If lying is a sin, then how come....?

[ricko]

If lying is a sin, as some have mentioned, then how come Eve said that God said that she could not touch the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Good and Evil, when clearly God only told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of it. This was before they partook of the fruit! Were they in a state of sin before eating the fruit? I am confused!

 

[LightBearer]

Firstly, The law not to eat was only spoken to Adam. Thereafter Adam passed it on to Eve.

Clearly from Eve's reply, touching the tree or fruit was also forbidden. God put this one tree completely out of bounds and it was to be left alone

Let's consider what happens when you eat fruit from a tree. Once in your hand, you have taken possession of it, whether entitled to it or not. So even touching it or picking it would have been a violation of the law.

 

[Havoc]

That's quite a stretch of logic. Necessary I suppose if you need to support a preconcieved notion.

There's a huge difference between "thou shalt not eat", and "thou shalt not touch".

 

[Zen_Woof]

An interesting question! Adam and Eve must not have been born without sin then since they both disobeyed God -- she by taking and eating, and Adam by following her lead.

With metta,
ZW

 

[Outspoken]

1. the law could have been reinforced several times to adam and eve, they did walk with God daily in the garden.

2. The touch and eat thing isn't really applicable here since the main focus here is they were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[MuAndNu]

1. the law could have been reinforced several times to adam and eve, they did walk with God daily in the garden.

Could've been a lot of things. Where's your evidence?

2. The touch and eat thing isn't really applicable here since the main focus here is they were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil.

Show me the verse. Where does it say that?

 

[Outspoken]

Could've been a lot of things. Where's your evidence?


Show me the verse. Where does it say that?

1. The bible talks of them walking with God. You tell me, if there is one thing that can change your creation, I think you might want to reinforce it. Ask any parent, they, if they are a good one, don't just talk to their kids about drugs one time and let it go.

2. I didn't indicate a verse, nor a biblical imperitive. You can see the very impasis of it was on the, "you will surely die", thus Satan's point of attack. It was the consequence of that action, ie aquireing the knowledge, that was the focus. You can also see this in how Satan addressed it. He addressed the motivation of not touching it.

 

[MuAndNu]

1. The bible talks of them walking with God. You tell me, if there is one thing that can change your creation, I think you might want to reinforce it. Ask any parent, they, if they are a good one, don't just talk to their kids about drugs one time and let it go.

But it's still something you're imposing on the text, right? It doesn't really say that.

2. I didn't indicate a verse, nor a biblical imperitive. You can see the very impasis of it was on the, "you will surely die", thus Satan's point of attack. It was the consequence of that action, ie aquireing the knowledge, that was the focus. You can also see this in how Satan addressed it. He addressed the motivation of not touching it.

Well, I don't how I'd have to allow that at all. The only proscription was against eating the fruit. Who knows that there might not have been some other, permissable way to acquire the knowledge. Again, you're going to have to read what you said into the text. It's doesn't say that.

 

[Outspoken]

But it's still something you're imposing on the text, right? It doesn't really say that.


Well, I don't how I'd have to allow that at all. The only proscription was against eating the fruit. Who knows that there might not have been some other, permissable way to acquire the knowledge. Again, you're going to have to read what you said into the text. It's doesn't say that.

1. The fact that God mentioned it to them again? I would say its a logical conclusion considering the facts of the case.

2. No, it was clear the knowledge was the thing that was what God was against. Read the passage yourself.

"It's doesn't say that"

You obviously haven't read the text.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

the temptation was aquiring knowledge, not the medium of getting it through eating anything.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

Here again we see it had to do with aquiring the knowledge, not eating of any fruit. Consider yourself rebutted

 

[MuAndNu]

1. The fact that God mentioned it to them again? I would say its a logical conclusion considering the facts of the case.

"Considering the case"? What's the "case"? Perhaps that you can't justify your position without insisting we accept the truth of an usupported hypothesis?

2. No, it was clear the knowledge was the thing that was what God was against. Read the passage yourself.

"It's doesn't say that"

You obviously haven't read the text.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. "

the temptation was aquiring knowledge, not the medium of getting it through eating anything.

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

Here again we see it had to do with aquiring the knowledge, not eating of any fruit. Consider yourself rebutted

Don't tell me I haven't read it. I used to teach it. There is nothing in the passage--to include the verses you quoted-- that insists God was against knowledge pe se. In fact, it was the serpent--supposedly Satan--who said those first words. Do you also accept his words as the words of God? In the second quote there is still nothing that said God disapproved of the knowledge itself.

But I don't intend to let you turn the argument against me. I'm not insisting on any hypothesis. I'm just saying you can't wiggle out of an uncomfortable argument by fabricating an idea, imposing it on the text, and then insisting we accept it as evidence.

 

[Outspoken]

"Considering the case"? What's the "case"? Perhaps that you can't justify your position without insisting we accept the truth of an usupported hypothesis?


Don't tell me I haven't read it. I used to teach it. There is nothing in the passage--to include the verses you quoted-- that insists God was against knowledge pe se. In fact, it was the serpent--supposedly Satan--who said those first words. Do you also accept his words as the words of God? In the second quote there is still nothing that said God disapproved of the knowledge itself.

But I don't intend to let you turn the argument against me. I'm not insisting on any hypothesis. I'm just saying you can't wiggle out of an uncomfortable argument by fabricating an idea, imposing it on the text, and then insisting we accept it as evidence.

1. I guess you have no idea what hermineutics is all about?

2. You haven't read it. I showed you clearly that it was knowledge that was the concern. It was God who was concerned about the knowledge they aquired, not them eating some fruit. Its pretty clear your wrong here and no amount of backpeddling can get ya out of it

Oh...I never said he disapproved of the knowledge itself, just that the knowledge was the focus of the problem, not the mode of getting it. Please do not try and skirt the issue. Oh..and I haven't wiggled out of anything, I just proved you wrong and refused to let YOU wiggle out of it.

 

[MuAndNu]

1. I guess you have no idea what hermineutics is all about?

An insult merely. How about an argument?

2. You haven't read it. I showed you clearly that it was knowledge that was the concern. It was God who was concerned about the knowledge they aquired, not them eating some fruit. Its pretty clear your wrong here and no amount of backpeddling can get ya out of it

Oh...I never said he disapproved of the knowledge itself, just that the knowledge was the focus of the problem, not the mode of getting it. Please do not try and skirt the issue. Oh..and I haven't wiggled out of anything, I just proved you wrong and refused to let YOU wiggle out of it.

This amounts to a "Did not." Try again.

 

[Outspoken]

An insult merely. How about an argument?


This amounts to a "Did not." Try again.

I gave you a valid argument, you waved your hand and dismissed it. You did nothing to address it, nor did you refute it, thus my question.

You have not disproven the assurtion that the knowledge was the main focus. I see no reason to try again when I have already succeeded.

 

[MuAndNu]

I gave you a valid argument, you waved your hand and dismissed it. You did nothing to address it, nor did you refute it, thus my question.

You have not disproven the assurtion that the knowledge was the main focus. I see no reason to try again when I have already succeeded.

These are your original words:

"1. the law could have been reinforced several times to adam and eve, they did walk with God daily in the garden.

2. The touch and eat thing isn't really applicable here since the main focus here is they were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil"

I assume you won't deny you wrote them, right?

1. "the law could have been...." Even you are effectively calling this a hypothesis. You're free to hypothesize all you want. You may not, however, expect us to accept it as evidence.

2. Once again, there is nothing in the passages that say anything about it not being legal to "entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil." What it does say is not to eat of the fruit. That's all. In one place Eve adds more, but we've no evidence she didn't make that up. In another, the serpent adds more, but that is supposedly Satan, and not to be taken as reflective of God's will.

In 3:22, God is simply saying that because man has acquired the knowledge he is not to be allowed access to the Tree of Life. Again, nothing there suggests that Adam and Eve "were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil." Those are your words, not the Bible's.

How do you respond to those Christians who insist that it was the disobedience, not the knowlege acquired thereby, that caused God to evict the pair from the Garden? They will argue that rebellion is the essence of sin.

 

[Outspoken]

These are your original words:

"1. the law could have been reinforced several times to adam and eve, they did walk with God daily in the garden.

2. The touch and eat thing isn't really applicable here since the main focus here is they were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil"

I assume you won't deny you wrote them, right?

1. "the law could have been...." Even you are effectively calling this a hypothesis. You're free to hypothesize all you want. You may not, however, expect us to accept it as evidence.

2. Once again, there is nothing in the passages that say anything about it not being legal to "entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil." What it does say is not to eat of the fruit. That's all. In one place Eve adds more, but we've no evidence she didn't make that up. In another, the serpent adds more, but that is supposedly Satan, and not to be taken as reflective of God's will.

In 3:22, God is simply saying that because man has acquired the knowledge he is not to be allowed access to the Tree of Life. Again, nothing there suggests that Adam and Eve "were to not entertain or go through with the thought of aquiring the knowledge of good and evil." Those are your words, not the Bible's.

How do you respond to those Christians who insist that it was the disobedience, not the knowlege acquired thereby, that caused God to evict the pair from the Garden? They will argue that rebellion is the essence of sin.

As per your address of my post I can clearly see you don't know what hermineutics is thanks

"That's all."

simply because that was the only avenue at the time they could aquire that knowledge. That is pretty clear from a logical perspective. God's reaction was that it was bad they aquired the knowledge, not that they aquired it through eating a fruit. Thus you can assume that there was no other way to aquire it or God would have banned that as well.

"How do you respond to those Christians who insist that it was the disobedience, not the knowlege acquired thereby"

I say they are correct. They disobeyed God by aquireing the knowlege, which was something he banned at the time. The actions are one in the same. I was adressed that what was focused on was getting the knowledge, NOT eating a fruit (ie the meduim of getting it). Again, Please do not skirt the issue.

"Those are your words, not the Bible's."

No, that's clearly God's intentions as evidienced by the reaction of God and the temptation used by satan.

 

[MuAndNu]

As per your address of my post I can clearly see you don't know what hermineutics is thanks

"That's all."

simply because that was the only avenue at the time they could aquire that knowledge. That is pretty clear from a logical perspective. God's reaction was that it was bad they aquired the knowledge, not that they aquired it through eating a fruit. Thus you can assume that there was no other way to aquire it or God would have banned that as well.

"How do you respond to those Christians who insist that it was the disobedience, not the knowlege acquired thereby"

I say they are correct. They disobeyed God by aquireing the knowlege, which was something he banned at the time. The actions are one in the same. I was adressed that what was focused on was getting the knowledge, NOT eating a fruit (ie the meduim of getting it). Again, Please do not skirt the issue.

"Those are your words, not the Bible's."

No, that's clearly God's intentions as evidienced by the reaction of God and the temptation used by satan.

Never mind. On the other hand, I assume you know you haven't convinced me or anybody else, don't you? At some level you know you haven't said anything to convnce us, right? I would hope you know that.

 

[Outspoken]

Never mind. On the other hand, I assume you know you haven't convinced me or anybody else, don't you? At some level you know you haven't said anything to convnce us, right? I would hope you know that.

no, my argument is quite valid, and you have done nothing to refute it. If you have some evidience for your assurtion that it was by eating the fruit was the focus by all means, show me your evidience.

 

[MuAndNu]

no, my argument is quite valid, and you have done nothing to refute it. If you have some evidience for your assurtion that it was by eating the fruit was the focus by all means, show me your evidience.

Haven't we already gone over that?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He was forbidding eating the fruit. Now, perhaps you can infer that he meant more, but you can't show that he did.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

It was the resulting enlightenment that tipped God off, but it seems to be the actual eating that concerns him there.

You see, hermeneutics is an attempt at methodological interpretation. It's not a science. It will generally put out in according to the presuppositions you put in. When you're talking to unbelievers such as myself, you can't expect me to buy into your assumptions. If you can't show me by the text itself, I'm not likely to be very favorable to your arguments. In Genesis 1 & 2, it simply doesn't say what you would like for it to, regardless how reasonable you feel the inference might be. If you're going to keep insisting it does, I can't imagine why I should continue to entertain you.

 

[Mr. Fields]

What I want to know is why God put it there in the first place...

Not quite a pefect scenario. Put people who are capable of disobeying in a garden with a tree with fruit that looks good to eat, and tell the people not to eat it? What was the point of that? If God intended man to remain in the garden, in the midst of his "perfect" creation, surely he knew that mans natural curiousity would get the best of him, sooner or later?

 

[Outspoken]

Haven't we already gone over that?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He was forbidding eating the fruit. Now, perhaps you can infer that he meant more, but you can't show that he did.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

It was the resulting enlightenment that tipped God off, but it seems to be the actual eating that concerns him there.

You see, hermeneutics is an attempt at methodological interpretation. It's not a science. It will generally put out in according to the presuppositions you put in. When you're talking to unbelievers such as myself, you can't expect me to buy into your assumptions. If you can't show me by the text itself, I'm not likely to be very favorable to your arguments. In Genesis 1 & 2, it simply doesn't say what you would like for it to, regardless how reasonable you feel the inference might be. If you're going to keep insisting it does, I can't imagine why I should continue to entertain you.

"Haven't we already gone over that?"

Yes, we have and I showed how you were in error. He was forbidding the fruit because of the consequence of eating it, not the mode. I showed you that clearing in his reaction and the real temptation by satan.

"you can infer that he meant more, but you can't show that he did."

Noooooo, I showed it clearly.

"You see, hermeneutics is an attempt at methodological interpretation. It's not a science."

finally decided to look the word up huh?

"If you can't show me by the text itself"

LOL, I showed you by the text itself. If you want to cover your eyes and think its not there that's fine, just don't say its not there.