Evidence for God from Science

Don and August, I find myself agreeing with both of you because I sense that you both are looking at the same thing from different angles.

I think August is saying that Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before the fall, or really even what good meant, because their only concept was of good. Am I far off August?

Don is saying that they did know what good and bad (evil) was before the fall, howbeit as defined by God, but after the fall and the tasting of the fruit knew the difference intimately and personally.

I agree with both of those statements. I'm not sure they contradict each other.

You may very well have hit the nail on the head. I cannot find anyhting there to substantially disagree with.

August wrote:You may very well have hit the nail on the head. I cannot find anyhting there to substantially disagree with.

Not that you are looking eh August

bizzt wrote:

August wrote:You may very well have hit the nail on the head. I cannot find anyhting there to substantially disagree with.

Not that you are looking eh August

Looking for what?

Something to disagree with

This may have already been answered already but I can't find it...

Specifically, what was the "knowledge" of what good and what was bad? Or, what was the "good and bad" knowledge of that made them like God, "knowing good and bad"?

From what August explained, this knowledge was not just general-type knowledge like of how to cultivate ground, or what to name the animals, or how to 'multiply,' or how to program a cassette tape player, etc.

Don

DonCameron wrote:This may have already been answered already but I can't find it...

Specifically, what was the "knowledge" of what good and what was bad? Or, what was the "good and bad" knowledge of that made them like God, "knowing good and bad"?

From what August explained, this knowledge was not just general-type knowledge like of how to cultivate ground, or what to name the animals, or how to 'multiply,' or how to program a cassette tape player, etc.

Don

Don, it refers to morality. It gave man the ability to distinguish between good and evil on a moral level.

DonCameron wrote:I've also wondered about that "tree of life." Is it possible that that tree was just a symbol. That it symbolized one's right to live forever. But since when Adam disobeyed God he lost that right and therefore was not permitted to eat from that symbolic tree?

Don

Personally, I believe the whole story is a symbol.... the rest of the Bible goes on to explain that eternal life is a gift from God. It is not obtained by eating a fruit that hangs on a tree that grows out of the ground, unless eating = believing/accepting, and fruit = Christ's work, and tree =cross
...but then I also don't believe that snakes were ever the craftiest of all wild animals, or that they lost their legs b/c one of their number deceived Eve, or that serpents ever talked.

Hi August,

When I asked what "the knowledge of good and bad" had reference to...

August wrote:It refers to morality. It gave man the ability to distinguish between good and evil on a moral level.

Can you give an example or two of a moral good and moral bad knowledge; something(s) that Adam and Eve could not possibly have understood or known or figured out before they ate from that tree?

Don

ttoews wrote:Personally, I believe the whole story is a symbol.... the rest of the Bible goes on to explain that eternal life is a gift from God. It is not obtained by eating a fruit that hangs on a tree that grows out of the ground, unless eating = believing/accepting, and fruit = Christ's work, and tree =cross
...but then I also don't believe that snakes were ever the craftiest of all wild animals, or that they lost their legs b/c one of their number deceived Eve, or that serpents ever talked.

I don't think you can doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve, although the Bible nowhere says that snakes had legs before the Fall -- and Satan sure could make a snake talk.
You're in a dangerous move when you try to 'explain away' Gen. 1-3 by symbolizing it. Then you have to 'allegorize' Rom. 5:12-19 too, and before you know it, you're hurtling toward Gnosticism and 'esoteric' hermeneutics.

Turgonian wrote: I don't think you can doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve,....

I don't...however, doubting the historicity of the Eden story does not require me to doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve any more than it requires me to doubt that God is the creator or that satan is a tempter.

... although the Bible nowhere says that snakes had legs before the Fall -- and Satan sure could make a snake talk.

agreed he could....which would mean that the snake was an innocent tool and that God was wrong(?) when He declared that the snake had "done this" and that snakes did not deserve to be cursed b/c one of their number was possessed(?)

You're in a dangerous move when you try to 'explain away' Gen. 1-3 by symbolizing it....

please....not explain away, but get to the actual meaning of it

Then you have to 'allegorize' Rom. 5:12-19 too,....

For Romans, do I not only need to believe that Adam lived and that he fell into sin and that he was the first man to do so?....b/c those are truths that I obtain from the Eden story....and I also believe that the Eden story very strongly points to that other man mentioned in Romans

... and before you know it, you're hurtling toward Gnosticism and 'esoteric' hermeneutics.

ouch!

OK, so it seems I was too hasty. I apologize! If you still believe those basic truths, it's OK, although I wonder why you have to declare half of the story to be allegorical.

Turgonian wrote:.... although I wonder why you have to declare half of the story to be allegorical.

don't know about the measurement of half...but, its the way it makes sense to me. Also, I suspect that you interpret part of it in a non-literal fashion and so I would wonder why you draw the line where you do.

I don't draw a line; I accept it as it's written.

Turgonian wrote:I don't draw a line; I accept it as it's written.

I accept it as written too...tell me, do you spiritualize "death"? If so, do you do so b/c that's the way the text makes sense to you? Do you spiritualize everything else or have you drawn a line? You earlier mentioned that Satan could make a snake talk....is that what you believe really happened? The text never mentions Satan and literally has the snake talking to Eve....so if you are telling me that Satan was there in the guise of a snake is that an understanding you gained from looking elsewhere in the Bible? If so, why draw the line at the addition of that understanding only?