The Garden of good and evil

It's quite easy to demonstrate that the Atheists and Bible skeptics are no experts when it comes to the Bible. They will end up repeating this one liner... "The Bible is myth.". This based on what I said earlier.

Here is a simple test anyone can take, to prove me right.
(Genesis 3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.

Question : Is this "opening of their eyes, and realizing they were naked" to be understood literally?
If it is not, then why do you take "knowing of good and evil" literally?
Is this to be understood from an entirely physical perspective, or is there not the element of spirit?
How then can a man who is thinking entirely physical, expect to understand the scriptures.
That man is lost. Not entirely, but if he keeps it up, for sure. (Hebrews 4:12)

nPeace said:

It's quite easy to demonstrate that the Atheists and Bible skeptics are no experts when it comes to the Bible. They will end up repeating this one liner... "The Bible is myth.". This based on what I said earlier.

Here is a simple test anyone can take, to prove me right.
(Genesis 3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.

Question : Is this "opening of their eyes, and realizing they were naked" to be understood literally?
If it is not, then why do you take "knowing of good and evil" literally?
Is this to be understood from an entirely physical perspective, or is there not the element of spirit?
How then can a man who is thinking entirely physical, expect to understand the scriptures.
That man is lost. Not entirely, but if he keeps it up, for sure. (Hebrews 4:12)

Click to expand...

It is easy to demonstrate that the bible is mostly mythology and making statements to say that saying so means you are no expert flies in the face of fact.

Example... Evidence for Adam and Eve is non existent. Evidence for DNA does exist. Analysis of DNA shows genetic Adam and genetic Eve lived somewhere between 8000 and 80,000 years apart.

ChristineM said:

It is easy to demonstrate that the bible is mostly mythology and making statements to say that saying so means you are no expert flies in the face of fact.

Example... Evidence for Adam and Eve is non existent. Evidence for DNA does exist. Analysis of DNA shows genetic Adam and genetic Eve lived somewhere between 8000 and 80,000 years apart.

Click to expand...

Right. That's the myths you prefer to believe. I don't believe those myths.

nPeace said:

It's quite easy to demonstrate that the Atheists and Bible skeptics are no experts when it comes to the Bible. They will end up repeating this one liner... "The Bible is myth.". This based on what I said earlier.

Here is a simple test anyone can take, to prove me right.
(Genesis 3:7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.

Question : Is this "opening of their eyes, and realizing they were naked" to be understood literally?
If it is not, then why do you take "knowing of good and evil" literally?
Is this to be understood from an entirely physical perspective, or is there not the element of spirit?
How then can a man who is thinking entirely physical, expect to understand the scriptures.
That man is lost. Not entirely, but if he keeps it up, for sure. (Hebrews 4:12)

Click to expand...

The Bible is largely a book of myth because it has shown to be, not due to interpretation of verses so your "logic" fails right there. And your "logic" fails in your argument. They are pointing out that at best you are being too literal. Just because people that understand reality do not argue a word for word approach to the Bible does not mean that they do not understand it. You have a very very strangely bent argument there.

So why do we take that Adam and Eve in the myth did not know good and evil literally? Because it is clear from the context of the story that they lacked that knowledge. It was not until immediately after they ate the fruit that they understood what they did wrong. Have you not read the myth? It appears that you won't let yourself understand the flaws in it.

nPeace said:

Right. That's the myths you prefer to believe. I don't believe those myths.

Click to expand...

And you do not know what myths are nor do you understand the concept of evidence. For some odd reason all of the creationists that I have debated with will ever take the time to understand the concept of evidence.

coconut theology said:

The issue with your analogy is comparing the ignorant (without knowledge) to someone like Adam/Eve who had knowledge. Adam was created straight from the hand of God with much intelligence, and even given warning of disobedience and of the enemy that existed, and yet ate of the fruit with knowledge of the consequences.

Consider this video:

God is love. God will not force His intelligent creation to continually obey Him. There is a difference between ignorance and presumption in scripture:

OT:

Num 15:22 And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the LORD hath spoken unto Moses,
Num 15:23 Even all that the LORD hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the LORD commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;
Num 15:24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the LORD, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.
Num 15:25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:
Num 15:26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.
Num 15:27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.
Num 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.
Num 15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.
Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Num 15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.​

NT:

Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
​

Thus Jesus would not presume upon His Father to save Him by deliberately with full knowledge of going against His will:

Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
​

It is like a person 'playing' Russian Roulette, with a real loaded gun with one round in a 6 round chamber.

Yet, what is missed in all this, is that God still intervened for Adam's (and our) sake's, because Adam had not yet the fullness of understanding of the character of God's love, as Lucifer had. Adam had been deceived (though not in the same way as was Eve):

Rev_12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
​

Thus, in Adam, all were deceived, except Jesus Christ. Yet, even so, it is not as if God just abandoned us to death. No, the plan of redemption, which had been hid with God before all things were created, was put into action, and the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, as witnessed by the Holy Ghost/Spirit, was carried out, and is even now being carried out, and is almost finished.

Click to expand...

The issue with your analogy is comparing the ignorant (without knowledge) to someone like Adam/Eve who had knowledge. Adam was created straight from the hand of God with much intelligence, and even given warning of disobedience and of the enemy that existed, and yet ate of the fruit with knowledge of the consequences.

Well, you can CLAIM that they had knowledge of good and bad/right and wrong PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but that completely contradicts what Genesis claims.

But let's set that aside for now. A child when born is ALSO created with much intelligence. And a parent can warn their two year old child numerous times about running out into the street and the 'enemy' of traffic and the consequences of what it can do. However, even after all that, any DECENT parent would NEVER leave their two year old out in the front yard by themselves. Furthermore, let's say that this parent has ALSO allowed - for some silly reason - a lying deceptive snake to dwell in their neighborhood. A lying deceiving snake that they KNOW will approach their child the first chance it gets. And they KNOW that this lying deceptive snake is going to try and convince their child - a child that has NEVER been lied to and doesn't even understand the concept of deception - that there is a bunch of cuddly soft puppies on the other side of the street and all they have to do is cross the street in order to play with them.

So, what would a GOOD and LOVING parent do in this situation? First off, any GOOD parent would NEVER allow a lying deceptive snake to live in their neighborhood. But if for some reason they were powerless to stop it, then any good parent would NEVER leave their child outside without supervision. A good parent would keep a very close eye on them to prevent the deceptive lying snake from tricking them into running out into traffic. That's what a GOOD and LOVING parent would do.

What would a NEGLIGENT parent do? First off, they'd create a lying deceptive snake and THEN they'd allow the lying deceptive snake to move into the neighborhood. Afterwords this NEGLIGENT parent would leave their child unattended in the front yard where they KNOW the lying deceptive snake is just waiting to cause their child harm. THEN, after the lying deceptive snake DOES convince their child to try and cross the street, instead of taking responsibility for your lack of proper care, they'd try and blame their two year old child for being such a naive and gullible child.

If indeed you think that God was a good and loving parent in this situation, I can only hope that you never become a parent.

QuestioningMind said:

The issue with your analogy is comparing the ignorant (without knowledge) to someone like Adam/Eve who had knowledge. Adam was created straight from the hand of God with much intelligence, and even given warning of disobedience and of the enemy that existed, and yet ate of the fruit with knowledge of the consequences.

Well, you can CLAIM that they had knowledge of good and bad/right and wrong PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but that completely contradicts what Genesis claims.

But let's set that aside for now. A child when born is ALSO created with much intelligence. And a parent can warn their two year old child numerous times about running out into the street and the 'enemy' of traffic and the consequences of what it can do. However, even after all that, any DECENT parent would NEVER leave their two year old out in the front yard by themselves. Furthermore, let's say that this parent has ALSO allowed - for some silly reason - a lying deceptive snake to dwell in their neighborhood. A lying deceiving snake that they KNOW will approach their child the first chance it gets. And they KNOW that this lying deceptive snake is going to try and convince their child - a child that has NEVER been lied to and doesn't even understand the concept of deception - that there is a bunch of cuddly soft puppies on the other side of the street and all they have to do is cross the street in order to play with them.

So, what would a GOOD and LOVING parent do in this situation? First off, any GOOD parent would NEVER allow a lying deceptive snake to live in their neighborhood. But if for some reason they were powerless to stop it, then any good parent would NEVER leave their child outside without supervision. A good parent would keep a very close eye on them to prevent the deceptive lying snake from tricking them into running out into traffic. That's what a GOOD and LOVING parent would do.

What would a NEGLIGENT parent do? First off, they'd create a lying deceptive snake and THEN they'd allow the lying deceptive snake to move into the neighborhood. Afterwords this NEGLIGENT parent would leave their child unattended in the front yard where they KNOW the lying deceptive snake is just waiting to cause their child harm. THEN, after the lying deceptive snake DOES convince their child to try and cross the street, instead of taking responsibility for your lack of proper care, they'd try and blame their two year old child for being such a naive and gullible child.

If indeed you think that God was a good and loving parent in this situation, I can only hope that you never become a parent.

Click to expand...

Clearly the situation here is not one a person can just make assumptions and then apply them to the Biblical account.
If a dad says to his son, This is my ice-cream. Okay. Don't eat it. Don't touch it. You can have all the ice-cream in the freezer, which have flavors of all kinds."
Two things.
1) Any child who eats the dad's ice-cream is selfish, and cares nothing about the dad's instructions, but rather does what ever they please.
2) The dad get's to know he cannot trust his son. His son is not faithful, but selfish.

That was the situation with Biblical account.
The tree was put there do determine what Adam and Eve would do, hence determine if they were worthy of eating of the tree of life.

Bible skeptics and Atheist appear to be bent on making their own Biblical account, and not interested in learning anything, and so it's no wonder they won't. How sad for them.

nPeace said:

Clearly the situation here is not one a person can just make assumptions and then apply them to the Biblical account.
If a dad says to his son, This is my ice-cream. Okay. Don't eat it. Don't touch it. You can have all the ice-cream in the freezer, which have flavors of all kinds."
Two things.
1) Any child who eats the dad's ice-cream is selfish, and cares nothing about the dad's instructions, but rather does what ever they please.
2) The dad get's to know he cannot trust his son. His son is not faithful, but selfish.

That was the situation with Biblical account.
The tree was put there do determine what Adam and Eve would do, hence determine if they were worthy of eating of the tree of life.

Bible skeptics and Atheist appear to be bent on making their own Biblical account, and not interested in learning anything, and so it's no wonder they won't. How sad for them.

Click to expand...

That is not a very good analogy since the child in question already understands right and wrong. In fact right and wrong is taught even before speech learned. For example if a baby bites the item being bitten is removed and further attempts to bite are prevented (not by punishing the child by the way). Adam and Eve according to the myth did not even have that basic knowledge.

nPeace said:

Right. That's the myths you prefer to believe. I don't believe those myths.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's the facts backed up with evidence. Those facts dont need your belief to be facts

ChristineM said:

Nope, that's the facts backed up with evidence. Those facts dont need your belief to be facts

Click to expand...

Where? From your mouth? Why not provide them?
In fact, let me save you the trouble of derailing this thread with a topic I have totally no interest in since it's just full of beliefs in assumptions, and incomplete, insufficient evidence.

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo — the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced — were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all.

When you can provide data that says CONCLUSIVELY, rather than may, might, probably, could... I will consider that you may be providing facts, and then consider we have something to talk about.
Otherwise, I am not interested in modern day myths. The Bible is more truthful than these science fiction stories... which you believe.

nPeace said:

Where? From your mouth? Why not provide them?
In fact, let me save you the trouble of derailing this thread with a topic I have totally no interest in since it's just full of beliefs in assumptions, and incomplete, insufficient evidence.

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo — the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced — were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all.

When you can provide data that says CONCLUSIVELY, rather than may, might, probably, could... I will consider that you are providing facts, and then consider we have something to talk about.
Otherwise, I am not interested in modern day myths. The Bible is more truthful than these science fiction stories... which you believe.

Click to expand...

Thats a lot of denial considering your claim that you are not interested.

DNA does not lie no matter what you want to believe. Ask any of of the thousands of prison inmates convicted on DNA evidence.

Around the same time in archeological terms, that's what i said with the lower (8000 year) estimate. And of course the paper is fine but not peer reviewed and contradicts several peer reviewed papers

When you can provide data that says CONCLUSIVELY that the guesses of scientifically ignorant, bronze age people knew more about modern day research into genetics than modern day geneticists do then i am not interested in woo

ChristineM said:

Thats a lot of denial considering your claim that you are not interested.

DNA does not lie no matter what you want to believe. Ask any of of the thousands of prison inmates convicted on DNA evidence.

Around the same time in archeological terms, that's what i said with the lower (8000 year) estimate. And of course the paper is fine but not peer reviewed and contradicts several peer reviewed papers

When you can provide data that says CONCLUSIVELY that the guesses of scientifically ignorant, bronze age people knew more about modern day research into genetics than modern day geneticists do then i am not interested in woo

Click to expand...

DNA does not speak your language. You decide what you want it to say, when it shows only what it can.
It's tiring hearing that argument, despite truth to the contrary.
Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility
MYTH: DNA EVIDENCE IS INFALLIBLE
Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable
Similarity is not homology. It is widely assumed that strong sequence similarity indicates genetic kinship.
Sequence similarity is strictly an empirical observation; homology, on the other hand, is a hypothesis intended to explain the similarity.

I understand why you love today's science fiction, but maybe you need a prayer to go with them, because they are incredibly flawed.

Oh by the way @ChristineM, don't you notice how these years are estimates, and how they differ sometimes by 10 thousand years or more.... Why do you think that is?

nPeace said:

DNA does not speak your language. You decide what you want it to say, when it shows only what it can.
It's tiring hearing that argument, despite truth to the contrary.
Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility
MYTH: DNA EVIDENCE IS INFALLIBLE
Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable
Similarity is not homology. It is widely assumed that strong sequence similarity indicates genetic kinship.
Sequence similarity is strictly an empirical observation; homology, on the other hand, is a hypothesis intended to explain the similarity.

I understand why you love today's science fiction, but maybe you need a prayer to go with them, because they are incredibly flawed.

Click to expand...

I have never said DNA is 100% accurate but it is over 100000 to 1 accurate. Take a test twice and that accuracy doubles etc.

Thems pretty good odds for a non gambler.

I have better things to do with my life, like actually doing something rather than wasting time with prayer which is 100% flawed

nPeace said:

Oh by the way @ChristineM, don't you notice how these years are estimates, and how they differ sometimes by 10 thousand years or more.... Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because science is honest and tells us when an estimate is an estimate.

ChristineM said:

I have never said DNA is 100% accurate but it is over 100000 to 1 accurate. Take a test twice and that accuracy doubles etc.

Thems pretty good odds for a non gambler.

I have better things to do with my life, like actually doing something rather than wasting time with prayer which is 100% flawed

Click to expand...

Now you know the estimate of accuracy. Wow.
Anyways, if I said something don't lie, and I don't mean 100%, I have just lied.

I don't think you have better things to do. You just feel you do.
It's an emotional thing.

ChristineM said:

Because science is honest and tells us when an estimate is an estimate.

Click to expand...

That does not answer my question.
However, science is not an entity. How in the world can it be honest?

Anyway, I am not going to be party with you in derailing the thread. I'm off this topic.

nPeace said:

Clearly the situation here is not one a person can just make assumptions and then apply them to the Biblical account.
If a dad says to his son, This is my ice-cream. Okay. Don't eat it. Don't touch it. You can have all the ice-cream in the freezer, which have flavors of all kinds."
Two things.
1) Any child who eats the dad's ice-cream is selfish, and cares nothing about the dad's instructions, but rather does what ever they please.
2) The dad get's to know he cannot trust his son. His son is not faithful, but selfish.

That was the situation with Biblical account.
The tree was put there do determine what Adam and Eve would do, hence determine if they were worthy of eating of the tree of life.

Bible skeptics and Atheist appear to be bent on making their own Biblical account, and not interested in learning anything, and so it's no wonder they won't. How sad for them.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you left a great deal out of the story. Let me help.

So we have a Dad who tells his child: This is my ice-cream. Okay. Don't eat it. Don't touch it. You can have all the ice-cream in the freezer, which have flavors of all kinds.

Okay fine... what you left out is that this Dad also has a lying deceitful neighbor. And for SOME reason the Dad allows this lying deceitful neighbor to come into his house when his child is alone. Furthermore, the Dad KNOWS that this lying deceitful neighbor is going to try to get his child to eat the wrong ice cream, a child by the way that has NEVER been lied to and doesn't even comprehend the notion of deceit. This means that all the lying deceitful neighbor has to do is tell the child: NO, you misunderstood what your Dad said. He actually WANTS you to eat his ice cream." And the child, who doesn't even know that it's possible that someone could tell an untruth, will naturally assume that they MUST have misunderstood.

Three things:
1. Dad was horribly negligent in leaving his child alone when he KNEW what the lying deceitful neighbor would try to do.
2. Dad was horribly negligent when he allowed the lying deceitful neighbor to enter his house.
3. Dad was horribly negligent when he failed to warn his child about lying and deceit, when he knew that there was a lying deceitful neighbor and was allowing this lying deceitful neighbor into his house when his child was all alone.

nPeace said:

DNA does not speak your language. You decide what you want it to say, when it shows only what it can.
It's tiring hearing that argument, despite truth to the contrary.
Forensic DNA Evidence: The Myth of Infallibility
MYTH: DNA EVIDENCE IS INFALLIBLE
Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable
Similarity is not homology. It is widely assumed that strong sequence similarity indicates genetic kinship.
Sequence similarity is strictly an empirical observation; homology, on the other hand, is a hypothesis intended to explain the similarity.

I understand why you love today's science fiction, but maybe you need a prayer to go with them, because they are incredibly flawed.

Click to expand...

It is too bad that all you did was to grab articles that you did not understand and misapply them to the argument. It is a good idea to read more than just the title of those arguments. They merely explain how improved techniques mean that more care must be used in analysis. But then strawman arguments and misrepresentation are the only "scientific" arguments that you have.

Why do you constantly run away from offers to discuss the nature of evidence? The best you have done was to link articles that you did not really appear to understand. I don't want to say that you understood them because if you did that would mean that you were lying in other posts.

QuestioningMind said:

Sorry, but you left a great deal out of the story. Let me help.

So we have a Dad who tells his child: This is my ice-cream. Okay. Don't eat it. Don't touch it. You can have all the ice-cream in the freezer, which have flavors of all kinds.

Okay fine... what you left out is that this Dad also has a lying deceitful neighbor. And for SOME reason the Dad allows this lying deceitful neighbor to come into his house when his child is alone. Furthermore, the Dad KNOWS that this lying deceitful neighbor is going to try to get his child to eat the wrong ice cream, a child by the way that has NEVER been lied to and doesn't even comprehend the notion of deceit. This means that all the lying deceitful neighbor has to do is tell the child: NO, you misunderstood what your Dad said. He actually WANTS you to eat his ice cream." And the child, who doesn't even know that it's possible that someone could tell an untruth, will naturally assume that they MUST have misunderstood.

Three things:
1. Dad was horribly negligent in leaving his child alone when he KNEW what the lying deceitful neighbor would try to do.
2. Dad was horribly negligent when he allowed the lying deceitful neighbor to enter his house.
3. Dad was horribly negligent when he failed to warn his child about lying and deceit, when he knew that there was a lying deceitful neighbor and was allowing this lying deceitful neighbor into his house when his child was all alone.

Click to expand...

Again, you are creating your own narrative. You assume an intruder.
There need be no intruder. The butler can be a liar in God's household. Why, even an Uncle, for that matter.
We know from scripture angels were given assignments to minister to mankind, so...
Whoever the liar is, makes no difference, but you made it worst, by introducing an intruder.
An intruder forces. He does not coerce young ones.
Whether butler or stranger, obedient children who know they dad gave them instructions, look to carry them out, or they are imply rebellious - which s exactly the case, in the Biblical narrative.
That's really the bottom line.

Rather than get into hypothetical with you, on why your three points are mere assumptions, which can be refuted by simple arguments, I will leave it there, because no amount of reasoning will help anyone bent on a course of opposition.
Jesus said as much. He said...
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” (John 8:43-47)

Once a person chooses Satan's side, they are not inclined to be reasonable where God is concerned, and they will not understand anything related to the Bible. I explained that before.

nPeace said:

Again, you are creating your own narrative. You assume an intruder.
There need be no intruder. The butler can be a liar in God's household. Why, even an Uncle, for that matter.
We know from scripture angels were given assignments to minister to mankind, so...
Whoever the liar is, makes no difference, but you made it worst, by introducing an intruder.
An intruder forces. He does not coerce young ones.
Whether butler or stranger, obedient children who know they dad gave them instructions, look to carry them out, or they are imply rebellious - which s exactly the case, in the Biblical narrative.
That's really the bottom line.

Rather than get into hypothetical with you, on why your three points are mere assumptions, which can be refuted by simple arguments, I will leave it there, because no amount of reasoning will help anyone bent on a course of opposition.
Jesus said as much. He said...
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.” (John 8:43-47)

Once a person chooses Satan's side, they are not inclined to be reasonable where God is concerned, and they will not understand anything related to the Bible. I explained that before.

Click to expand...

Please reread what I wrote. I never indicated that the lying deceitful neighbor was an intruder. In fact I specifically stated that - for some reason - the Dad allowed the neighbor into his house when the child was all alone. Just like God allowed the lying deceitful serpent into the garden. Now everything I've read suggests that God KNEW that the serpent was a deceitful liar and that the serpent would almost certainly try and corrupt his creations. Yet, for some reason, he decided to allow the serpent to interact with his creations without any supervision. That's would be akin to the Dad knowing that his uncle molests children, but then allowing the uncle to babysit.

Funny how you didn't even address the fact that poor Adam and Eve had never once been lied to and didn't even understand the concept of deception. Yet for some reason God holds then accountable for simply being exactly how he created them, naive and gullible enough to be fooled by the Father of the Lie. Instead of accusing me of being bent on a course of opposition, how about actually addressing the inconsistency in the story? Everything about it suggests that God set up his creations to fail and then decided to punish them for it.