Did God Show Himself Insecure? (Garden Story)

[blü 2]

it's according to you. You say that some experts say so.

I'm saying that 15 of 16 translations of the bible agree with me, and that the 16th doesn't disagree.

"I also said that you don't need to necessarily have knowledge concerning pain in order to have the ability of feeling pain."

You have to know that pain is bad. And you say they couldn't tell good from bad.

checkable sources please. One that comes with a link.

Are you asking which translations say "good and evil"? Didn't you do your own homework? Tell me the ones you checked yourself ─ the KJV? and what else? ─, and I'll fill in the blanks to a total of 15.

I generally don't believe hearsay.

The entire bible is hearsay.

Strong's is a dictionary.

And a respected one. That doesn't put Strong in a position to overrule his peers on the subject of ancient Hebrew. Nor, as I pointed out, does he do so.

If you can't provide, I stay with Strong.

Then you're proceeding on two entirely false premises, first, that the translators of the KJV and the other 14 I'm aware of are inferior scholars to Strong and second, that Strong disagrees with them as regards the relevant passage.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but reasoning is support. I thought that you were familiar with the myth.

But I reasoned too and am familiar with the historical account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I reasoned too and am familiar with the historical account.

There is no historical account. We know that story to be myth. And this is why you probably cannot understand it. You cannot afford to understand the myth since that would go counter to your religious beliefs.

 

[thomas t]

The entire bible is hearsay.

For me, the Bible is not a myth. It is the word of God. I very well think that you can think rationally and apply a literal understanding of the text.

Are you asking which translations say "good and evil"?

Actually I answered this already:
I wrote (#62):
"is this trying to go round in circles with me another time?
[...]
I answered this already!
I wrote:
I answered it in the previous post.
I permit myself to copy-paste, as I did last time you reiterated yourself:
[....]
But that was not the question.
Evil in what sense? [evil in the sense of morally wrong or in the sense of bad]


how often do I have to repeat myself?
Even before, I answered this already repeating myself at that point already:

please stop going round in circles with me!

It's so rude to just step over what I said already, ignore it, and pretend you can still uphold your point."

Actually, trying to imply that I even thought about asking which translators say "good and evil"... is really rude, after I so often told you that the beef is in the question of evil in which sense.
Please stop being rude with me. Don't repeat your opinion again that it must be evil in the sense of morally wrong.

I asked you to provide sources.
Now you seem to be making excuses..

That doesn't put Strong in a position to overrule his peers on the subject of ancient Hebrew. Nor, as I pointed out, does he do so.

+

Tell me the ones you checked yourself ─ the KJV? and what else? ─, and I'll fill in the blanks to a total of 15.

+

I'm saying that 15 of 16 translations of the bible agree with me, and that the 16th doesn't disagree.

I asked you to present sources of a decent dictionary that rules out that evil means evil in the sense of bad.

oInstead, you keep on harping on your point that your translation said evil.

Again: However: the question is.... evil in what sense? Can you understand that?
Don't make me reiterate myself again, again and ..... again!
Don't go round in circles with me again, again..... and again to reiterate your neverending point of your 15 translations saying "evil". I know that. I know that after you reiterated your point endless times. I know that your 15 translation say so.
Can you understand that I know that?
Can you grasp that I know your 15 translations say "evil"? Do you understand that after (maybe) ten reiterations of your point that your 15 translations say "evil"... I know that and I am not willing to go round in circles with you any further? Can you understand that?

------
No, you don't have to know about pain in order to feel pain.

 

[blü 2]

For me, the Bible is not a myth. It is the word of God.

Whatever else it is, it's hearsay. You were the one complaining about hearsay in this instance, not me.

Evil in what sense? [evil in the sense of morally wrong or in the sense of bad]

Then you accept that 14 of 15 say good and evil? Okay.

the beef is in the question of evil in which sense.

And the answer is, in the moral sense, which is what evil refers to. If it means simply knowledge of good and bad, then you can't defend my poke-out-your-own-eyes example ─ it's a straightforward example of what happens if we apply the meaning you favor, and the result is simply silly.

I asked you to provide sources.

Sources for what, exactly?

You haven't addressed the overwhelming weight of opinion against you in the translations. 'Evil' has a moral connotation, which is only optional with 'bad'. The fact that you've found 'bad' in Strong doesn't advance you case because
(a) Strong doesn't address the passage in question
(b) if he'd done so, there's no reason why he wouldn't agree with all the expert translators who overwhelming choose "evil"
(c) none of whom, Strong included, would agree with you that Adam and Eve were deprived of the knowledge that pain is bad and that poking your own eyes out is bad.

 

[thomas t]

Whatever else it is, it's hearsay. You were the one complaining about hearsay in this instance, not me.

But the Bible isn't just hearsay, as I see it.

You haven't addressed the overwhelming weight of opinion against you in the translations. 'Evil' has a moral connotation, which is only optional with 'bad'. The fact that you've found 'bad' in Strong doesn't advance you case because

these opinions are in no way against me. I do not negate that Bible uses evil there.

And the answer is, in the moral sense, which is what evil refers to. If it means simply knowledge of good and bad, then you can't defend my poke-out-your-own-eyes example ─ it's a straightforward example of what happens if we apply the meaning you favor, and the result is simply silly.

According to you, evil refers to the moral sense.
In the Bible, the same word that is translated into English by "evil" ... is used to describe cows and days, also.
According to you, evil always has the connotation of morally wrong. At least in the Bible it does not.
Also, according to Marriam Webster, it does not always refer to the moral dimension: there is one archaic sense: bad. See Definition of EVIL

I think that maybe half of your 15 translations might have used "evil" in the archaic sense that Marriam Webster is pointing to.
Very much in the way of evil cows and days.

If it means simply knowledge of good and bad, then you can't defend my poke-out-your-own-eyes example ─ it's a straightforward example of what happens if we apply the meaning you favor, and the result is simply silly.

I refuted it by pointing to feeling pain. Feeling pain prevents anybody from poking out own eyes.
There is nothing silly about that.
-------------
I asked you for sources that rule out that evil could have been used in the sense of bad.

I got a bit of a melt-down last post.

 

[blü 2]

I refuted it by pointing to feeling pain. Feeling pain prevents anybody from poking out own eyes.

Not if you don't know good from bad ─ pain is bad, but on your theory, Adam and Eve couldn't know that, hence might happily have poked out their own eyes

I asked you for sources that rule out that evil could have been used in the sense of bad.

All the translations that say 'evil' carry that primary meaning, despite your protests.

And if your argument is correct then the eye-poking point is necessarily correct too ─ they didn't know that pain was bad.

Oh, one more thing: the Living Bible calls it "the tree of Conscience". The Living Bible is, or was, a moderately popular work but not much admired as a translation; however it agrees with me, and there it is.

 

[thomas t]

Not if you don't know good from bad ─ pain is bad, but on your theory, Adam and Eve couldn't know that, hence might happily have poked out their own eyes.
[...]And if your argument is correct then the eye-poking point is necessarily correct too ─ they didn't know that pain was bad.

as before I answered this:
I wrote in #84: No, you don't have to know about pain in order to feel pain.

Can you please stop going round in circles with me again? Thank you. I have limited time resources.

All the translations that say 'evil' carry that primary meaning,

that's an assumption. Backed up by nothing.

---------------------
As you say, the Living Bible is written more for popular reasons, it seems.

 

[blü 2]

as before I answered this:
I wrote in #84: No, you don't have to know about pain in order to feel pain.

You're missing the point.

You have to know that pain is BAD.

And that being blind is BAD.

And under your formula, Adam and Eve would NOT have known that. So they'd cheerfully poke out their eyes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

Yahweh is highly insecure, but still probably can't hold a candle to Hera.

 

[thomas t]

You're missing the point.

You have to know that pain is BAD.

And that being blind is BAD.

And under your formula, Adam and Eve would NOT have known that. So they'd cheerfully poke out their eyes.

no, they felt pain (maybe without knowing what that is). Pain prevented them from doing so.
I don't think that I missed the point here.

You don't need to know that being blind is bad in order for you to not be poking out own eye. The moment you start doing it... you feel what's going on and stop. Even without any knowledge of anything.

If you want to maintain your point here and I don't reply.... I stick to my opinion nevertheless. Even without replying. It's just that I want to get off this merry go round here....

 

[blü 2]

no, they felt pain (maybe without knowing what that is). Pain prevented them from doing so.
I don't think that I missed the point here.

And why did the pain work?

Because it was BAD. Which was, pun intended, their blind spot.

You don't need to know that being blind is bad in order for you to not be poking out own eye.

They'd need to know that pain is BAD, and being blind is BAD, but of course on your reading it was impossible for them to know that.

If you want to maintain your point here and I don't reply.... I stick to my opinion nevertheless.

It's untenable but it's yours, and you're welcome to it.

 

[37818]

I go by the evidence and there is no evidence for the Hebrew language nor the scripture before ~700 BCE.

Well the patterns of the evidence stronly suggests you are mistaken. Patterns of Evidence - The Red Sea Miracle

 

[shunyadragon]

Well the patterns of the evidence stronly suggests you are mistaken. Patterns of Evidence - The Red Sea Miracle

There are no patterns of evidence, and absolutely no evidence of the Red Sea miracle(?).

The actual physical objective evidence very strongly suggests I am correct.

 

[37818]

There are no patterns of evidence, and absolutely no evidence of the Red Sea miracle(?).

The actual physical objective evidence very strongly suggests I am correct.

So you know for a fact the documentry is false.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you know for a fact the documentry is false.

Documentary? I know for a fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the Hebrew language, the text of Genesis nor Exodus existed before ~700-600 BCE, and academic research has demonstrated that the books are edited, redacted compilations from different later sources and authors.

 

[37818]

Documentary? I know for a fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the Hebrew language, the text of Genesis nor Exodus existed before ~700-600 BCE, and academic research has demonstrated that the books are edited, redacted compilations from different later sources and authors.

So you are not aware of the original Hebrew.
The Moses Controversy

The Ancient Hebrew Language And Alphabet : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[sayak83]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

Actually the tree of knowledge was not harmful at all, eating it was actually beneficial. God of the 2nd genesis himself says why He is doing what he was doing.

Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

Man and Woman would have become a God like Them if They had also eaten from the tree of life. They were already half gods after eating from the Tree of Knowledge. So God, after discussion with other God's, exiled them so as they can't eat from Tree of Life.

At its heart it's a very Zeus-Prometheus like story. Just because later theology and awareness of God had evolved far from such early depiction of God vs Man power struggles prevalent in the ancient world, with God's only slightly more powerful than Man... does not mean that the original story was not depicting exactly that.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are not aware of the original Hebrew.
The Moses Controversy

The Ancient Hebrew Language And Alphabet : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I am aware. There is no evidence for the Hebrew written language nor Pentateuch texts before ~700 BCE.

The video did not present any evidence. It only relied on speculation and conjecture. There are no patterns of evidence without objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Muffled]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

I believe it is neither insecurity nor bad motive. I do believe He knew what would happen and that it was His plan for it to happen and that it was good.