Evidence for God from Science

@PaulSacramento

I just responded to Byblos on the other topic as well. Your point is correct and to be honest I can't argue that much against it. It sounds ok, but it is only an interpretation of the story in the Bible. You are using an interpretation that makes sense for you and I can't fault you for that.

At the same time, as I was saying to Byblos: which interpretation is the correct one because there are multiple ones for this story alone...

And I don't think that Eve ate from the tree of life because she wanted to be God and she never knew about the outcomes except that you will die part. And the bible verse which says "that man become as one of US". Which US is he referring to?

And another question you should ask yourself: Why is it wrong to be like "US"? Why does God have a problem with that? If you analyze the semantics, it says that man become LIKE one of us... Not one of us... I mean, we are made in God's image... So why would God punish us for wanting to be like him?

This story has so many interpretations to choose from...

Genesis 2:
"15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”"

A question: if evil is absence of good God, how come that there was tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

BryanH wrote:@PaulSacramento

I just responded to Byblos on the other topic as well. Your point is correct and to be honest I can't argue that much against it. It sounds ok, but it is only an interpretation of the story in the Bible. You are using an interpretation that makes sense for you and I can't fault you for that.

At the same time, as I was saying to Byblos: which interpretation is the correct one because there are multiple ones for this story alone...

And I don't think that Eve ate from the tree of life because she wanted to be God and she never knew about the outcomes except that you will die part. And the bible verse which says "that man become as one of US". Which US is he referring to?

And another question you should ask yourself: Why is it wrong to be like "US"? Why does God have a problem with that? If you analyze the semantics, it says that man become LIKE one of us... Not one of us... I mean, we are made in God's image... So why would God punish us for wanting to be like him?

This story has so many interpretations to choose from...

Which interpretation is correct is a whole other thread,LOL !
Please feel free to start one
Eve ate because she wanted to be like God, that was the temptation as per the serpent "..be like God knowing good and evil..:
The "Us" God was referring to is Him and His Son.
The issue was that Man was NOT ready, Man jumped the gun. Instead of getting to the point where they were like God, they TOOK the knowledge TO BE like God.
God didn't punish them for wanting to be like God, He made Us in His image, They were punished because they broke the one rule God gave them.
The issue was the INTENT behind what was done ( and breaking the rule of course), they did wanted to be like God knowing good and evil for selfish reasons, their intent was sinful.

1over137 wrote:Genesis 2:
"15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”"

A question: if evil is absence of good God, how come that there was tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

The bible doesn't really go into that, so we must try to "read" or understand between the lines.
Is knowledge Bad? No, nowhere in the bible does it say that knowledge is bad, only the wrong use of knowledge or the wrong type of knowledge is bad.
Knowledge for the sake of Good and to help others and for the glory of God is good, that wasn't the case with Adam and Eve.
The tree of knowledge ( putting aside if it was a real tree or symbolism because it doesn't matter) bore fruit that allowed the eater to UNDERSTAND the difference (hence know) between good and evil, the difference between making love and having sex ( so as to know use the F word here), loving with no conditions and loving because you want something in return, that type of stuff.
IN Eden Adam and Eve had everything they wanted and needed, at its due time, they decided to "rush things" and expose themselves to an understanding that they were NOT ready for AND they did it with selfish intent.
They paid the price, as we do to this very day because we do the same thing, which is try to do IT ( understand good and evil) WITHOUT God.

Your question as to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes me ask you this: Why wouldn't there be one?
Can one truly understand Good without knowing evil?
The issue is NOT that there was a tree, it was why they ate of it when they had everything they needed and the person giving them all that, told them not to?

Your question as to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes me ask you this: Why wouldn't there be one?
Can one truly understand Good without knowing evil?
The issue is NOT that there was a tree, it was why they ate of it when they had everything they needed and the person giving them all that, told them not to?

The answer to your question is rather simple and it comes from psychotherapy. There is a method called paradoxical prescription. Can you guess what that is?

You tell someone NOT to do something and they end up doing it. Why is that? It's simple: our brain WASN"T designed to work with negations.
So if you tell a child not to eat cake, what is he going to do? ))))

BryanH wrote:

Your question as to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes me ask you this: Why wouldn't there be one?
Can one truly understand Good without knowing evil?
The issue is NOT that there was a tree, it was why they ate of it when they had everything they needed and the person giving them all that, told them not to?

The answer to your question is rather simple and it comes from psychotherapy. There is a method called paradoxical prescription. Can you guess what that is?

You tell someone NOT to do something and they end up doing it. Why is that? It's simple: our brain WASN"T designed to work with negations.
So if you tell a child not to eat cake, what is he going to do? ))))

You just discovered our sin nature, which has been handed down from person to person.

We are born into sin, it has almost become natural for us.


Dan

You just discovered our sin nature, which has been handed down from person to person.

We are born into sin, it has almost become natural for us.

I would never say we are born into sin...

BryanH wrote:

You just discovered our sin nature, which has been handed down from person to person.

We are born into sin, it has almost become natural for us.

I would never say we are born into sin...

Of course you wouldn't........ yet this sin nature remains.

Dan

PaulSacramento wrote:

1over137 wrote:Genesis 2:
"15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”"

A question: if evil is absence of good God, how come that there was tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

The bible doesn't really go into that, so we must try to "read" or understand between the lines.
Is knowledge Bad? No, nowhere in the bible does it say that knowledge is bad, only the wrong use of knowledge or the wrong type of knowledge is bad.
Knowledge for the sake of Good and to help others and for the glory of God is good, that wasn't the case with Adam and Eve.
The tree of knowledge ( putting aside if it was a real tree or symbolism because it doesn't matter) bore fruit that allowed the eater to UNDERSTAND the difference (hence know) between good and evil, the difference between making love and having sex ( so as to know use the F word here), loving with no conditions and loving because you want something in return, that type of stuff.
IN Eden Adam and Eve had everything they wanted and needed, at its due time, they decided to "rush things" and expose themselves to an understanding that they were NOT ready for AND they did it with selfish intent.
They paid the price, as we do to this very day because we do the same thing, which is try to do IT ( understand good and evil) WITHOUT God.

Your question as to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes me ask you this: Why wouldn't there be one?
Can one truly understand Good without knowing evil?
The issue is NOT that there was a tree, it was why they ate of it when they had everything they needed and the person giving them all that, told them not to?

My issue is about (non)-comprehending that evil is told to be an asbence of good. Following is from Genesis 3:
"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”"

God knows good and evil. If evil as absence of good/God how God can know what evil is?

1over137 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

1over137 wrote:Genesis 2:
"15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”"

A question: if evil is absence of good God, how come that there was tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

The bible doesn't really go into that, so we must try to "read" or understand between the lines.
Is knowledge Bad? No, nowhere in the bible does it say that knowledge is bad, only the wrong use of knowledge or the wrong type of knowledge is bad.
Knowledge for the sake of Good and to help others and for the glory of God is good, that wasn't the case with Adam and Eve.
The tree of knowledge ( putting aside if it was a real tree or symbolism because it doesn't matter) bore fruit that allowed the eater to UNDERSTAND the difference (hence know) between good and evil, the difference between making love and having sex ( so as to know use the F word here), loving with no conditions and loving because you want something in return, that type of stuff.
IN Eden Adam and Eve had everything they wanted and needed, at its due time, they decided to "rush things" and expose themselves to an understanding that they were NOT ready for AND they did it with selfish intent.
They paid the price, as we do to this very day because we do the same thing, which is try to do IT ( understand good and evil) WITHOUT God.

Your question as to why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil makes me ask you this: Why wouldn't there be one?
Can one truly understand Good without knowing evil?
The issue is NOT that there was a tree, it was why they ate of it when they had everything they needed and the person giving them all that, told them not to?

My issue is about (non)-comprehending that evil is told to be an asbence of good. Following is from Genesis 3:
"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”"

God knows good and evil. If evil as absence of good/God how God can know what evil is?

God is all knowing in absolute terms...
-
-
-

God is all knowing in absolute terms...

B.W.: What is evil according to you and its origin?

1over137 wrote:My issue is about (non)-comprehending that evil is told to be an asbence of good. Following is from Genesis 3:
"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”"

God knows good and evil. If evil as absence of good/God how God can know what evil is?

If evil is the privation of good (and God is perfectly good), then "knowing evil" would mean knowing that which is not of God.

Or to use an analogy, let's say a person spends his entire life in the light and surrounded by loving family. Then one day he decides to leave. For the first time he experiences dark (just the absence of light) and the absence of love. He may even be unaware that there are places without light and love (although surely he'd have greater appreciation for light/love if he knew). Same general idea here I think.

And I don't see why God couldn't be aware of that which is not of himself, at least he's certainly not oblivious to evil in Scripture.

Evil to me is willfully going AGAINST the will of God.

1over137 wrote:My issue is about (non)-comprehending that evil is told to be an asbence of good. Following is from Genesis 3:
"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”"

God knows good and evil. If evil as absence of good/God how God can know what evil is?

For the same reason we know darkness is the total absence of light, even if we've never experienced the total absence of light.
For the same reason we know absolute coldness is the total absence of heat, even if we've never measured absolute coldness (I know we have, just sayin' on an individual level).

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we bring western philosophy to Hebraic Scriptures and ask questions looking for answers that would have been foreign to those writing the original texts (even under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and the original hearers or readers of what is written.

The Hebrew language doesn't have an equivalent word for what we in English call "evil." We use the word as if it were the opposite of good in a moral sense. A Hebraic mindset didn't see people as "evil." The word which is translated "evil" most often is "ra" and it usually means "bad" in the sense of something that is dysfunctional as opposed to functional. So a sunny day is good and a stormy day is bad, and God is in the midst of both and there is no implication of this upon God's character. Both are necessary and both contribute important elements of life and both are from the hand of God.

When we come to the text asking questions of moral good and evil, we read the text in the context of our preconceived question. We see the word "evil" and so we read it in the sense we're asking the question. This is the same thing that happens in the often quoted verse:

I [God] form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil, I am the LORD who does all of these" (Isaiah 45:7)

Read at face value it seems to indicate that God is the author and source of moral evil and there is a very strong branch of Christianity that takes that verse and uses it to support the idea that if God is the author of all creation and the creator of Satan, that He then is by necessity also the author of moral evil. If you keep in mind however, what I've said above and then read that entire passage in which that verse is found you'll find that it's talking about calamity and natural disasters, not an abstract sense of moral evil as opposed to the Holiness and Goodness of God.

Part of what we need to do in approaching Scripture is not only to answer our questions, but to guide the actual questions themselves to at least recognize what is going on in the passage instead of carrying in with us our own concepts which may or may not be in line with what the passage is addressing. That's one of the dangers of systematic theology and proof-texting.