A question of Adam and Eve

A better term would be that he is being zealous.

But about the topic in hand, the whole point of the tree was a simple test to see if they would obey God's law. It was not like it was a hard test for them to do, since there were many trees around for food for them, but God set this tree up to test their loyalties to him. In spite of what is normally said, we are not known was the actual fruit is, but since the Latin for evil is so close apple that the story stuck, but for some reason forbidden fruit seems to better.
 
A better term would be that he is being zealous.

But about the topic in hand, the whole point of the tree was a simple test to see if they would obey God's law. It was not like it was a hard test for them to do, since there were many trees around for food for them, but God set this tree up to test their loyalties to him. In spite of what is normally said, we are not known was the actual fruit is, but since the Latin for evil is so close apple that the story stuck, but for some reason forbidden fruit seems to better.

This is exactly what I believe. Also I don't think God created evil itself, but the potential for it by giving man a choice to obey him or not. Man choosing to serve him means a lot more than mindless robots that have to.

And here's a random tangent: I think its kinda cool how some modern snakes have "stubs" where their legs used to be and the story in Genesis explains it. The snake used to walk upright but as punishment for its deception God made the snake to crawl on the ground and "eat the dust of the earth."
 
God is not a fan of Iphone....



but i have another question too. If Adam and eve are the first human, and only have Cain, abel and seth.

Where did the other people come from ???
 
They had daughters that weren't mentioned in the Bible, and inbreeding wasn't an issue at that time.
 
A better term would be that he is being zealous.

But about the topic in hand, the whole point of the tree was a simple test to see if they would obey God's law. It was not like it was a hard test for them to do, since there were many trees around for food for them, but God set this tree up to test their loyalties to him. In spite of what is normally said, we are not known was the actual fruit is, but since the Latin for evil is so close apple that the story stuck, but for some reason forbidden fruit seems to better.

So now we're talking about a god that tries to trick us, and punishes us for failing the trick?
 
So now we're talking about a god that tries to trick us, and punishes us for failing the trick?

How is it a trick if God told them not to eat it "lest ye die." God told them plainly not to eat from the tree, and he told them plainly what would happen if they did. Not a trick, a test.
 
How is it a trick if God told them not to eat it "lest ye die." God told them plainly not to eat from the tree, and he told them plainly what would happen if they did. Not a trick, a test.

Sure, and lets put the proper devices to judge between right and wrong decisions in the prize itself. Foolproof!
 
Actually, and this is just how I understand it, they knew it was wrong to eat from the tree because God told them it was. The knowlegde of good and evil applied to everything else. For instance, if God told them they were naked, and they should cover up then they would of realized it just from him telling them. But since he didn't tell them, they only knew after they ate the fruit. Not sure if what I just said makes sense but whatever.
 
Actually, and this is just how I understand it, they knew it was wrong to eat from the tree because God told them it was. The knowlegde of good and evil applied to everything else. For instance, if God told them they were naked, and they should cover up then they would of realized it just from him telling them. But since he didn't tell them, they only knew after they ate the fruit. Not sure if what I just said makes sense but whatever.

Is god naked ?
 
Is god naked ?

If you mean God the Father, he is a spiritual being and the question doesn't apply. If you mean Jesus the Son, then its possible because he lives in heaven where sin doesn't exist so nakedness wouldn't be a big deal. Who knows for sure though.
 
If you mean God the Father, he is a spiritual being and the question doesn't apply. If you mean Jesus the Son, then its possible because he lives in heaven where sin doesn't exist so nakedness wouldn't be a big deal. Who knows for sure though.

didnt they said God created men in his own image ?
 
Whether or not you believe in God is a personal choice, but I still have a hard time taking people seriously when they attempt to rationalise obvious Jewish mythology as scientific fact. The Greek, Egyptian and other polytheistic faiths grew out of it, so why the modern insistence on believing that such is true?
 
A claim like "inbreeding didn't matter then". That's clearly an attempt to rationalise mythology.
 
Ok I see what you're saying now.
Inbreeding had to not matter at somepoint, whether or not evolution, or creation is true, otherwise we wouldn't be here, unless God created many people at once, or a huge variety of life randomly sprang out of nowhere.
 
Ok I see what you're saying now.
Inbreeding had to not matter at somepoint, whether or not evolution, or creation is true, otherwise we wouldn't be here, unless God created many people at once, or a huge variety of life randomly sprang out of nowhere.

Wait. What?
 
Top Bottom