another fruit tree? Why did they conceive their nakedness afterwards? Why was god so anxious to remove them from the garden now that they had eaten from this tree.

Genesis 3:22
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Genesis 3:4 and 5
And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Sounds familiar doesn't it? You see, the serpent lied and told the truth. As all effective liars do. He lied by saying that that Eve wouldn't die (although in a way, he told the truth, because she did not die that day). He told the truth about the effect of eating the fruit. Unless you're going to say God was lying too... You wouldn't do that... Would you?


Edit: note that that the Tree of Life was never forbidden. Therefore, the knowledge of good and evil would not have prevented them from eating from it. And also note that it is the knowledge of "Good and Evil" not technical knowledge. We often use the technology metaphor for it because that was the intent of the original myth from which the serpent was derived along with good and evil. The Hebrews altered the meaning.

 

I don't see where it says God was anxious in the story. And perhaps you might want to consider that it if wasn't just another "fruit tree", it probably wasn't a fruit at all (something edible). But I am just following your line about metaphors..

And how do you know what the serpent meant by die? It is obvious he didn't mean physical death so that is incorrect. The spiritual separation that ensued is the death God spoke of and it came to pass so the serpent did lie.

Unless you are trying to say A&E didn't know the difference (assuming there was one) between the death the serpent spoke of and the death God spoke of, then you are grasping at straws.

And just who were the "Hebrews" you are talking about?

 

SouthStar,

What then was the purpose of the tree is this wasn’t true?

But try genesis 3:7 where they received the knowledge and 3:22 where God says they now have the knowledge. It is not difficult to conclude that they did not have this knowledge before they ate, agreed?

Kat

 

I found something you might be interested in Kat:

http://www.carm.org/open/God_know.htm
http://www.carm.org/questions/hell.htm

I hope you enjoy it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

P.S. A lot of stuff on the site to keep one occupied, not all I necessarily agree with but the first of it's kind I have seen.

 

SVRP,

To answer the remainder of your post.

No that is not correct. Trust is a good thing and to choose that is a value judgment that requires a knowledge of good and evil.

And no again since that is a value judgment requiring a knowledge of what is good or bad.

Reciting something does not indicate she understood it. Since the serpent simply told her something different and she believed it indicates a lack of understanding.

But A&E were fully adult with apparently an understanding of everything except the knowledge of good and evil. That makes them very different from adults of today. Babies don’t know anything and still don’t. Your comparison is not valid.

To trust or to distrust is a value judgment requiring the ability to appreciate what is good or bad. They would neither trust not distrust God since they had no way to make that decision.

I’ve made no such assumption. Morality is a learned activity. A&E were created fully adult and did not proceed through a learning process as most children would do, and neither did God teach them about good and evil since that was the purpose of the tree and it seems he did not want then to have that knowledge, see Genesis 3:22

Agreed but it does mean that if we disobey some respected authority then we know we are doing wrong. This emphasizes the A&E issue. Since A&E did not know how to tell the difference between good and bad then they had no way to realize that disobeying God was wrong. And I state again it is grossly unfair for God to punish them for something they could not possibly understand.

Kat

 

SouthStar,

Thanks for the info. Not sure if you wanted me to refute them or not, so I won’t go into detail. The issue of omniscience and pre-determination is one of my favorite paradoxes that I have debated in depth many times before. The text you have found doesn’t really touch on the essential issues though, so be careful if you think that will arm you against the skeptics and people like me.

What I enjoyed about the other article that addressed Adam and Eve is the statement that Adam was made good and then later it talks of the essential sinful nature of man – that seems like a significant contradiction. But the article doesn’t touch on the issue we have been debating here. So again be careful if you try to use this material in any real debate.

OK good for you.

Take care
Kat

 

Time to play devil's advocate (heh heh):

Too bad there isn't a time frame in the Bible to show how long it took before the serpent came along to ask Eve what God said to her. The reason being, why didn't she just go and eat from the tree of good and evil right away if she wasn't able to know that it was a bad thing to go against what God said?

If the serpent came along instantly then that could be a reason why she didn't first eat it on her own, but if it were a couple days or hours, her not eating from that tree would have been because she acknowledged God's command to not eat from that tree.. unless she wasn't hungry for that tree so she ate from all the others which maybe eventually she would have eaten from the tree of good and evil for variety, heh.

And just so ya know, all my previous arguments are mainly just because of the wording of the tree being knowledge of good and evil. That's something that doesn't make much sense and is only written that way to establish to different forces of good and evil.. God and Satan. When it's written that way that God is good and Satan is evil, if one goes by the original story that the tree is of enlightenment, God and Satan then aren't labelled so perhaps their roles are reversed in that God is evil and Satan is good, or both are good or both are evil. Whatever their behaviour alignment, with our enlightenment, we're able to see them for what they are since we're no longer ignorant (assuming what is written is true, otherwise we're still ignorant, heh, until we learn more that is).

So yeah, I'm just being picky with the wording towards some mainly because the story of Adam and Eve isn't an original story. That's whatcha get for altering things. But hey, it could all be like Mormonism. The people of the past wrote down the story of Adam and Eve wrong so when Moses was told this story, he's wrote it correctly this time. Everyone else was wrong, they left stuff out! Mm-hmm, we've all heard THAT one before..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N