Only a psychotic fuck like Jehovah would think of a scam like this. Keep in mind, this is the same guy who later told Abraham to sacrifice his own son to him, then later sacrificed HIS OWN SON to HIMSELF. What’s up with that shit? Fugetaboutit…Adam and Eve were just standing next to the tree, sort of checking it out, and Jehovah is crouched down behind the bushes snickering like Wile E. Coyote. He MADE them curious, it was shooting fish in a barrel. It was this same sadistic insecurity that Satan manipulated to get Jehovah to allow him to jack up Job, ONE OF HIS MOST FAITHFUL SERVANTS!
This may be the source of my confusion. I’m not sure, though, where the Genesis story specifies that Adam and Eve did know that they should obey God. It doesn’t directly say, “at first, they couldn’t tell good from evil,” but that seems to be the whole point of the story. God and the Serpent both state outright that the knowledge was contingent on them eating the fruit, and they didn’t percieve that their nakedness was a bad thing until they ate the fruit, etc. So I would say that the context does indeed suggest that the ability to discern good from evil was the central question.
The fig-leaf deal would also seem to falsify the idea that the Tree represented experiential knowledge of good and evil, since it’s stated that Adam and Eve were naked beforehand, but were not ashamed. Granted, God made them that way, so possibly their nakedness was somehow not evil until they ate the fruit. This suggests that you can’t sin unless you’re aware of the fact, yet this would seem to contradict the whole justification for God’s punishment.
And what would’ve happened if they had then eaten the Tree of Life afterwards?
It seems God had to guard it after they ate the wrong tree.
Why?
It doesn’t say that outrightr; however, it does show the serpent cajoling Eve into disobedience. This suggests that Eve already knew that she must obey Yahweh’s commands.
I think you just answered your own objection. The nakedness itself was NOT wrong. In fact, Genesis never says that it was evil, and the Bible never condemns it either. Rather, Genesis merely says that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness.
I heard one guy point out a reason why Adam and Eve would have sought to cover up their naughty bits. They had ascribed to be like Yahweh, and yet their gender-related private parts were clear indications that they were not like Yahweh at all (Yahweh being gender-neutral). Whether this interpretation is true or not, the point remains that Genesis only said that Adam and Eve were ashamed, not that mere nakedness was inherently sinful.
Well, also, I don’t think “knowledge of good and evil” actually means knowledge of good and evil. It’s a saying that means “knowledge of all sorts of stuff” or “knowledge of everything”.
Don’t most kids kind of know instictively that they’re supposed to do whatever their parents tell them to do? If so, wouldn’t it be safe to assume that the same kind of programming went into the creation of Adam & Eve?
I think they should bring a class action suit, along with Judas Iscariat.
Face it, all the crucifixion thing would never have happened if he hadn’t been set up by THE BIG GUY to betray Jesus.
Something like willful misrepresentation of the product, misleading innocent consumers.
There should have been some sort of warning label,
“Danger -apples can lead to homlessness”
or
Look out Judas, I only got you made a disciple so you could send my kid to the cross, and here’s some silver for your trouble.
That silver should have come with a warning,
“Danger, this will seriously ruin your reputation, traitor dude”
?
Can you please show us where Yahweh willfully misrepresented the nature of the forbidden fruit?
Also, can you please cite the specific passages which show that Judas had indeed been “set up,” as you claim? Where does it say that Judas was only made a disciple for the purpose that you claim?
Ok lemmesee,
If Jesus had not been crucified, there could not have been a resurrection.
Christianity, which is of course the one true religion, needs Christ to be betrayed, thus there must be a betrayer, usually portrayed as your generic stereotype Jew.
Why does Christ need to be betrayed, dunno, but it seems essential to the plot, he could simply have been arrested by an armed guard, but the symbolism of those he holds closest to him betraying him makes it seem an even more unfair sacrifice.
Christianity needs its Judas, I doubt that the “Judas” needs Christianity, and given the widespread persecution of Jews for 2000 years with the pretext of being the responsible for the killing of Jesus, I’d say there’s a pretty good argument for saying so too.
So yeah, Judas was set up, throughout all his life his destiny was to betray Jesus, nice of God to do that, jolly good of him.
There is in fact a Christian heresy that reveres Judas as the true saviour. Jesus after all knew that he would be raised to glory; Judas knew (according to the heresy) that he would roast forever in the lowest pit of hell - yet knew that the cruxifiction was necessary for Man’s salvation, and sacrificed himself to everlasting torment for the sake of fulfilling this divine story.
So Judas, not Jesus, truly gave all for humanity and is the true saviour …
casdave, I asked for specifics. Where does the Bible say that Judas was “set up”? Also, where does it say that the only reason he was recruited was so that he could serve as a traitor?
Your posting provides a possible motive for setting Judas up, but it does not demonstrate that this was indeed what happened.
BTW, I also asked if you could substantiate your claim that Yahweh misrepresented the nature of the forbidden fruit.
Can you cite a specific passage which demonstrates that He was being dishonest in that regard? I’m not asking for conjecture, or a mere possible motive. I’m asking for specifics which show that this was indeed what the Genesis story demonstrates.
Perhaps because according to the divine will they were not to assume eternal life until the whole divine plan plays out ?
So ** Vanilla** why didn’t God guard the tree of knowledge of good and evil beforehand, particularly since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil , and thus were not equiped to discern the proper response to the snake?
Felix peccatum Adae
Nescio quid tam pecattum de isto eram. 
Hey! No speaking Klingon, please. Just because I asked for people who knew the original Hebrew and Greek, doesn’t mean I necessarily wanted the answer in another language. Waddya think I am, Charles Berlitz?
A couple things about Adam and Eve. Man was created in God’s image, placed in sovereignty over the earth, crowned with honor and glory, but subject to God’s will. Adam and Eve sinned, rebelling against God’s will, by eating the fruit. Eve was deceived, Adam sinned knowingly.
I find it curious that so many people seem to casually dismiss the nature of this momentous act. Think about it: God surely did not create Man without the ability to understand and carry out his stewardship over the rest of creation. Man lacked nothing integral to his created nature. What he thought he lacked was this knowledge of good and evil, a sense of being god-like. At least, that’s how the serpent was able to persuade Eve to temptation. And that’s the crux of the matter; evil can only exist as a contrast to good. Good can exist alone. Man could have entered into moral knowledge through experience, but he chose disobedience. Today, man has no memory of such existence, so can hardly contemplate the magnitude of such awareness. As I say, a curious thought.
Now, consider what a true tragedy this sin, or rebellion, is. The consequences are the universal sinfulness of all humanity. It is now in man’s nature to sin. (From rebellion in the first generation, we rapidly deteriorate to murder. A horrendously devastating disease, sin.) Man now has consciousness of sin, of condemnation, and of separation from God.
On to vanilla’s post:
If God had allowed Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have then lived forever in a sinful state. This God could not, as a loving God, accept. Thus, while God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, He also clearly sets in motion His plans for the redemption of all humanity through His son, Jesus Christ.
Genesis 2:17 says “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
They obviously didn’t. God never did tell them before they ate from the tree that they’d get knowledge–He said they’d get death.
IANAL, but that looks like misrepresentation to me.
Not that it matters to anyone but me but this:
Nescio quid tam pecattum de isto eram.
should have said this:
Nescio quid tam felix de isto eram.
peccatum, of course, woud make no sense in that sentence
My New Scofield Bible states: “…for when you eat of it you will .
surely die.” Genesis 2:17
Bear in mind that God is in fact stating that death is two-fold: separation spiritually from God and physical death as the punishment for sin. One happened immediately, hence the attempt to hide from God, the other happened in due course.