This again circles back to the exact same logic @Halbhh ... If the words rang true to you, or rang inspirational, or rang whatever-for-that-matter, does this mean He is divine? Because many read opposing claimed and stated holy books, and reach the exact same conclusion(s).
I say no, this is not how you determine if the words contained in the book are from a divine being.
That's a good question!
Why is God the one we read of in the common bible, instead of some other competing texts, or for that why would a rational person ever think that the version of God in the common bible is better/more accurate than just the
'Perennial Philosophy' for instance (which is partly true in some ways), i.e. that 'all paths lead to God'...?
-->Let's look at the
'fall' of man, leave out other important things in the Garden of Eden story(and parable) and just focus on the 'fall' alone.
1) We were created to be essentially like God (not merely superficially 'in His image' but more than superficial), even:
"you are gods" Christ reminded:
John 10:34 Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are gods'?
as in Psalm 82:6.
Among other things this means we have a true (full, unhindered) freedom to act, like God -- real autonomy in the most fundamental way.
(In psychology terms: "agency", the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices; being able to think and act for ourselves, on our own, truly independently.)
Do you agree basic ability to think and act -- agency -- is our basic ability as humans?
That we really can think and act, on our own? That we have that most essential "freedom"?
If you agree (you might not!, and if not, just raise the issue and we might discuss more), then continuing:
2) In the case of "yes" consider this Garden of Eden parable summary of the 'fall' --
With real freedom to act, every last human would in time decide at some point to trust their own choices above God's parental instruction -- the basic situation of deciding oneself to eat of the
"fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" --
-- deciding for oneself what is "good" and "bad", instead of trusting only in the wisdom of the Parent alone.
Of course there was more: not only for Eve, Adam to decide to be independent (which isn't a wrong at all) but instead another profound choice -- to
distrust God.
To distrust is a completely separate choice than merely to act independently (which they'd already been doing).
Distrust also we see in not just a minor little small way, but to specifically accept the (false) accusation of wrongdoing of God specifically, as the text shows --
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
3but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
See> Not simply to go out on one's own, but more: to specifically accept the idea (trick, false idea) that God is doing evil and withholding a basic good right.
(which He was not withholding -- a good parent does
not let a toddler drive a full sized automobile, because they will harm themselves and/or others, potentially very seriously)
So, it was
not about being independent, which isn't evil. It was about distrusting God.
Of course it's obviously a
dangerous and harmful choice/life direction/sea change/wrong for a toddler to distrust a wise, loving, good-acting Parent -- the one Who is their only means of Life for quite a long many further years of total dependency....
But this kinda steal the car and drive is what most all or all children (all individual humans) would do at some point, with freedom, agency, quite naturally: disobey the parent, and go do something for which a good parent will have to then teach them right and wrong concerning.
A good Parent will aid children to learn right and wrong.
"There's a reason, little children, that we don't light the family pet on fire. I'm going to have to keep you away from the cat for an entire long day."
(even though fire is a wonderfully interesting curiosity to a toddler, as is pet psychology too, they just aren't wise enough yet to manage freedom, fire, and pets with total independence; not old enough).
Now, a good and wise parent (as opposed to a much less good parent) lets children learn the lessons they can learn on their own for themselves
by natural consequences.
"You refused over and over to come eat lunch when I called. So, now all you have until supper is just these apples and this bread, and you have to manage for yourself, since the rest of us ate lunch already." (I know you had a big breakfast, the parent considers to themself)
Learning by natural consequence. It's for the best.
Do you agree? (if not, perhaps reading an article about teaching children by natural consequences would help to explain how/why it is best)
We have to learn.
But God foresaw all of this of course, and planned ahead for our reconciliation, and total rescue from the cold.
Now, God is a better parent though than we are normally used to here, and He does not force us to come back to Him.
He has too much respect for us to force us.
But He will show up and intervene more than once to give us chances to turn, confess our wrong, be reconciled.
And He came in person to help, at the right time, when we'd learned by experience enough to begin to realize we actually do need a Mentor.
A Guide.
That we didn't know everything. When teenagers think they know everything, it's common, but it's also just mistaken.
But Christ went to the spirits in prison -- the dead from any time it seems, even those who had filled the world with violence and wrongdoing -- He went/goes to them also with the message of reconciliation:
'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey [trust enough to follow]
...'
1 Peter 3 ESV
