EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[thomas t]

[...]God tells lies (1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18; Jeremiah 4; Jeremiah 20:7; Ezekiel 14:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

except that God never lies.
I maintain that Bible is inerrant.
These quotes are perfectly fine.

In my opinion, this thread is a bit too long already, it gets difficult to find the link to the OP sometimes.
If you want to maintain that these are lies according to you, why not go ahead and open up a new thread?
If you do...
could you please narrow down your list to three items please, so it won't get overwhelming to discuss them.
Thank you.

In case you want to discuss all the six passages, why not discuss the first three first and the rest of it last - in a new thread after?

 

[blü 2]

Proof was what i showed you

You showed me nothing but your personal assertion.

I am not contradicting you, i am saying what was written is not right.

How do you tell which parts are "right"? What's the test?

It is not in agreement with the All knowing, All loving, All seeing Characteristics of the GOD.

The God of the bible is not "all loving", as I pointed out. [He]'s said to send people to hell, for instance.

 

[Yahcubs777]

You showed me nothing but your personal assertion.
How do you tell which parts are "right"? What's the test?
The God of the bible is not "all loving", as I pointed out. [He]'s said to send people to hell, for instance.

I showed you the proof; the revelation of it.
By knowing who GOD is, and the LOGOS in details;
Hell is the ghost world where all who die in this earth go to. Children of the kingdom to Abrahams Bosom, and Children of the abyss to the depths of hell.
No one goes to heaven through death which is why there must be the resurrection for everyone that died.

Christians believe resurrection is a reward. It isn't. It is a solution to the problem. For everyone is resurrected no matter who died or where they will go; lake of fire or heaven. And that going to the lake of fire, is just them going back to where they came from. Meaning, GOD did not send them into the earth, therefore, they are not of GOD and have no citizenship in heaven.

 

[blü 2]

except that God never lies.
I maintain that Bible is inerrant.
These quotes are perfectly fine.

In my opinion, this thread is a bit too long already, it gets difficult to find the link to the OP sometimes.
If you want to maintain that these are lies according to you, why not go ahead and open up a new thread?
If you do...
could you please narrow down your list to three items please, so it won't get overwhelming to discuss them.
Thank you.

In case you want to discuss all the six passages, why not discuss the first three first and the rest of it last - in a new thread after?

They indeed belong in another thread. They were simply my short answer to a point he made.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion. But yes, I agree that what Eve did was an extremely good thing!

I wholeheartedly believe that Eve is the heroine of the human family—that she contemplated the consequences of her partaking of the fruit (that of thereby having knowledge of good and evil, and being able to have children), and decided that even though partaking of the fruit would mean expulsion from the garden, suffering, and death for her personally, it would also mean the beginning of mankind. It made it possible for God’s spirit children (us!) to come to earth and receive bodies—entering mortality as a part of God’s plan for us to be able to use our agency to choose good over evil, repent when we choose amiss, learn, and grow to become the type of people who can once again return to His presence.

To believe that Eve is the perpetrator of a huge mistake that God had to send His Son here to fix, is to believe that God is a very poor planner. I believe that there was a plan for us to come to earth before the earth was even created, that God (Heavenly Father) called a council in Heaven where we were all present. That He presented His plan—for us to obtain bodies through birth, be tried and tested to see if we would be obedient—but that there would need to be a Savior, one who would atone for our sins/mistakes so that we could be purified and re-enter God’s presence. Satan volunteered to be our savior, but only under the condition 1) that we not have agency/freedom to choose—so that we couldn’t make mistakes and would be forced to return to live with God again, and 2) he would get all the glory. Jesus Christ volunteered to come to earth to be our Savior—to show us how to live, atone for our sins, and make it so all men would be resurrected…and give the glory to God. God (Heavenly Father) chose Jesus to be our Savior. Satan was angry, rebelled, and a third of God’s spirit children followed him—and will never have mortal bodies, but try to make us all miserable like they are.

This theology is not of my invention, but is taught by the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). We believe it is a restoration of the same gospel that Christ established when He was on the earth, but was lost after His apostles died. If you’d like to see more of what our church believes, you can check out churchofjesuschrist.org. I’m also happy to engage in dialogue.

 

[blü 2]

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion. But yes, I agree that what Eve did was an extremely good thing!

Dang right!

I wholeheartedly believe that Eve is the heroine of the human family—that she contemplated the consequences of her partaking of the fruit (that of thereby having knowledge of good and evil, and being able to have children), and decided that even though partaking of the fruit would mean expulsion from the garden, suffering, and death for her personally, it would also mean the beginning of mankind.

On the one hand, the story doesn't say that, and since she was then without the ability to distinguish good and evil, it seems to follow that she'd be unable to plan ahead as if she already had such knowledge. Saying "I'd like to be wise" is about all she could manage.

On the other hand, if we take the view that the Garden story is a bridge between the story of the Creation and the beginning of Hebrew folk history, and that it describes the infancy of a notional mankind, such that the fruit / wisdom represents the adolescence of mankind (the coming of sexual awareness) then yes, something like that should work.

 

[exchemist]

I’m a bit late coming to this discussion. But yes, I agree that what Eve did was an extremely good thing!

I wholeheartedly believe that Eve is the heroine of the human family—that she contemplated the consequences of her partaking of the fruit (that of thereby having knowledge of good and evil, and being able to have children), and decided that even though partaking of the fruit would mean expulsion from the garden, suffering, and death for her personally, it would also mean the beginning of mankind. It made it possible for God’s spirit children (us!) to come to earth and receive bodies—entering mortality as a part of God’s plan for us to be able to use our agency to choose good over evil, repent when we choose amiss, learn, and grow to become the type of people who can once again return to His presence.

To believe that Eve is the perpetrator of a huge mistake that God had to send His Son here to fix, is to believe that God is a very poor planner. I believe that there was a plan for us to come to earth before the earth was even created, that God (Heavenly Father) called a council in Heaven where we were all present. That He presented His plan—for us to obtain bodies through birth, be tried and tested to see if we would be obedient—but that there would need to be a Savior, one who would atone for our sins/mistakes so that we could be purified and re-enter God’s presence. Satan volunteered to be our savior, but only under the condition 1) that we not have agency/freedom to choose—so that we couldn’t make mistakes and would be forced to return to live with God again, and 2) he would get all the glory. Jesus Christ volunteered to come to earth to be our Savior—to show us how to live, atone for our sins, and make it so all men would be resurrected…and give the glory to God. God (Heavenly Father) chose Jesus to be our Savior. Satan was angry, rebelled, and a third of God’s spirit children followed him—and will never have mortal bodies, but try to make us all miserable like they are.

This theology is not of my invention, but is taught by the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). We believe it is a restoration of the same gospel that Christ established when He was on the earth, but was lost after His apostles died. If you’d like to see more of what our church believes, you can check out churchofjesuschrist.org. I’m also happy to engage in dialogue.

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. It seems to me that the story is an allegory for Mankind acquiring moral awareness and responsibility, as he evolved from the rest of the animals.

One point I don't follow however, is why you mention Eve's ability to have children as arising in some way from this. Can you explain this?

 

[Brian2]

This theology is not of my invention, but is taught by the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). We believe it is a restoration of the same gospel that Christ established when He was on the earth, but was lost after His apostles died. If you’d like to see more of what our church believes, you can check out churchofjesuschrist.org. I’m also happy to engage in dialogue.

Many people have said that about the gospel, that it was lost and that they have restored it.
Joseph Smith is no different to the many others who have and are still making up alternative gospels.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

Dang right!
On the one hand, the story doesn't say that, and since she was then without the ability to distinguish good and evil, it seems to follow that she'd be unable to plan ahead as if she already had such knowledge. Saying "I'd like to be wise" is about all she could manage.

On the other hand, if we take the view that the Garden story is a bridge between the story of the Creation and the beginning of Hebrew folk history, and that it describes the infancy of a notional mankind, such that the fruit / wisdom represents the adolescence of mankind (the coming of sexual awareness) then yes, something like that should work.

I see your point with regards to Eve’s ability to distinguish good from evil—in that comprehension of good and evil prior to exposure to it seems unlikely. However, it seems that the serpent/Satan does a fairly good job of explaining it—perhaps enough for Eve to make an informed decision. Genesis 3:5-6 (KJV) states “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. It seems to me that the story is an allegory for Mankind acquiring moral awareness and responsibility, as he evolved from the rest of the animals.

One point I don't follow however, is why you mention Eve's ability to have children as arising in some way from this. Can you explain this?

This doctrine is probably unique to our church. Evidence for it comes from what we consider to be scripture: The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ: “…if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:22-25).

And also from The Pearl of Great Price: “…Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.” (Moses 5:10-11)

I think these details about the fall present a fuller/richer purpose to our existence here.

 

[blü 2]

I see your point with regards to Eve’s ability to distinguish good from evil—in that comprehension of good and evil prior to exposure to it seems unlikely. However, it seems that the serpent/Satan does a fairly good job of explaining it—perhaps enough for Eve to make an informed decision. Genesis 3:5-6 (KJV) states “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

The point being that only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit did they have knowledge of good and evil and thus become capable of sin.

At the time they ate the fruit they were incapable of sin.

And in the story, God's motivation is to prevent them from having knowledge of good and evil, and from having immortality, since those two factors are said to be what distinguishes God from his creations. (You can tell [he]'s new at godding when [he] nonetheless leaves the relevant trees smack in the zone,)

 

[Brian2]

The point being that only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit did they have knowledge of good and evil and thus become capable of sin.

At the time they ate the fruit they were incapable of sin.

And in the story, God's motivation is to prevent them from having knowledge of good and evil, and from having immortality, since those two factors are said to be what distinguishes God from his creations. (You can tell [he]'s new at godding when [he] nonetheless leaves the relevant trees smack in the zone,)

Sinning is going against the law of God and in this case the law was not to eat the fruit and the consequences were given.
The consequences are the same as what we have also, but we have a myriad of things that we can sin against and so it is no doubt harder for us to avoid sin.
If you say they were incapable of sinning then that means they were also incapable of being loving/doing good.
When do you think that a human first does evil?
It cannot be after they have done it, to find out what evil is, or it would not be the first time.
Our first sin is probably when we go against the direct command of someone we know has the authority to give that command.

 

[Brian2]

The point being that only AFTER they'd eaten the fruit did they have knowledge of good and evil and thus become capable of sin.

At the time they ate the fruit they were incapable of sin.

And in the story, God's motivation is to prevent them from having knowledge of good and evil, and from having immortality, since those two factors are said to be what distinguishes God from his creations. (You can tell [he]'s new at godding when [he] nonetheless leaves the relevant trees smack in the zone,)

Do you think that a motivation could have been to educate us about how to resist doing wrong? After all we are moral beings and there will eventually be other things that God would not want us to do or would want us to do.
The tree of life was there also for a reason and they were never told not to eat that fruit.
I think your idea of God's motivation is not right.

 

[Sand Dancer]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

The LDS view of this is a positive. Instead of being a sin, it's seen as agency.

 

[Strengthen Thy Brethren]

Do you think that a motivation could have been to educate us about how to resist doing wrong? After all we are moral beings and there will eventually be other things that God would not want us to do or would want us to do.
The tree of life was there also for a reason and they were never told not to eat that fruit.
I think your idea of God's motivation is not right.

I agree that if Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil, partaking of the fruit could not have been considered sin. I think God forbad them to partake of the fruit in the sense that it would have consequences (of mortality/death)—maybe called a transgression (breaking of a law), rather than a sin (deliberate rebellion—as stated in James 4:17: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”).

I see God’s motivation not in preventing Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit, but having a far greater plan in mind. If you assume that 1) we are God’s literal spirit children, 2) that His work and His glory is “to bring to pass the immortality (resurrection) and eternal life (exaltation/returning to live with God again) of man”*, then it makes sense that God would create a plan that would enable us to become the kind of people that would be worthy of living in his presence, i.e. without sin. If Adam and Eve (or us as well, if you think they could have procreated there in an innocent state) were to have stayed in the garden, they/we never would have experienced good and evil, and proven them/ourselves capable of and willing to choose the good or over the evil (or to repent when we sin/choose evil, and have it wiped away through Christ’s atonement). Yet, God being who He is (i.e. goodness), He cannot create evil—and so Satan is introduced/allowed into the garden (probably thinking that he is foiling God‘s plan) in order to create a dichotomy where Adam and Eve can either stay innocent and never progress, or have the choice to learn and progress, and become as God would have them be/reach their true potential. I see this as God’s motivation for allowing Adam and Eve the choice to partake of the fruit.

God placed an angel in front of the Tree of Life after they partook of the fruit (thereby entering a sinful state) so that they could not partake of the fruit of the tree of life, thereby living forever in their sinful state and without the possibility of returning to live with God.

*Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:39

 

[blü 2]

Sinning is going against the law of God and in this case the law was not to eat the fruit and the consequences were given.

No. There can't be sin in the absence of an intention to sin.

And in the absence of knowledge of good and evil there can't be intention to do wrong, to sin.

Thus Adam and Eve were each incapable of sin at the time they ate the fruit, no matter how much you want them to be guilty.

If you say they were incapable of sinning then that means they were also incapable of being loving/doing good.

They were capable of loving and doing good things, but not of knowing that loving is good or doing good is good. Hence they get no credit for loving or doing good, any more than they get blame for doing evil.

When do you think that a human first does evil?

The first time a human intentionally does wrong in the bible stories would appear to be Cain killing Abel. However, the first evil knowingly done as such would appear to be God sentencing womankind to suffering in childbirth, out of [his] own childish petulance.

 

[blü 2]

Do you think that a motivation could have been to educate us about how to resist doing wrong? After all we are moral beings and there will eventually be other things that God would not want us to do or would want us to do.
The tree of life was there also for a reason and they were never told not to eat that fruit.
I think your idea of God's motivation is not right.

In the story they had to eat the fruit in order to obtain knowledge of good and evil. The Garden story is obviously naive storytelling, with a naive God and imaginary subjects. My guess is still that it represents the infancy, adolescence and leaving home of humanity, as a bridge between the creation story and the earliest Hebrew folk history.

 

[Brian2]

The LDS view of this is a positive. Instead of being a sin, it's seen as agency.

The LDS has it's prophet to uphold and so says that going against the command of God is a positive.

 

[Brian2]

In the story they had to eat the fruit in order to obtain knowledge of good and evil. The Garden story is obviously naive storytelling, with a naive God and imaginary subjects. My guess is still that it represents the infancy, adolescence and leaving home of humanity, as a bridge between the creation story and the earliest Hebrew folk history.

My guess is that Adam and Eve were moral beings and God was teaching them about good and evil by commanding them not to eat and giving consequences if they did eat.
Eventually they would have found out more about good and evil but they chose to disobey and not trust God and then they had to try to handle knowing about good and evil all at once and try to work things out with sin and always there with them and they not being able to handle it and feeling guilt. A bit of a turn around from the paradise in Eden where eventually they would also have eaten from the tree of life to live forever.
Humans took that long and painful route and many no doubt will not survive the journey.

 

[Brian2]

No. There can't be sin in the absence of an intention to sin.

And in the absence of knowledge of good and evil there can't be intention to do wrong, to sin.

Thus Adam and Eve were each incapable of sin at the time they ate the fruit, no matter how much you want them to be guilty.

I don't think they ate the fruit accidentally. They intended to eat it and intended to go against the command of God. That was the wrong they were doing and they intended to do it. There are things we do every day which are against the will of God and we may even know they are but still do them.
What if someone does not even believe there is a God, does that mean they can never sin. Maybe it does, but they will still be judged.

They were capable of loving and doing good things, but not of knowing that loving is good or doing good is good. Hence they get no credit for loving or doing good, any more than they get blame for doing evil.

Their initial nature was to do good, they were made in the image of God after all.
They turned away from that nature and the consequences followed in them and from God.
Interestingly enough even if they were not guilty they still brought sin and death into the world because after that they did know good and evil and so could sin and if we sin enough we have earned our death.

The first time a human intentionally does wrong in the bible stories would appear to be Cain killing Abel. However, the first evil knowingly done as such would appear to be God sentencing womankind to suffering in childbirth, out of [his] own childish petulance.

You can do better than that. How about allowing Satan on the earth or making humans so that they could sin and suffer and making animals so they could suffer? God is obviously evil by nature and enjoys it or He would not have done it.
Then again maybe there is just a method in the madness of God that is not easily understood but is actually a good thing.
Pain in birth might even be helpful for a mother's love for her baby and may be part of preventing sexual promiscuity.