Why Would Noah's Flood Have Been the Best Way for God to Cleanse the Earth?

[URAVIP2ME]

........ Also, what makes you think that Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any religious customs or traditions that they use over scripture?

Simple for anyone to read what it says at www.jw.org

 

[Fallen Prophet]

But many Christian faiths believe that they were. And that's what I established in the OP of: Love and Rebellion

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/love-and-rebellion.257854/
I'd ask those "Christians" to point out where in the Bible any of God's creations were described to be "perfect".

Thank you for the OP - I read it - but I still didn't see where the Bible claimed that any of God's creations were "perfect".

Also, some faiths believe that the knowledge of good and evil represented being able to determine what is right and wrong/good and evil for one self, independent of God's prerogative to determine was good and evil.

If this concept were true - then God would be a villain - punishing people based on arbitrary standards.

Although, I don't understand why in the Genesis narrative, that was such a temptation for Eve.

I believe that the desire to become like one's parents is instilled in all children.

Eve had no Knowledge of Good and Evil - therefore she had no understanding of deception - so when she was told that her desire to become like God was risk-free - she saw no reason not to partake.

However, for a human origin story, I suppose I can see how the ancient Hebrew people needed to have some sort of explanation to explain how we got from point A to point B.

I personally believe that the Adam and Eve story literally happened.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Please read Ezekiel 28:13-15 because Satan is that perfect edenic cherub (angel) in verse 14.
- James 1:13-15

Ok - I understand what you are trying to say here - but I believe it is patently false.

The Hebrew word tamiym or tamim - which English interpreters often translated as "perfect" (like in Ezekiel 28) - does not mean some sort of ideal moral perfectionism.

This same word - tamiym or tamim - was used several times in the Old Testament Genesis 6:8-9; 17:1, Exodus 12:5, Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6, Deuteronomy 18:13, 2 Samuel 22:24, Psalms 15:2; 18:24, Proverbs 11:5, Job 12:4 - and it is used to describe something "wholesome", "sound", "complete", "without blemish", "just", "upright" or even "innocent".

Adam and Eve fit this bill - but Noah was also described as being tamiym or tamim - and Abraham was commanded to be tamiym or tamim - and the animals chosen for sacrifice were described as being tamiym or tamim.

In Ezekiel 28 God is proclaiming the ruin of the king of Tyre - how he had once been tamiym or tamim - and that time of his life was likened to being in Eden - but his iniquity caused him to lose those blessings.

These verses have nothing to do with Satan - but there is a comparison made between the king of Tyre and the Fall of Man - the same parallel of having everything he wanted and losing it due to choices he made.

Either way - the Hebrew word the English interpreters translated as "perfect" does not mean what you think it means.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The King of Tyre was never in Eden and never an angel a cherub but Satan was - Ezekiel 28:13-15

 

[David Davidovich]

Without Jesus' name being on the ballot there is No taking of political sides - www.jw.org
Jesus only advocated God's Kingdom rule to stand by, to live by - Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8

Mexico
​

At the same time that Witnesses were forbidden to hold a card in Malawi a comparable situation arose in Mexico, with the Governing Body ruling in the opposite direction for Mexican brothers. In Mexico, military service was compulsory for young men. On completion of service young men would receive a “Cartilla” card, which similar to the card in Malawi, was required for a transactions such as obtaining a passport and drivers license. Young Witness brothers experienced persecution and imprisonment for refusing their obligation to attend military service.


Mexico Cartilla card cover


Cartilla card insert

In order to relieve this suffering, the Governing Body ruled that it was acceptable for Mexican brothers to bribe officials to obtain a government Cartilla card that exempted them from military service. This is discussed in the following letter to Mexico Branch Committee dated June 2, 1960.

“As to those who are relieved of military training by a money transaction with the officials who are involved therewith, this is on par with what is done in other Latin American countries where brothers have paid for their relief through some military official in order to retain their freedom for theocratic activities. If members of the military establishment are willing to accept such an arrangement upon the payment of a fee then that is the responsibility of these representatives of the national organisation. In such a case the money paid does not go to the military establishment, but is appropriated by the individual who undertakes the arrangement. If the consciences of certain brothers allow them to enter into such an arrangement for their continued freedom we have no objection. Of course, if they would get into any difficulties over their course of action then they would have to shoulder such difficulties themselves, and we could not offer them any assistance. But if the arrangement is current down there and is recognized by the inspectors who do not make any inquiries into the veracity of the matter then the matter can be passed by for the accruing advantages. Should a military emergency arise and confront these brothers with their marching card it would oblige them to make a decision by which they could not extricate themselves by a money payment and their mettle would be tested and they would have to demonstrate outright where they stand and prove that they are in favor of Christian neutrality in a determined test.​

Faithfully yours in the Kingdom ministry,​

Watchtower B.&T. Society
of Pensylvania
​

It is interesting that for Mexico it could be justified that holding a governmental card through bribery is acceptable, since it allowed the brothers to continue in “theocratic activities”, yet obtaining a political card legally in Malawi was not acceptable even though it would have allowed the same freedoms.

click here to read more from the article: The different standards applied to brothers in Malawi, Mexico and the Oath of allegiance (jwfacts.com)

 

[David Davidovich]

Eve decided she wanted to be her own goddess (choose for herself) because Satan deceived her - 1 Timothy 2:14

Well, I'm guessing that you never asked yourself: What exactly what would Eve have thought that she would get out of doing that? And why would being her own goddess be so tempting to her? And even though this story provides answers as an origin faith origin story, it really doesn't make sense if you scrutinze it. However, unfortunately, apologists never scrutinize or question their beliefs, but they just take everything that is taught them or that they read in the Bible at face value. Therefore, it seems kind of useless to even be talking to you about this.

The blame is Not placed on Eve but placed on Adam who was Not deceived.

So, what difference does that make? Because didn't she and all women who came after her get punished for what she did?

Adam simply choose to go along with Eve's wishes without regard for God's wishes, God's Law, of Genesis 2:17.

And that's the way the story goes.

 

[David Davidovich]

Short post www.jw.org

Quit posting your link and at least post quotes from your link. Because nobody wants to click on your link.

 

[David Davidovich]

ALL religions preach but do ALL practicers of their religion preach or leave the preaching work up to the clergy ?
Jesus gave the assignment of Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 to ALL his individual followers.
ALL religions preach, but how many preach that the 'good news of Gods' kingdom' is about an actual government that will take control of Earth - Daniel 2:44 - or rather they just preach about Heaven. Going to Heaven at death or falsely teach a rapture for the living.

LOL It looks like you didn't even read this part of my quote from the article:

The Apostle Paul said that not every Christian would actively evangelise.​

Ephesians 4:11-12 "And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ ..."​

Therefore, I'm now guessing that you're probably just here to count the amount of time that you are preaching to others, since Jehovah's Witnesses have to count, record, and turn in their preaching hours to their leaders. LOL But if I had known that you were only interested in an echo chamber, then I never would have even tried to have a discussion with you. LOL

 

[David Davidovich]

I'd ask those "Christians" to point out where in the Bible any of God's creations were described to be "perfect".

Thank you for the OP - I read it - but I still didn't see where the Bible claimed that any of God's creations were "perfect".

Well, it's quite simple... If I am known as an artist who created excellent art, then the art that I created would be excellent. And taking that a step further, if I am known as a supernatural deity who created perfect art, then the art that I created would be perfect... It's really not that hard.

If this concept were true - then God would be a villain - punishing people based on arbitrary standards.

I'm not sure if you understood this, but not if it's supposed to be his prerogative to determine what is right and wrong in the universe.

I believe that the desire to become like one's parents is instilled in all children.

But is that what Genesis is trying to teach us with the A&E story?

Eve had no Knowledge of Good and Evil - therefore she had no understanding of deception - so when she was told that her desire to become like God was risk-free - she saw no reason not to partake.

That's an interesting way to look at it, however, it doesn't sound as if you subscribe to traditional Christian religion.

I personally believe that the Adam and Eve story literally happened.

Do you mind if I ask you what particular faith you are?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Well, it's quite simple... If I am known as an artist who created excellent art, then the art that I created would be excellent. And taking that a step further, if I am known as a supernatural deity who created perfect art, then the art that I created would be perfect... It's really not that hard.

That is where I am confused because I read the OP and nothing you shared claimed that God's creations were "perfect".

I mean - you claimed that the things you shared said it - but I personally didn't see it anywhere.

Could you point to a specific example of the scriptures claiming that God's creations are "perfect"?

I'm not sure if you understood this, but not if it's supposed to be his prerogative to determine what is right and wrong in the universe.

Correct - it is His Law that determines what is Good and Evil and it is our prerogative to learn and live by His Law.

But is that what Genesis is trying to teach us with the A&E story?

I believe that the Genesis account is a record of actual events that happened - so I do not believe that it is trying to "teach" us anything - but rather give an account of what happened.

That is not to say that there is not a treasure trove of information and teachings there.

That's an interesting way to look at it, however, it doesn't sound as if you subscribe to traditional Christian religion.

I am indeed a Christian - but I do reject many things other Christians believe.

I believe that traditions are only good when they are based on truth.

I consider the "traditional" story of Adam and Eve - or at least how people interpret it - to be very wrong and not based in truth.

For example - the idea that Adam and Eve "sinned" in the Garden - the Genesis account contradicts that assumption soundly.

Do you mind if I ask you what particular faith you are?

Don't take this the wrong way - because many people have asked - but I'm not going to divulge.

I have found that when people learn what faith a person practices, they stop judging the ideas presented based solely on their reason and merit.

People like to put other people into "boxes" and then judge the "box" rather than what the person is actually saying.

I hope you are not disappointed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, it's quite simple... If I am known as an artist who created excellent art, then the art that I created would be excellent. And taking that a step further, if I am known as a supernatural deity who created perfect art, then the art that I created would be perfect... It's really not that hard.



I'm not sure if you understood this, but not if it's supposed to be his prerogative to determine what is right and wrong in the universe.



But is that what Genesis is trying to teach us with the A&E story?



That's an interesting way to look at it, however, it doesn't sound as if you subscribe to traditional Christian religion.



Do you mind if I ask you what particular faith you are?

Entering this conversation late, but the way I understand it is that God sets the standard for what's right or wrong, exemplified by the mandate to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So God directed Adam to do certain things. What do you conclude from this?

 

[David Davidovich]

That is where I am confused because I read the OP and nothing you shared claimed that God's creations were "perfect".

I mean - you claimed that the things you shared said it - but I personally didn't see it anywhere.

Could you point to a specific example of the scriptures claiming that God's creations are "perfect"?

Sorry, but I already did so.

Correct - it is His Law that determines what is Good and Evil and it is our prerogative to learn and live by His Law.

So then why did you say: If this concept were true - then God would be a villain - punishing people based on arbitrary standards.

I believe that the Genesis account is a record of actual events that happened - so I do not believe that it is trying to "teach" us anything - but rather give an account of what happened.

That is not to say that there is not a treasure trove of information and teachings there.

I am indeed a Christian - but I do reject many things other Christians believe.

I believe that traditions are only good when they are based on truth.

I consider the "traditional" story of Adam and Eve - or at least how people interpret it - to be very wrong and not based in truth.

So then how do you interpret it?

For example - the idea that Adam and Eve "sinned" in the Garden - the Genesis account contradicts that assumption soundly.

So I guess you don't agree with what the apostle Paul says in the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT)?

Don't take this the wrong way - because many people have asked - but I'm not going to divulge.

I have found that when people learn what faith a person practices, they stop judging the ideas presented based solely on their reason and merit.

People like to put other people into "boxes" and then judge the "box" rather than what the person is actually saying.

I hope you are not disappointed.

I don't agree with you on that. Because often times if someone is already familiar with a certain religion, then they can better understand where someone is coming from who practices a certain religion. Just like URAVIP2ME. Because I suspected that he was a Jehovah's Witness, but when he kept ignoring everything that someone else says and only wanted to preach his gospel (which, by the way, is a violation in a lot of forums), then I completey understood his mind set and where he was coming from. (Although, him admitting that he was a Jehovah's Witness helped when he kept referrring to their website.)

 

[David Davidovich]

Entering this conversation late, but the way I understand it is that God sets the standard for what's right or wrong, exemplified by the mandate to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So God directed Adam to do certain things. What do you conclude from this?

That's the common interpretation that I've seen among nearly all Christian groups that I am aware of.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's the common interpretation that I've seen among nearly all Christian groups that I am aware of.

And so what do you believe?

 

[David Davidovich]

And so what do you believe?

Your question is more complex than you realize. Perhaps you should start a thread about this.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Sorry, but I already did so.

Then consider it a failure on my part to see it.

Where in the Bible exactly does it claim that any of God's creations on Earth are "perfect"?

And not "perfect" in the sense of being "wholesome" or "good" - but literally "perfect".

So then why did you say: If this concept were true - then God would be a villain - punishing people based on arbitrary standards.

In Post #309 you said,

"Also, some faiths believe that the knowledge of good and evil represented being able to determine what is right and wrong/good and evil for one self, independent of God's prerogative to determine was good and evil."

If the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" represented "arbitrary truth" that was "independent of God's prerogative" - rather than an objective one dictated by God - then God would be a villain.

It would be immoral of God to allow people to determine what was right and wrong for themselves and then judge them based on His interpretation of Good and Evil.

That would be like making students study one subject but then testing and grading them on another.

So then how do you interpret it?

That God had always planned for Adam and Eve to partake of the Fruit and enter into mortality.

God is infinitely wise and perfectly Just and Merciful - therefore - He could not/would not ever force a potentially harmful position upon Man.

Therefore - God set up the conditions necessary for Man to make the decision for themselves to enter into mortality.

He did this by giving to them two seemingly contradictory commandments and placed within their reach not only the Knowledge they would need in order to commit sin but also the physical catalyst needed for their change into mortal bodies.

Adam and Eve never once acted out of malice or sinful intent while they lived in the Garden - for they had not the capacity - they had no Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Eve partook of the Fruit only after being deceived - and she had no ability to detect deception - and her motivation was the natural desire to become like her Father.

Adam partook of the Fruit in order to be obedient to God's first commandment - to remain with Eve and multiply with her.

God punished the liar and then pronounced upon the couple all the conditions of mortality that would soon be upon them.

So I guess you don't agree with what the apostle Paul says in the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT)?

Would you mind being more specific?

I don't agree with you on that. Because often times if someone is already familiar with a certain religion, then they can better understand where someone is coming from who practices a certain religion.

I disagree due to my own experience.

People tend to be "familiar" with the misconceptions - rather than the actual teachings - of a certain religion - or they only focus on the differences or what they consider to be "wrong" or "incorrect".

It's like knowing that the person you are talking to is a Republican - you will start to make assumptions about their beliefs and motivations - without taking into account what they are actually saying.

Just like URAVIP2ME. Because I suspected that he was a Jehovah's Witness, but when he kept ignoring everything that someone else says and only wanted to preach his gospel (which, by the way, is a violation in a lot of forums), then I completey understood his mind set and where he was coming from. (Although, him admitting that he was a Jehovah's Witness helped when he kept referrring to their website.)

This is exactly what I mean - you "understood his mind set" after "suspecting" that he was a member of a particular religion.

You made assumptions about his religion and then you put him into a "box" - his supposed "mind set" - and then you judged him by this "box" or "mind set".

Of course, his claiming to be a JW after the fact changes little - you already had him in your "box" before that fact had been confirmed.

 

[David Davidovich]

Then consider it a failure on my part to see it.

Where in the Bible exactly does it claim that any of God's creations on Earth are "perfect"?

And not "perfect" in the sense of being "wholesome" or "good" - but literally "perfect".
In Post #309 you said,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'll have to invoke the old saying of: "Repeating something over and over, but expecting different results is (fill in the blank). Sorry, but I can't keep continuing to repeat what I've already said.

"Also, some faiths believe that the knowledge of good and evil represented being able to determine what is right and wrong/good and evil for one self, independent of God's prerogative to determine was good and evil."

If the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" represented "arbitrary truth" that was "independent of God's prerogative" - rather than an objective one dictated by God - then God would be a villain.

But why would God test A&E by seeing whether or not they would partake of objective truth dictated by God???? That doesn't even make any sense.

It would be immoral of God to allow people to determine what was right and wrong for themselves and then judge them based on His interpretation of Good and Evil.

Even if it's supposed to be God's prerogative to determine and to interpret what is Good and Evil in the universe???? That also doesn't even make any sense.

That would be like making students study one subject but then testing and grading them on another.

I have never seen in the narrative that there was any 'studying' being done by A&E, therefore, to me, it appears that you are introducing that concept in the Genesis narrative.

That God had always planned for Adam and Eve to partake of the Fruit and enter into mortality.

God is infinitely wise and perfectly Just and Merciful - therefore - He could not/would not ever force a potentially harmful position upon Man.

Sorry, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Therefore - God set up the conditions necessary for Man to make the decision for themselves to enter into mortality.

He did this by giving to them two seemingly contradictory commandments and placed within their reach not only the Knowledge they would need in order to commit sin but also the physical catalyst needed for their change into mortal bodies.

So then, what exactly was their sin according to you? And what exactly was the physical catalyst that was needed for their change into mortal bodies? Please explain to me exactly how that worked,

Adam and Eve never once acted out of malice or sinful intent while they lived in the Garden - for they had not the capacity - they had no Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Eve partook of the Fruit only after being deceived - and she had no ability to detect deception - and her motivation was the natural desire to become like her Father.

Deceived into doing what???? So then according to you, what exactly did she do that was a sin?

Adam partook of the Fruit in order to be obedient to God's first commandment - to remain with Eve and multiply with her.

Oh, wow! That's very creative. Also, I guess you don't agree with the apostle Paul's writings on the subject.

God punished the liar and then pronounced upon the couple all the conditions of mortality that would soon be upon them.

So, what exactly did the liar lie about?

Would you mind being more specific?

Well, I guess I need to ask you first if you've ever read the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament) before?

I disagree due to my own experience.

People tend to be "familiar" with the misconceptions - rather than the actual teachings - of a certain religion - or they only focus on the differences or what they consider to be "wrong" or "incorrect".

Well, I think that I'm starting to get an idea of what your religion's actual teachings are and I don't think that it would now make a difference with me if I knew what your religion was.

It's like knowing that the person you are talking to is a Republican - you will start to make assumptions about their beliefs and motivations - without taking into account what they are actually saying.

This is exactly what I mean - you "understood his mind set" after "suspecting" that he was a member of a particular religion.

I'm not sure in this day and age if that's a good example.

You made assumptions about his religion and then you put him into a "box" - his supposed "mind set" - and then you judged him by this "box" or "mind set".

Of course, his claiming to be a JW after the fact changes little - you already had him in your "box" before that fact had been confirmed.

Sorry, but to paraphrase an old saying... 'If the box fits, wear it.'

 

[David Davidovich]

And so what do you believe?

There are too many moving parts to just give you a simple answer, however, I did want to post this video and say that this makes more sense to me. Also, if you decide to watch, please don't discard it because of the references to science fiction movies and tv shows near the beginning. Plus, at around the 5:00 mark (the last remaining minute), the video will bring home the point as to why I am posting this video.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are too many moving parts to just give you a simple answer, however, I did want to post this video and say that this makes more sense to me. Also, if you decide to watch, please don't discard it because of the references to science fiction movies and tv shows near the beginning. Plus, at around the 5:00 mark (the last remaining minute), the video will bring home the point as to why I am posting this video.

my reaction -- geezzzz....maybe maybe and maybe maybe maybe

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You use a lot of emojis.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'll have to invoke the old saying of: "Repeating something over and over, but expecting different results is (fill in the blank). Sorry, but I can't keep continuing to repeat what I've already said.

After perusing your posts and the OP you referenced - I saw a lot of talk about God being perfect - and the Lord Jesus Christ becoming perfect - but nothing about any of God's creations being perfect.

So - from my position you have yet to do this supposed "something" that you are now unwilling to "repeat".

Please don't take this the wrong way - but I consider your refusal to cite a specific Biblical reference that claims that any of God's creations were "perfect" (in the literal sense of the word) as confirmation that the Bible does not support that claim.

I believe you have been sharing your opinion and claiming that it is supported by the Bible.

But why would God test A&E by seeing whether or not they would partake of objective truth dictated by God???? That doesn't even make any sense.

This is one of the "traditional" ideas that I reject - the entire "testing" idea makes no sense.

I do not believe that God was "testing" Adam and Eve at all - but rather - He gave them everything they needed to inevitably decide when to enter into mortality.

If you believe that He was "testing" Adam and Eve then you would also need to believe that God sent the serpent to tempt Eve and that He told the serpent to lie.

Considering that Adam and Eve had no Knowledge of Good and Evil - therefore no way of understanding the concept of deception - they would have had no way of detecting the lie.

And considering that the Lord Jesus Christ was "foreordained before" and "slain from" the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 13:8) - it is clear that God the Father had planned on Adam and Eve partaking of the Fruit and therefore ensuring Mankind's need for a Savior and Redeemer.

Even if it's supposed to be God's prerogative to determine and to interpret what is Good and Evil in the universe???? That also doesn't even make any sense.

I don't understand the question.

What is Good and what is Evil has already been determined by God - and because Adam and Eve partook of the Fruit - all Mankind can come to know what is Good and what is Evil as well.

If partaking of the Fruit gave arbitrary "Good and Evil" decided by an individual's personal morality - rather than objective "Good and Evil" determined by God - then it would be unfair of God to judge anyone based on objective "Good and Evil".

The Fruit gave to Adam and Eve Knowledge of Good and Evil - objective knowledge - not arbitrary.

The Fruit gave truth - not opinion.

I have never seen in the narrative that there was any 'studying' being done by A&E, therefore, to me, it appears that you are introducing that concept in the Genesis narrative.

What are you even talking about?

I made the claim that the Fruit didn't give Adam and Eve "an opinion" about what was Good or Evil - but that it gave them Knowledge of Good and Evil - objective truth.

I made an analogy - when I said "that would be like" - about God judging Mankind based on objective truth when all He gave them was opinion "would be like" making students study one subject (opinion about Good and Evil) but then testing and grading them on another (objective truth about Good and Evil).

I never said that Adam and Eve "studied" anything.

Sorry, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

How?

Please explain.

So then, what exactly was their sin according to you?

It is my belief that they committed no sin in the Garden and that the concept of "original sin" is not supported by the Bible.

It is possible that they committed sin after they left the Garden - but the Genesis account does not record if they did.

And what exactly was the physical catalyst that was needed for their change into mortal bodies?

The ingestion of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Please explain to me exactly how that worked,

A person needs knowledge in order to commit sin. They need to know that what they are doing is "bad".

If a person is unaware that what they are doing is "bad" - they are merely transgressing the Law - not committing sin.

Not only this - but the Law takes into account other mitigating circumstances - for example - killing someone in self-defense - you may have transgressed the Law against killing a human being - but you have not committed the sin of murder.

Before Adam and Eve partook of the Fruit - they had no Knowledge of Good and Evil - making them innocent like children before they reach the age of accountability - and unable to commit sin.

The Fruit not only gave them Knowledge - but it also began the mortal changes in their bodies.

Deceived into doing what????

Partaking of the Fruit.

So then according to you, what exactly did she do that was a sin?

Nothing in the Garden.

Oh, wow! That's very creative.

I suppose it could be viewed that way when looking at it through the prism of the "traditional" interpretation of Genesis.

The Genesis account records,

"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?

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:11-12)

I understand that many "traditional" Christians would interpret this to be Adam trying to "pass the buck" either to Eve or to God Himself.

I, however, interpret it to be Adam succinctly explaining to God why he did what he did.

He did not simply say, "The woman whom thou gavest me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

He said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Bold and italics added)

He was reminding God about the first commandment - to be fruitful and multiply - and that God had given Eve to him in order to fulfill that commandment.

Adam knew that Eve would be expelled from the Garden after partaking of the fruit and he knew that in order to be obedient to the first commandment - he would need to remain with Eve - so he partook of the Fruit in order to ensure that they could multiply.

He wanted God to know that this was his motivation for partaking of the Fruit.

He also wanted God to know that Eve had already partaken of the Fruit before she offered it to him - explaining that they did not make this decision together - further proving that his motivation was to be obedient to the first commandment.

I believe that he understood that the "death" described by God meant both the expulsion from the Garden - thus separating him from God (spiritual death) - as well as physical death - separation of the spirit from the body - that would eventually take place.

He expressed this understanding that the "death" that God claimed would come upon him if he partook of the Fruit - at least the "death" that affects the ability to remain on Earth and multiply - would be a gradual "death".

Otherwise - if the Fruit were like a poison that would kill Eve soon - there would be no chance to multiply and therefore no reason for Adam to also partake of it.

Also, I guess you don't agree with the apostle Paul's writings on the subject.

Could you be more specific?

So, what exactly did the liar lie about?

That she would not die if she partook of the Fruit.

The serpent truthfully claimed that she would become like God by gaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil - God Himself confirmed this (Genesis 3:22) - but it lied when it said that she would not die.

Well, I guess I need to ask you first if you've ever read the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament) before?

I am very familiar with the New Testament - and even if I weren't - my familiarity with the text should not hinder your ability to be more specific.

I find you making statements or asking questions like this as an attempt to off-handedly claim that I am ignorant of the subject matter - sort of like little jabs.

You claim that God's creations are perfect - but cannot quote a verse in the Bible claiming such.

You claim that I disagree with Paul somehow - yet are unable to provide an example of me disagreeing with Paul.

Why are you unwilling to cite sources or provide adequate examples?

Well, I think that I'm starting to get an idea of what your religion's actual teachings are and I don't think that it would now make a difference with me if I knew what your religion was.

No, thank you.

I'm not sure in this day and age if that's a good example.

Considering how politically divided the U.S. is currently - I find it to be a perfect example.

People will immediately dismiss or critique a person just because they have a (R) or (D) next to their name - all the while never listening to them.

Sorry, but to paraphrase an old saying... 'If the box fits, wear it.'

This is the very reason why I won't do it - thank you for proving my point.