The Prince of Lies?

[filthy tugboat]

And this would cause me to ask....

Do you know the difference......deception...as to lying....as to being misinformed....

Lying is a form of deception. Being misinformed can be a form of deception depending on how you were misinformed.

And what if the consequence for believing is death?

As this is under the title of religious debate....
What if non-believers are in danger of damnation?
(religious zeal)

What if action taken results in dying?
(eating forbidden fruit)

Imprisonment.
(false witness)

Banishment.
(Cain)

I don't really follow what point you are trying to make here...

The Genesis story is a turning point in the course of Man.
It is first physical.
And then spiritual.

As you make the choice what to believe....
you are also choosing which side you're on.

Sure... Why not?

Did God lie to Adam and Eve?
Or was it the serpent?

Could be neither.

If a lie was spoken....what was it?...and by whom?
And you think the intent nullifies the action?

Intent doesn't nullify the action, it makes it clear what the action was.

 

[Koldo]

And what other type of death is it? If we were dead (dead dead, body in the ground, dirt up to our ears) how could we walk around. How could we commit lust if we were ten feet under.

Come on man, if you're going to ignore my interpretations then explaining your own is just bad taste.

Bad taste?
Isn't mine more plausible?
There is no mention to spiritual death, so figure of speech seems far more likely to me.

Does he need to?

Surely. Just because we take our previously fabricated ideas in our minds as granted it doesn't mean such was the case almost two thousand years ago to the writter.

Now thats a stretch, God says not to eat the fruit or Adam will die. Adam eats the fruit, gets banished from paradise for disobeying God, and Adam dies. And you call God in the wrong?

He tried to deceive Adam.
Read the part of the story where God tells Adam not to eat the fruit, and forget what comes next: [And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”]

God tries to deceive Adam into thinking the fruit will bring his death directly. He intentfully omits that what is going to cause Adam's death is not the fruit itself, but God's punishment.

Let me try an example. You have a young child whom you don't want to eat candy before dinner, you say to that child do not eat any candy or else you will go on a timeout (or can't watch TV or whatever punishment). Now the candy itself does not cause the punishment, its the act of rebellion and not listening to you that is punished. Are you at fault for your child eating the candy?

For a first, that is not a good analogy. An accurate analogy would be the following one: You have a young child whom you don't want to eat candy before dinner,and then you say to the child that eating candies before dinner causes AIDS. Aren't you trying to deceive your child into not eating candies before dinner? This is what God did.

God never made it clear that himself would punish Adam for eating the fruit, rather he let Adam possibily think that the fruit would directly bring his death.

I don't, but to claim he was naive about the consequences and was earnestly looking for mans best interest is just ignorant. If we can assume he was an Angel, who has fallen from grace, how is it sensible to think he had no idea what would happen.

The part of your statement i am interested is the following : "Satan is no naive puppy, he knows the punishment of sin which is death."

Why would you assume he knows the punishment of sin is death?

 

[fahrenheit]

Well, yes. He killed Adam, effectively. His own rules class that as "wrong,"

The "rules" are ours to follow. They do not apply to God.

Allow to improve your example: you tell your child not to eat the candy before dinner, or you will beat them. When they do, you are entirely responsible for beating them.

And if you didn't beat the child then you are a liar. If God didn't kill Adam then He would be a liar. One of the thing God calls Himself is a God of justice, would a God of justice lie to us?

the NT is not necessarily linked to the Genesis account, even though it claims to be. Keep it on topic please.

I was asked to provide text for my belief, not only OT text.

a shame he created people so naive that the moment somebody told them something they instantly believed it, without question.

Not really, if he had then you and I wouldn't be here.

Fair enough, is there any reason to assume that the snake in the Garden was Satan?

Thats a great question, but my answer would be folly if you don't consider the Bible to be sufficient evidence.

The big ones being Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Abolishment of Slavery.

Did the NT endorse slavery?

If you cannot support your claims on this forum then don't make claims on this forum.

True, I will try to keep my points to tangible concepts then.

Bad taste?
Isn't mine more plausible?

Thats your perception, just like my belief is my perception. I don't know what you believe, but I take it that the writer was speaking truth because I believe what he said was true.

God tries to deceive Adam into thinking the fruit will bring his death directly. He intentfully omits that what is going to cause Adam's death is not the fruit itself, but God's punishment.

A big assumption though is that you see it as an immediate death. God does not say you will fall dead instantly, nor does he place any time on fact. He only says "You will certainly die". Now you may read that as Adam will die instantly, but thats your perception. You cannot assume everyone has that same perception.

Aren't you trying to deceive your child into not eating candies before dinner? This is what God did.

Again there is no deceit. God said if Adam ate the fruit he would die. Adam ate the fruit, and he later died. I don't know why you assume God said he would die immediately, or that Adam was tricked in his belief. The only trickery was when Adam believed the serpent when it said that he (Adam) would become like God.

God never made it clear that himself would punish Adam for eating the fruit, rather he let Adam possibily think that the fruit would directly bring his death.

How does that matter whether or not God let Adam know how he would be punished?
Maybe I'm not being clear, the apple did not bring Adam's death. It was the act of disobeying God.

Let me ask you something, toss your beliefs for aside for a moment. Assume you knew there was a God, he directly spoke to you and you had no reason to doubt His existence. If he ordered you not to do something, would you still do it?
The only reason you would have for still committing the act would be of a denial of God's supreme authority, which is the eternal sin that is considered the most gravest of all sins. When Adam ate the fruit, he was putting himself before God, and for that God cast him out of paradise.

Why would you assume he knows the punishment of sin is death?

Satan was an Angel. It's like assuming someone who went to college knows basic math, it may not be true but its a safe assumption.

 

[Penumbra]

The "rules" are ours to follow. They do not apply to God.

That's just all around bad leadership.

And if you didn't beat the child then you are a liar. If God didn't kill Adam then He would be a liar. One of the thing God calls Himself is a God of justice, would a God of justice lie to us?

It's better to just not threaten to beat the child in the first place.

Beings are responsible for what they say and what they do.

 

[PolyHedral]

The "rules" are ours to follow. They do not apply to God.

You deliberately cut off the second part of that sentence. Death is not an appropriate punishment for disobedience unless God is incredibly insecure. A God insecure to that degree is not worth the title.

And if you didn't beat the child then you are a liar. If God didn't kill Adam then He would be a liar. One of the thing God calls Himself is a God of justice, would a God of justice lie to us?

Well, yes, He would be a liar. 1) Only very silly systems of morals put lying as a greater wrong than murder, and 2) there is no reason for God to make that threat in the first place. Zip. Zilch. Nada. "Death" only entered into the Garden at all because God put it there.

Also, you've just hit the catch-22. Let me quote it again:
"One of the thing God calls Himself is a God of justice, would a God of justice lie to us?"
Why believe Him? He has certainly not acted justly in the Garden, and His "justice" is disputable in many other cases. (Such as the great flood.)

 

[fahrenheit]

That's just all around bad leadership.

Which is a very understandable belief. Why shouldn't God be limited to the rules he sets on us?
The answer is very unpopular, and that is because he is infinitely greater than us, we can never understand God. I struggled with this answer a lot until I realized that I wasn't a God, something many people delude themselves into thinking. You can't compare our insignificance to God because there is nothing like it, do you cry foul every time someone kills a bug or eats a fish? If no, then why is God wrong when He treats us the same?

It's better to just not threaten to beat the child in the first place.

Then you have two choices. Remove the candy (which in our example, actually is the freedom to sin), and remove the person from any freedom of choice, or to let the child get fat (full of sin).

 

[PolyHedral]

we can never understand God.

You are aware that this idea logically contradicts itself, aren't you?

Then you have two choices. Remove the candy (which in our example, actually is the freedom to sin), and remove the person from any freedom of choice, or to let the child get fat (full of sin).

Then remove the freedom to sin. Also, before you object, I want you to define the term "free will" rigorously. Without that definition, any objection that "God gave us free will" is totally incoherent.

 

[fahrenheit]

You deliberately cut off the second part of that sentence.

Sorry, I wasn't sure what you refferring to when you said it was disproportionate, I was assuming you meant that God does that a lot (in the sense that he gives us rules He doesn't follow), which I figured would come up later in a more clear question/statement and I answered in the post before this.

Death is not an appropriate punishment for disobedience unless God is incredibly insecure. A God insecure to that degree is not worth the title.

Well, yes, He would be a liar. 1) Only very silly systems of morals put lying as a greater wrong than murder, and 2) there is no reason for God to make that threat in the first place. Zip. Zilch. Nada. "Death" only entered into the Garden at all because God put it there.

And here we get into one of the most obvious faults with this belief. Who are you to say that God is wrong or right, that his actions are unjust? Do you know God, do you understand God?
If you assume God is real (which in this example you are by saying He actions are unjust) then I assume we are talking about the Christian God right? Well one of the things about the Christian God is that he is eternal, He is infinitely greater then us humans. An ant would have an easier time understanding why we do what we do than us understanding why God does what He does.

Can a dog question why you love, can a fish question why you hate? If we are infinitely less than God how can we understand any part of His plan, and if we cannot understand it then how can we question it?

To believe that you can evaluate God is to call yourself God, which goes against everything that Christianity is about.

 

[Koldo]

Thats your perception, just like my belief is my perception. I don't know what you believe, but I take it that the writer was speaking truth because I believe what he said was true.

That is the most plausible perception because it makes the fewest assumptions.

A big assumption though is that you see it as an immediate death. God does not say you will fall dead instantly, nor does he place any time on fact. He only says "You will certainly die". Now you may read that as Adam will die instantly, but thats your perception. You cannot assume everyone has that same perception.

Again there is no deceit. God said if Adam ate the fruit he would die. Adam ate the fruit, and he later died. I don't know why you assume God said he would die immediately, or that Adam was tricked in his belief. The only trickery was when Adam believed the serpent when it said that he (Adam) would become like God.

If we were to diagonisis Adam's cause of death it would certainly not be the fruit from the tree of knowledge. The question is: Isn't my perception plausible to the point that Adam and Eve could understand it like me? Because if you accept the possibility they could understand it the same way that i do then that qualifies as deceit. Do keep in mind we are talking about God here, so He does know in what ways his words can be understood.

How does that matter whether or not God let Adam know how he would be punished?
Maybe I'm not being clear, the apple did not bring Adam's death. It was the act of disobeying God.

You didn't get it. God did not tell Adam he would be punished! You are distorting the words.

Let me ask you something, toss your beliefs for aside for a moment. Assume you knew there was a God, he directly spoke to you and you had no reason to doubt His existence. If he ordered you not to do something, would you still do it?
The only reason you would have for still committing the act would be of a denial of God's supreme authority, which is the eternal sin that is considered the most gravest of all sins. When Adam ate the fruit, he was putting himself before God, and for that God cast him out of paradise.
Satan was an Angel. It's like assuming someone who went to college knows basic math, it may not be true but its a safe assumption.

Were they wrong from eating the fruit? Yes.

But why, oh why, wouldn't God put angels to protect the tree of knowledge just like he did later on with the tree of life?

It is the same as with the old and recurring story of children that pick up their parents guns and end up harming someone. Telling your children to don't touch your gun is not enough. You have to keep the gun away from them, somewhere they can't reach. Now consider that God is an almighty father and it is clearly wrong to put all the blame on the children.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well one of the things about the Christian God is that he is eternal, He is infinitely greater then us humans.

Well, it's a lie, then. God is described as jealous and angry, and commits genocide of innocents. The most well-respected humans do not get jealous or angry in circumstances where it would be expected of them, so why on earth does God? He certainly doesn't have infinitely greater impulse control.

 

[Koldo]

To believe that you can evaluate God is to call yourself God, which goes against everything that Christianity is about.

Then you don't think God is omnibenevolent, right?

 

[fahrenheit]

You are aware that this idea logically contradicts itself, aren't you?

Please enlighten me, one of the reasons I joined this forum was to be exposed to different theories and beliefs. So I would love to hear yours.

Then remove the freedom to sin.

That certainly would make things easier.

Also, before you object, I want you to define the term "free will" rigorously.

Me or any definition?
Personally I consider free will the ability to choose. If you are forced down one path you don't have free will.

any objection that "God gave us free will" is totally incoherent.

Did I make that objection? I know that a main point in Christianity is pre-destination, but I don't think that removes our free will.

That is the most plausible perception because it makes the fewest assumptions.

Is it? You assume he was speaking metaphorically, I assume he was speaking literally.

The question is: Isn't my perception plausible to the point that Adam and Eve could understand it like me?

It's plausible only because thats how you see it. When I read that passage I don't see that they will die immediately, nor do I see a reason for God to explain how they will die. If you are right in assuming we can think like they thought, then I see what He said as enough. Wouldn't it be enough for God to command and they to follow?

Do keep in mind we are talking about God here, so He does know in what ways his words can be understood.

I'm sorry but I think we're both coming from two very different perspectives, no where does God say when they will die. No where does God say how they will die (I'm talking about when he is talking about the fruit), God only says that they will certainly die. You may read that he is implying it will be instantaneous, but that is your assumption. If I have a different one, how is yours any better than mine (or vice versa).

You didn't get it. God did not tell Adam he would be punished! You are distorting the words.

Death is not a punishment? Ok now I know we are coming from two very different perspectives.

But why, oh why, wouldn't God put angels to protect the tree of knowledge just like he did later on with the tree of life?

If I tried to answer that I would be assuming I know what God's intentions were, which I don't. I can guess however, that God's plan was for humans to choose. Would you not agree that it is better when someone freely chooses to do good than when they are forced to do good? I don't believe God wants us to not have the freedom of choice, because if that were the case then we would not have any freedom.

It is the same as with the old and recurring story of children that pick up their parents guns and end up harming someone.

Thats a pretty good analogy. And it hard to understand why we are punished for actions that weren't even our choice. I didn't choose to be a sinner, and I'm sure you didn't either. But like I said earlier we cannot fully understand God's plan, luckily though He has offered us a way to salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Who are you talking about?

The christian/muslim Satan or the jewish HaSatan? There is a difference.

Mainly the Christian/Muslim Satan.

 

[Koldo]

Is it? You assume he was speaking metaphorically, I assume he was speaking literally.

You do NOT think he was speaking literally. Because if he was speaking literally then you would understand it as real death. But you are understanding it as spiritual death, even though the term 'spiritual' isn't there.

It's plausible only because thats how you see it. When I read that passage I don't see that they will die immediately, nor do I see a reason for God to explain how they will die. If you are right in assuming we can think like they thought, then I see what He said as enough. Wouldn't it be enough for God to command and they to follow?

What he said was enough. I am not making an argument against it. But if you accept that what he said leaves much room for interpretations , then that qualifies as deceit.

I'm sorry but I think we're both coming from two very different perspectives, no where does God say when they will die. No where does God say how they will die (I'm talking about when he is talking about the fruit), God only says that they will certainly die. You may read that he is implying it will be instantaneous, but that is your assumption. If I have a different one, how is yours any better than mine (or vice versa).

But i accept the text can be understood just the way you said. What you don't seem to realize is that Adam and Eve could have understood it just like me, which is the relevant part.

Death is not a punishment? Ok now I know we are coming from two very different perspectives.

Death can be a punishment, but death can be caused by many means other than punishment. You are adding the meaning of punishment to God's words, even when it is not there.

If I tried to answer that I would be assuming I know what God's intentions were, which I don't. I can guess however, that God's plan was for humans to choose. Would you not agree that it is better when someone freely chooses to do good than when they are forced to do good? I don't believe God wants us to not have the freedom of choice, because if that were the case then we would not have any freedom.

Thats a pretty good analogy. And it hard to understand why we are punished for actions that weren't even our choice. I didn't choose to be a sinner, and I'm sure you didn't either. But like I said earlier we cannot fully understand God's plan, luckily though He has offered us a way to salvation through Jesus Christ.

But don't you find the father ( God ) to be responsible for his children ( Adam and Eve ) picking up his gun and harming someone in the process ( eating the fruit ) even if he had mentioned to them that they could not touch the gun ( the fruit ) ? Shouldn't the father ( God ) have locked the gun in a box and put it out of reach from his children?

What i know is that i wouldn't let my children having freedom of choice over picking up my gun!

 

[jarofthoughts]

If we were bodily dead, then how could we walk around and live in lust of or flesh as the text suggests? No, the NT claims we are spiritually dead, and need Christ to save us.

Right. But those quotes you posted do not specifically mention the case of Adam and Eve though.

The apple did not cause us to become spiritually dead but it was the punishment from God for disobeying Him.

Which means that what the serpent said was essentially true and not a lie.
Also, God really needs to work on his communication skills.
His commandments are not exactly clear and easy to understand.
What he should have said was something along the lines of:
"If you eat from that tree I will kill your spirits."

Unfortunately I can't really speak on this matter because I'm not a historical cultural expert (nor am I present day cultural expert). But it is not that they do not know the difference, for the Bible says that by eating the apple we are able to know good and evil.

Way to dodge the question.
I mentioned Hinduism because it pre-dates all the Abrahamic religions so there is no chance that any of the early Hindus would have ever heard of the Abrahamic god at all.
Does that mean that they would have been unable to distinguish between right and wrong?

Both of those points may be true, but what I said earlier is still applied. Laws were passed down generation by generations, surely you are not claiming that Norway has been devoid of religious perspective for its entirety are you?

No, but you claimed that all we had to do was to look around us to see that the world was depraved and crazy, and yet, here is a society to prove you wrong.

 

[fahrenheit]

You do NOT think he was speaking literally. Because if he was speaking literally then you would understand it as real death.

If thats what you assume he was talking about.

But you are understanding it as spiritual death, even though the term 'spiritual' isn't there.

Ok, maybe I should have asked this earlier. What do you believe he meant by this passage?

But if you accept that what he said leaves much room for interpretations , then that qualifies as deceit.

I'm afraid I don't have any room for interpretation.

What you don't seem to realize is that Adam and Eve could have understood it just like me, which is the relevant part.

How could they have understood it like you or I though? We have spent years in our own society, developing notions about language and when something is implied or not. We have our own slang and word uses that would greatly confuse people not even 200 hundred years ago.
What I'm saying is that our thoughts, our beliefs (especially those surrounding how to perceive language) come from our time in our society, which come from even longer periods of said society. Adam and Eve did not come from such an experience, so we cannot assume to perceive language as they did.

Death can be a punishment, but death can be caused by many means other than punishment. You are adding the meaning of punishment to God's words, even when it is not there.

If you believe that God is omnipotent then its pretty plausible to assume that God is the cause of death. If God wants you to die, you will die. If He doesn't, then you won't.
But to your point, if you don't see that as punishment then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Shouldn't the father ( God ) have locked the gun in a box and put it out of reach from his children?

My answer to this question is the one I made at 2:46 pm in this thread.

Which means that what the serpent said was essentially true and not a lie.

What did the serpent say?
"You will not die" in response to Eve saying they would die if they even touched the fruit. Should we assume that he meant they won't die by the apple's hand? Perhaps if thats what you want to hear.
What happens if you take the text literally? The serpent rebukes her fear of death and says they will be like God and that they will gain wisdom. What happens next? They are banished from paradise and die.

"If you eat from that tree I will kill your spirits."

Or he should have just removed the vocal cords from the snake.

Way to dodge the question.

What do you want me to do, lie about the subject? I'm giving you the truth of what I know; if you want more go to Church.

Does that mean that they would have been unable to distinguish between right and wrong?

You can find my answer in the Bible, all people have the ability to understand good and evil. Not all societies live by God's law's however.

No, but you claimed that all we had to do was to look around us to see that the world was depraved and crazy, and yet, here is a society to prove you wrong

How fortunate it must be then, to live where you do.

qtl { position: absolute; border: 1px solid #cccccc; -moz-border-radius: 5px; opacity: 0.2; line-height: 100%; z-index: 999; direction: ltr; } qtl:hover,qtl.open { opacity: 1; } qtl,qtlbar { height: 22px; } qtlbar { display: block; width: 100%; background-color: #cccccc; cursor: move; } qtlbar img { border: 0; padding: 3px; height: 16px; width: 16px; cursor: pointer; } qtlbar img:hover { background-color: #aaaaff; } qtl>iframe { border: 0; height: 0; width: 0; } qtl.open { height: auto; } qtl.open>iframe { height: 200px; width: 300px; }

 

[Thief]

Lying is a form of deception. Being misinformed can be a form of deception depending on how you were misinformed.

Accepting what you have been told....you have been deceived.

I don't really follow what point you are trying to make here...

So you need to meditate on the consequences....

Sure... Why not?

Choosing sides is something done...and because of deception...you might not realize whose side you're really on.

Could be neither.

And you haven't made up your mind before participating in a thread like this one?

Intent doesn't nullify the action....true, it makes it clear what the action was......no it doesn't

The intent is not the deciding factor.

If you repeat what you have been told....and it happens to be a lie....
you have become a tool of the original Deceiver.

That you think yourself innocent....because you were lied to...
doesn't nullify the action...true.

 

[Koldo]

If thats what you assume he was talking about.

Do you understand what the term 'literally' means?
It means being in accordance with the primary meaning of a word.
The text says simply 'death'. Death is a term to define the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism.

It is not possible to understand 'spiritual death' from that text if you read it in the literal manner.

Ok, maybe I should have asked this earlier. What do you believe he meant by this passage?

I have already said it. Figure of speech.

I'm afraid I don't have any room for interpretation.

So you consider my interpretation to be impossible?

How could they have understood it like you or I though? We have spent years in our own society, developing notions about language and when something is implied or not. We have our own slang and word uses that would greatly confuse people not even 200 hundred years ago.

And yet you say that you have no room for other interpretations. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

What I'm saying is that our thoughts, our beliefs (especially those surrounding how to perceive language) come from our time in our society, which come from even longer periods of said society. Adam and Eve did not come from such an experience, so we cannot assume to perceive language as they did.

I am not taking any interpretation for granted. I am considering the whole of them, and i see that given a certain perspective those words are deceiving. Considering who is using them there is no excuse.

If you believe that God is omnipotent then its pretty plausible to assume that God is the cause of death. If God wants you to die, you will die. If He doesn't, then you won't.

The way our bodies were created, all it takes for us to die is for God to omit himself. It is not necessary for God to want us to die.

But to your point, if you don't see that as punishment then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Death is a kind of punishment. If you had not read the rest of the story, you would be very unlikely to guess that God was going to punish Adam and Eve like that in case they disobeyed him. It was more likely for you to think the fruit would cause their deaths directly, as if it was deadly.

My answer to this question is the one I made at 2:46 pm in this thread.

No answer here at 2:46 pm. You must be using a different time setting.

What did the serpent say?
"You will not die" in response to Eve saying they would die if they even touched the fruit. Should we assume that he meant they won't die by the apple's hand? Perhaps if thats what you want to hear.

More like what you said. That is a far better assumption to me.

What happens if you take the text literally? The serpent rebukes her fear of death and says they will be like God and that they will gain wisdom. What happens next? They are banished from paradise and die.

The following conversation is an analogy to Eve and the snake:

Maria (Eve): - I can not eat mushrooms. Paul (God) told me that if i eat them i will die.
Bob (Snake): - Don't worry, you will not die if you eat mushrooms.

Did Bob (Snake) ever mean to say that Maria (Eve) will NEVER die? No!
Bob (Snake) just said Maria (Eve) won't die by the "hands of the mushrooms".

 

[Willamena]

The Bible certainly refers to Satan as if he was a real entity, but if he is not, then by inference, why would we consider God to be?

I've no problem with calling "Satan" a real entity.

 

[fahrenheit]

Do you understand what the term 'literally' means?
It means being in accordance with the primary meaning of a word.

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked

How can you be dead and walk? Only if you're body is not dead, but your spirit.

It is not possible to understand 'spiritual death' from that text if you read it in the literal manner.

You don't understand it. Theres a difference.

I have already said it. Figure of speech.

But what do you believe is the meaning behind it? What was he trying to say?

So you consider my interpretation to be impossible?

I consider it to be wrong. The message may be confusing to us, and may be open to interpretation to us, but it also wasn't meant for us. If we assume that the Christian God is a deity and omnipotent then we should believe He knows the best way to communicate.

And yet you say that you have no room for other interpretations. Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I'm trying to point out the logical fallacies of both of our arguments. Realistically both you and I can't understand the implications that were between Adam and God because we do not come from that time or experience. With that the case the only thing we can do is to take the text literally as it says because there is logically no other way we understand it (and it could even be argued that we cannot understand the text as is even). Which is why I say there is no room for interpretation, we can't pretend this passage needs to be deciphered like a womens response to your flirtations. It's not that what we perceive may be true or untrue, its that we have no ability to accurately discern the intent and it would only be luck if we stumbled upon the truth.

and i see that given a certain perspective those words are deceiving.

One of the first things that I learned in my diversity class was that there is almost no universal trait betweens humans when it comes to gestures or phrases. We watched a video of a guy who went around the world and studied gestural communication and found the only universal trait was to raise your eyebrows as a sign of non hostility. This may seem irrelevant, but what I am saying is that what you perceive and what someone in Zimbabwe perceives is different. And when we bring our perceptions to interpret something is not under the blanket that our perception covers we are simply shooting in the dark at mosquitoes.

The way our bodies were created, all it takes for us to die is for God to omit himself. It is not necessary for God to want us to die.

Potato, Patato

No answer here at 2:46 pm. You must be using a different time setting.

Hmm, I didn't realize the forum adjusts its time based on user preference. Anyway here is the post.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2407232-post48.html

Did Bob (Snake) ever mean to say that Maria (Eve) will NEVER die? No!
Bob (Snake) just said Maria (Eve) won't die by the "hands of the mushrooms".

Once again we get into what we know what the serpent was thinking.
The serpent did not say "you will not die if you eat the fruit!", it simply said "you will not die!" Did the serpent know that God would banish them from Eden if they ate the fruit? Well that is contingent on whether you believe the serpent was Satan (which is a discussion for a different thread). If the serpent was just that, then it could be argued for ignorance on the subject, but if you believe the serpent was Satan (which I think is the assumption for this argument) then it's pretty logical to assume that an Angel who was punished by God for seeking glory would know that when Adam and Eve would seek their own personal desires above the Lord would have similar consequences, no?