Genesis 3:15

[Lilith2006]

In that day the LORD will take His sharp, great, and mighty sword, and bring judgment on Leviathan the fleeing serpent—Leviathan the coiling serpent—and He will slay the dragon of the sea. Isaiah 27:1

Then the angel showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, with Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. Zechariah 3:1

The Leviathan in Isaiah is clearly different to the serpent in the garden of Eden, as the leviathan is obviously NOT crawling in the dust if it is a sea serpent, & man can not stomp on its head.

I think that in early Hebrew language, any long thin creature without legs was referred to as a serpent. I did read somewhere that the Leviathan was a mythical sea creature in Jewish thought, & that there was a Jewish sect that worshipped it as a god. I also read that the Levites was the Jewish sect that worshipped the Leviathan, & that there were temples throughout Israel dedicated to the Leviathan. After the fall of Israel to the Babylonians, & when they were released & returned to Israel, all of the Leviathan temples were ordered destroyed, & the Levites were reformed to become priests of YWH. I believe that there is archaeological evidence to support this, as temples to Leviathan have been discovered. I have not looked deeply into this to verify the authenticity of these claims to see if it is accurate historically or not, so I am not saying that the above is all true, so take what I said with a grain of salt & verify it yourself if you want to, just that it is an interesting avenue to explore, which I may one day when I get the time.

In Zecariah 3:1, I agree that it says that God prevents Satan from accusing Joshua.

There is not enough information in Zecariah 3:1 or any preceding verses to make much of it. You certainly cannot come to the conclusion that Satan is the evil deceiver of the world, & gods arch enemy for eternity from this one verse, & there is also no evidence that Leviathan has anything to do with Satan. Perhaps the leviathan was thought to be a threat to shipping off of the coast of Israel, which is why it had to be destroyed so that people can return to Israel by sea. That is the most logical interpretation I can come up with for Isaiah 27:1, but at the end of the day that is just MY interpretation, & if YOU want to interpret the Leviathan to be about Satan, you can do that, however your interpretation is no more valid than my interpretation.

 

[Lilith2006]

Lilith, you mention that you were invited to a bible study by some Christian group and that they proceeded to discuss or debate with you about the meaning of Genesis 3:15.

I was curious to know what specifically the folks who invited you to their group bible study asserted in their arguments. Did their overall arguments include all of the same sort of points asserted by the following messianic type Christian group in the following articles [links below]?

I wonder how simplistic their arguments had to have been if they couldn't even cite teachings from any Jewish rabbis from any time who reflected their own viewpoint by which they were attempting to influence you.

​

1) Jewish Rabbis and Gen. 3.15​

​

2) Jewish Positions or Objections​

​

3) Rabbinic Support​

I think they are just called Australian Christian Churches. That is what it had on their pamphlets. I doubt that they really know anything about Judaism at all, so I wouldn't expect them to bring up anything about Jewish arguments.

They seemed surprised that I seemed to know more about the bible than they did (at least the old testament part, I haven't looked into the new testament in detail yet, only the birth details in Luke & Mathew), & I think they were a bit embarrassed to be truthful, & got quite flustered. I don't know if they even knew that I was Jewish, because only my closest friends know this. I don't tell everybody at school that I am Jewish. Jews are under no obligation to try to convert everybody that we meet to Judaism.

I haven't read the articles you have provided yet, so I will do so when I have the time.

[EDIT: I had written something else in my reply, & then realised I had you mixed up with another poster, so I have removed it]

 

[Occams Barber]

I think they are just called Australian Christian Churches. That is what it had on their pamphlets. I doubt that they really know anything about Judaism at all, so I wouldn't expect them to bring up anything about Jewish arguments.

I looked up Australian Christian Churches on Google. According to their website...

"Australian Christian Churches is a movement of pentecostal churches in voluntary cooperation. Each individual church is self-governing, but commits itself to work together with other churches in the movement for the purpose of mutual support and the spread of the gospel in Australia and the world."​

Australian Christian Churches

www.acc.org.au

The Gold Coast is a bit of a magnet for Pentecostal type churches.

OB

 

[Lilith2006]

1) Jewish Rabbis and Gen. 3.152) Jewish Positions or Objections3) Rabbinic Support

All of the above sources you have provided are still coming from a Christian standpoint. I don't see Messianic Jews as Jewish, at the end of the day they are Christian, using the guise of Jewish rituals to try to pretend that they are Jewish. They may have Jewish roots, but at the end of the day they are Christian. I am sure that you would take the same viewpoint with the Mormon religion, who some claim to be Christian, & who may have even been raised as Christian. Are they Christians or Mormons in your view?

They also does not state the date of any of the alternative opinions. Does anybody recognize the verses as having any possible link to the Messiah BEFORE the advent of Christianity?

And even if some Jewish Rabbi's have an opinion on whether there is more meaning in the texts than what is written, at the end of the day it is just an opinion, & just like if you put 100 Christians in a room & ask them to explain a particular verse in the bible, you will probably get 100 different opinions, the same will be true if you put 100 Rabbi's in a room.

All I can do is to read the words that I see, & understand what I see the way it is written. If you have the contention that there is hidden meaning in the bible that is not apparent from the surface level reading, that may be true, but in this case the true meaning will never be able to be understood, because there will always be disagreement as to what the correct interpretation is. Genesis 3 is not a difficult chapter to read, unlike some verses in Isaiah where it can be rather difficult to interpret what he is trying to say.

If your contention is that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the words in the bible, then why does the holy spirit come up with different interpretations of the text, usually depending on which of the 1000's of church denominations that you belong to? And how do we know if the person doing the interpreting is getting their interpretation from the holy spirit, or from an evil spirit?
And even those from the same church denomination can interpret a verse differently, depending on what their church pastor has told them.

So to me, the Christian theology of requiring the holy spirit to help you to "interpret' the bible raises far more problems than it solves. IF Satan is an evil spirit that is constantly deceiving people, what better way to deceive people is there than to confuse people as to the correct interpretation of the bible.

If you read the bible AS it is written, & believe it as it is written without re-interpretation, do you think that a just God would punish anybody for that? But if you re-interpret the bible, & practice your religion according to the erroneous interpretation, is it possible that God might say, why did you corrupt my word by changing the meaning, deceiving yourself & others? Why did you worship a false messiah, instead of YWH, as commanded in the Torah?

Also, to be truthful to you, if I really want to know the theological interpretation of a text that I find difficult to understand, such as certain passages in Isaih etc, I will ask a Rabbi. However I will then use the Rabbis interpretation & pair it with my own understanding of the plain reading of the text, to see if it makes logical sense.

But if you REALLY want to understand the texts, then ask the scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying & interpreting the dead sea scrolls, & preferably SECULAR scholars who are not going to try to put their own theological slant & biases onto the texts.

 

[Lilith2006]

I looked up Australian Christian Churches on Google. According to their website...

"Australian Christian Churches is a movement of pentecostal churches in voluntary cooperation. Each individual church is self-governing, but commits itself to work together with other churches in the movement for the purpose of mutual support and the spread of the gospel in Australia and the world."​

Australian Christian Churches

www.acc.org.au

The Gold Coast is a bit of a magnet for Pentecostal type churches.

OB

I don't know want you mean by pentecostal? I have been to some church services, & at times throughout the service people started talking weird. I asked what this was & was told it was talking in tongues. I have tried to listen carefully to what people of saying, & it just seems to be a gobbledy gook of made up words, mainly with the same 3 or 4 words being repeated over & over. It appears that one or two people start talking this way & then everybody else follows along.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't know want you mean by pentecostal? I have been to some church services, & at times throughout the service people started talking weird. I asked what this was & was told it was talking in tongues. I have tried to listen carefully to what people of saying, & it just seems to be a gobbledy gook of made up words, mainly with the same 3 or 4 words being repeated over & over. It appears that one or two people start talking this way & then everybody else follows along.

I'm an atheist so I wouldn't dare to try to define 'Pentecostal' on this Forum. Your description sounds familiar - I just think of them as 'enthusiastic' Christians.

I used to live on the Gold Coast so I'm aware that they were a bit of a presence there - mainly street preaching. In real terms they're a relatively minor denomination in Australia (around 1.3% = less than Buddhists) but are allegedly growing.

Hillsong is probably the best-known Pentecostal group, and our disastrous ex-PM Scott Morrison is a well-known Pentecostal follower.

OB

 

[Lilith2006]

Jesus said that He saw Satan fall like lightning. So Satan fell to earth. God created Eden and created man neither good nor evil. Adam had a choice. The evening news tells you the consequences of Adam's choice. Jesus came in order to reverse the consequences of Adam's disobedience.

Jesus defeated Satan initially when He was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Adam succumbed to Satan's temptation, Jesus did not. Jesus defeated Satan again when He overcame death by rising again from the grave. The final end of Satan will be when the church enforces the victory of Christ that God gives to the believer.

Isn't it extremely disingenuous & unfair to compare a God-man with supposedly unlimited knowledge & power, with Adam, in the ability to recognize that you are being tricked by Satan?

After all, Jesus would have fully known who Satan was, & what he was trying to do. Adam & Eve on the other hand, had no knowledge of good or evil, or of right & wrong. They also would not have known who Satan was. As the Garden of Eden was supposed to have been created perfect, & without any sin in it, then it is reasonable that Adam & Eve in their limited knowledge would have presumed everything in the garden to be perfect & without sin.

So how can Adam & Eve be held responsible for being deceived by Satan? Satan should not have been in the garden in the 1st place, & it is my contention that he wasn't. YOU as a Christian, claiming Satan to be in the garden, has this problem to resolve theologically, not me.

 

[Lilith2006]

I'm an atheist so I wouldn't dare to try to define 'Pentecostal' on this Forum. Your description sounds familiar - I just think of them as 'enthusiastic' Christians.

I used to live on the Gold Coast so I'm aware that they were a bit of a presence there - mainly street preaching. In real terms they're a relatively minor denomination in Australia (around 1.3% = less than Buddhists) but are allegedly growing.

Hillsong is probably the best-known Pentecostal group, and our disastrous ex-PM Scott Morrison is a well-known Pentecostal follower.

OB

As you are an atheist, I presume that you will have a different perspective to the subject being talked about here than most of the Christians on here have. Have you looked at my arguments, & do you have any comments or see any faults in my logic? i know you might not be able to comment theologically, but most of my interpretation of the texts is based on my logic of the plain reading of the verses. I am not necessarily arguing from a theological point of view.

I get the impression that most Christians can not look at the subject from a logical point of view, but ONLY from a theological point of view, so are convinced from the outset that they are correct, & wont question whether their understanding of the texts has merit, or whether it is just religious dogma that they think they have to believe to be Christian.

I also want to make sure that I am not making the same error.

 

[Occams Barber]

As you are an atheist, I presume that you will have a different perspective to the subject being talked about here than most of the Christians on here have. Have you looked at my arguments, & do you have any comments or see any faults in my logic? i know you might not be able to comment theologically, but most of my interpretation of the texts is based on my logic of the plain reading of the verses. I am not necessarily arguing from a theological point of view.

I get the impression that most Christians can not look at the subject from a logical point of view, but ONLY from a theological point of view, so are convinced from the outset that they are correct, & wont question whether their understanding of the texts has merit, or whether it is just religious dogma that they think they have to believe to be Christian.

I also want to make sure that I am not making the same error.

CF rules don't allow me to get involved in these types of discussions so I can't really help.

Even if I were free to comment I have never been a Christian and have never read the Bible so I can't comment sensibly on whether your arguments are logical. To me the concept of God/Satan etc. is meaningless. I've been on CF for more than 10 years with the objective of understanding Christians better - I will never understand Christianity.

I can tell you that Christians on this Forum tend to be pedantic and are always right; infallibly right.

OB

 

[Lilith2006]

CF rules don't allow me to get involved in these types of discussions so I can't really help.

Even if I were free to comment I have never been a Christian and have never read the Bible so I can't comment sensibly on whether your arguments are logical. To me the concept of God/Satan etc. is meaningless. I've been on CF for more than 10 years with the objective of understanding Christians better - I will never understand Christianity.

I can tell you that Christians on this Forum tend to be pedantic and are always right; infallibly right.

OB

I don't see why you would need to be a Christian, or have even read the bible to understand if an argument is logical or not. I was also asking you to comment on my own arguments, not others arguments, so I dont see why that would be against the forums rules if I am giving my permission, but then again I am not an expert on the forums rules.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All of the above sources you have provided are still coming from a Christian standpoint. I don't see Messianic Jews as Jewish, at the end of the day they are Christian, using the guise of Jewish rituals to try to pretend that they are Jewish. They may have Jewish roots, but at the end of the day they are Christian. I am sure that you would take the same viewpoint with the Mormon religion, who some claim to be Christian, & who may have even been raised as Christian. Are they Christians or Mormons in your view?

Yes, you're right. The sources I've listed appear to be some sort of 'Christian' type groups. I'm not quite sure what sort of denominiation "hadavr" is. I've never heard of it before. I was simply looking at the citations from a small handful of past rabbies in relation to Genesis 3:15, which they just happened to list in a very brief order.

As for Mormons, rather than wasting my time spelling out an analysis of them, I'll just say that I think they have some odd, incoherent beliefs and leave it at that.

They also does not state the date of any of the alternative opinions. Does anybody recognize the verses as having any possible link to the Messiah BEFORE the advent of Christianity?

Yes, you're right. They do not state the dates of the alternative rabbinic opinions, so your question is very apropos. I suppose if I did a deep scholarly dive, I might be able to find some dates through other Jewish sources. But then again, if these are related to the Mishnah, who knows when the views expressed actually originated.

And even if some Jewish Rabbi's have an opinion on whether there is more meaning in the texts than what is written, at the end of the day it is just an opinion, & just like if you put 100 Christians in a room & ask them to explain a particular verse in the bible, you will probably get 100 different opinions, the same will be true if you put 100 Rabbi's in a room.

That's true too. But with all things scholarly considered, some opinions (or viewpoints) could be better than others. Some may even be much better. Although, truth be told, since Genesis 3:15 is so old and obscure, it's probably any one Hebrew scholars guess as to the full meaning. And being that I don't actually hold Adam and Eve as actual historical figures, I'm not overly concerned about one early verse in Genesis.

All I can do is to read the words that I see, & understand what I see the way it is written. If you have the contention that there is hidden meaning in the bible that is not apparent from the surface level reading, that may be true, but in this case the true meaning will never be able to be understood, because there will always be disagreement as to what the correct interpretation is. Genesis 3 is not a difficult chapter to read, unlike some verses in Isaiah where it can be rather difficult to interpret what he is trying to say.

On a practical level, all we all do is read. But some of us realize that other scholarly factors influence how we read or hear any piece of human communication and these factors can't really be untied or cut away from the application of scholarly Hermeneutics.

If your contention is that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the words in the bible, then why does the holy spirit come up with different interpretations of the text, usually depending on which of the 1000's of church denominations that you belong to? And how do we know if the person doing the interpreting is getting their interpretation from the holy spirit, or from an evil spirit?
And even those from the same church denomination can interpret a verse differently, depending on what their church pastor has told them.

I'm an existential philosopher, so I personally don't have these contentions that you're referring to. I may have other, more nuanced contentions with other people's readings of this, that or the Bible, but I don't think it takes the Holy Spirit to generally understand the words of the Bible. I think it takes education to do so for the most part. I also don't think the bible is inerrant or that it is the Holy Spirit, per say, who has directly written any of the New Testament texts. My view of 'inspiration' of the Bible is, shall I say, more philosophically obscure and complicated than that.

So to me, the Christian theology of requiring the holy spirit to help you to "interpret' the bible raises far more problems than it solves. IF Satan is an evil spirit that is constantly deceiving people, what better way to deceive people is there than to confuse people as to the correct interpretation of the bible.

I agree. If Satan were to do that, that would cause confusion.

If you read the bible AS it is written, & believe it as it is written without re-interpretation, do you think that a just God would punish anybody for that? But if you re-interpret the bible, & practice your religion according to the erroneous interpretation, is it possible that God might say, why did you corrupt my word by changing the meaning, deceiving yourself & others? Why did you worship a false messiah, instead of YWH, as commanded in the Torah?

If I read the Bible as it is written---which is hard to do if we take into account first all of the higher and lower criticism that can be applied to it along with various historiographical and hermeneutical issues---then it would be all too easy for any of us to misunderstand what we think we find written in those time worn pages. Truth be told, I don't think any of us really "reads the Bible as it was written." Sometimes were not really sure how it was written. It's better to assume the Lord would be somewhat merciful in that regard, and that's also assuming we come by our respective misreadings honestly.

Also, to be truthful to you, if I really want to know the theological interpretation of a text that I find difficult to understand, such as certain passages in Isaih etc, I will ask a Rabbi. However I will then use the Rabbis interpretation & pair it with my own understanding of the plain reading of the text, to see if it makes logical sense.

Sure. I think that's a reasonable position to take. It may not automatically confer the properties of 'logic' upon that choice, but I still think it's reasonable.

But if you REALLY want to understand the texts, then ask the scholars who have dedicated their lives to studying & interpreting the dead sea scrolls, & preferably SECULAR scholars who are not going to try to put their own theological slant & biases onto the texts.

Oh, I do. And it's good to see young students such as yourself taking a sense of mindfulness in this orientation toward all of this.

 

[Lilith2006]

I'm an existential philosopher, so I personally don't have these contentions that you're referring to. I may have other, more nuanced contentions with other people's readings of this, that or the Bible, but I don't think it takes the Holy Spirit to generally understand the words of the Bible. I think it takes education to do so for the most part. I also don't think the bible is inerrant or that it is the Holy Spirit, per say, who has directly written any of the New Testament texts. My view of 'inspiration' of the Bible is, shall I say, more philosophically obscure and complicated than that.

I have had many Christians tell me that I cannot understand the bible because I don't have the holy spirit inside of me. I don't know if they they truly believe this, or if it is just a dishonest tactic to argue that my own interpretation can never be correct, & why their own opinion is the correct opinion. It seems to me to be a totally false premise, as how can anybody ever prove that their understanding of the bible comes from the holy spirit, & is not just their opinion, or an evil spirit.

 

[honey badger]

The Leviathan in Isaiah is clearly different to the serpent in the garden of Eden, as the leviathan is obviously NOT crawling in the dust if it is a sea serpent, & man can not stomp on its head.

I think that in early Hebrew language, any long thin creature without legs was referred to as a serpent. I did read somewhere that the Leviathan was a mythical sea creature in Jewish thought, & that there was a Jewish sect that worshipped it as a god. I also read that the Levites was the Jewish sect that worshipped the Leviathan, & that there were temples throughout Israel dedicated to the Leviathan. After the fall of Israel to the Babylonians, & when they were released & returned to Israel, all of the Leviathan temples were ordered destroyed, & the Levites were reformed to become priests of YWH. I believe that there is archaeological evidence to support this, as temples to Leviathan have been discovered. I have not looked deeply into this to verify the authenticity of these claims to see if it is accurate historically or not, so I am not saying that the above is all true, so take what I said with a grain of salt & verify it yourself if you want to, just that it is an interesting avenue to explore, which I may one day when I get the time.

In Zecariah 3:1, I agree that it says that God prevents Satan from accusing Joshua.

There is not enough information in Zecariah 3:1 or any preceding verses to make much of it. You certainly cannot come to the conclusion that Satan is the evil deceiver of the world, & gods arch enemy for eternity from this one verse, & there is also no evidence that Leviathan has anything to do with Satan. Perhaps the leviathan was thought to be a threat to shipping off of the coast of Israel, which is why it had to be destroyed so that people can return to Israel by sea. That is the most logical interpretation I can come up with for Isaiah 27:1, but at the end of the day that is just MY interpretation, & if YOU want to interpret the Leviathan to be about Satan, you can do that, however your interpretation is no more valid than my interpretation.

a word study of the hebrew word Satan means opponent, one who withstands, accuser, arch enemy and in Solomon 2:21-24 the writer clearly is speaking of the man the women and the serpent in Genesis 3

Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hoped for the wages of holiness,
nor discerned the prize for blameless souls,
for God created us for incorruption
and made us in the image of his own eternity,
but through an adversary’s envy death entered the world, ( the serpent)
and those who belong to his company experience it.

 

[Lilith2006]

a word study of the hebrew word Satan means opponent, one who withstands, accuser, arch enemy and in Solomon 2:21-24 the writer clearly is speaking of the man the women and the serpent in Genesis 3

Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,
and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hoped for the wages of holiness,
nor discerned the prize for blameless souls,
for God created us for incorruption
and made us in the image of his own eternity,
but through an adversary’s envy death entered the world, ( the serpent)
and those who belong to his company experience it.

I can not find Solomon 2:21-24 in the bible. Are you sure you gave me the correct verse numbers?

 

[honey badger]

I can not find Solomon 2:21-24 in the bible. Are you sure you gave me the correct verse numbers?

It is an apocryphal Jewish work written in Greek dating back to around 50 years BC ....

 

[Aussie Pete]

Isn't it extremely disingenuous & unfair to compare a God-man with supposedly unlimited knowledge & power, with Adam, in the ability to recognize that you are being tricked by Satan?

After all, Jesus would have fully known who Satan was, & what he was trying to do. Adam & Eve on the other hand, had no knowledge of good or evil, or of right & wrong. They also would not have known who Satan was. As the Garden of Eden was supposed to have been created perfect, & without any sin in it, then it is reasonable that Adam & Eve in their limited knowledge would have presumed everything in the garden to be perfect & without sin.

So how can Adam & Eve be held responsible for being deceived by Satan? Satan should not have been in the garden in the 1st place, & it is my contention that he wasn't. YOU as a Christian, claiming Satan to be in the garden, has this problem to resolve theologically, not me.

Adam was not deceived. He chose to reject God's warning and disobey a simple command. How do you know that they did not know who Satan was? You can't argue from silence. We do not know what Adam and God spoke about other than what is written. What is certain is that Adam was held responsible for his disobedience. God is not unfair or unjust.

God had already shown His great love for Adam. Eve was the perfect mate for Adam, as Adam declared. Adam and Eve had the best of everything. Who would not trust someone like that? Yet they chose to accept the lies of the serpent instead of God's command.

For further study, I suggest that you read Psalm 8, Psalm 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. God's intent for man is that he rules and reigns over God's creation. This will come to pass in spite of Adam's sin. Jesus is the new representative Man, the "Last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). What Adam failed to do, Jesus did perfectly in every way. You can choose to reject God as Adam did in Eden, or accept God's gracious and loving gift of new life in Christ. If you choose Christ, you will experience the new life that God intended Adam to have (the Tree of Life). If you do not, you will remain dead in your trespass and sin. You don't have to like it. It's the way it is. Yes, it is that simple.

 

[Lilith2006]

Adam was not deceived. He chose to reject God's warning and disobey a simple command. How do you know that they did not know who Satan was? You can't argue from silence. We do not know what Adam and God spoke about other than what is written. What is certain is that Adam was held responsible for his disobedience. God is not unfair or unjust.

God had already shown His great love for Adam. Eve was the perfect mate for Adam, as Adam declared. Adam and Eve had the best of everything. Who would not trust someone like that? Yet they chose to accept the lies of the serpent instead of God's command.

For further study, I suggest that you read Psalm 8, Psalm 22, Psalm 110 and Isaiah 53. God's intent for man is that he rules and reigns over God's creation. This will come to pass in spite of Adam's sin. Jesus is the new representative Man, the "Last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). What Adam failed to do, Jesus did perfectly in every way. You can choose to reject God as Adam did in Eden, or accept God's gracious and loving gift of new life in Christ. If you choose Christ, you will experience the new life that God intended Adam to have (the Tree of Life). If you do not, you will remain dead in your trespass and sin. You don't have to like it. It's the way it is. Yes, it is that simple.

It states in Genesis 3.4 that if they eat from the tree, they will be like god, knowing good & evil. They had no prior concept of what good & evil was, so they could not possibly know that Satan was an evil spirit. They didn't even recognize that they were naked before they ate the fruit.

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
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. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Also, it was Eve who was deceived by the snake in the story, & Adam would have trusted Eve.
It is obvious from the verse below, that they had no knowledge of Good & Evil. You compared Adam to Jesus, who already had full knowledge of good & evil. Adam & Eve had the same knowledge of good & evil as a new born baby would have. Jesus also did not have another trusted party standing beside him, telling him that it was OK to do what the snake had told Eve. The levels of knowledge & of temptation do NOT compare.

Genesis 2:15 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.”

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

If everything that God had made was good, how would Adam & Eve know that evil & sin existed. In their world view, there was nothing that was not good.

Why have you ignored the other questions that I asked you? Will you answer them, or pretend that I did not ask them?

Why was Satan in the garden in the 1st place? Why do the discrepancies exist in the birth narratives of the Gospels of Mathew & Luke?
Note that it is fine to write: "I don't know" instead of just ignoring the questions, or pretending that you know the answer if you don't. Answering "i don't know" is sometimes the most honest answer you can give.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It states in Genesis 3.4 that if they eat from the tree, they will be like god, knowing good & evil. They had no prior concept of what good & evil was, so they could not possibly know that Satan was an evil spirit. They didn't even recognize that they were naked before they ate the fruit.

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
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. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Also, it was Eve who was deceived by the snake in the story, & Adam would have trusted Eve.
It is obvious from the verse below, that they had no knowledge of Good & Evil. You compared Adam to Jesus, who already had full knowledge of good & evil. Adam & Eve had the same knowledge of good & evil as a new born baby would have. Jesus also did not have another trusted party standing beside him, telling him that it was OK to do what the snake had told Eve. The levels of knowledge & of temptation do NOT compare.

Genesis 2:15 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.”

Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

If everything that God had made was good, how would Adam & Eve know that evil & sin existed. In their world view, there was nothing that was not good.

Why have you ignored the other questions that I asked you? Will you answer them, or pretend that I did not ask them?

Why was Satan in the garden in the 1st place? Why do the discrepancies exist in the birth narratives of the Gospels of Mathew & Luke?
Note that it is fine to write: "I don't know" instead of just ignoring the questions, or pretending that you know the answer if you don't. Answering "i don't know" is sometimes the most honest answer you can give.

The test for Adam and Eve was so simple that a child could understand it. Don't eat from the tree of knowledge. I won't answer the rest of your questions unless I get the time. Right now I have not slept for nearly two days. You really should try to get in contact with James Tour. He sees it from the Jewish viewpoint and has decades of experience talking to Jews.

 

[Lilith2006]

It is an apocryphal Jewish work written in Greek dating back to around 50 years BC ....

So we dont even know if the author is even referring to any biblical texts. He could be referring to Greek mythological stories for all that we know. Also, are you fine if when questioning the new testament texts that I ALSO reference texts outside of the New Testament, such as the Infancy gospel if I am trying to prove a point, or will you say that it does not count because it is not biblical?

 

[Lilith2006]

The test for Adam and Eve was so simple that a child could understand it. Don't eat from the tree of knowledge. I won't answer the rest of your questions unless I get the time. Right now I have not slept for nearly two days. You really should try to get in contact with James Tour. He sees it from the Jewish viewpoint and has decades of experience talking to Jews.

Put a young child in a room with a slice of chocolate cake on the table, then leave them alone & tell them not to eat the cake. There is a 90% chance that they will eat it anyway, especially if they are hungry.

Then conduct the same experiment again, & then have another adult enter the room & tell them that its ok to eat the cake after all, & there is a 100% chance that they will eat it.