Tree of Knowledge

[Zzyzx]

.

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam and Eve of bible tales were humans, weren't they?

What fruit of what tree will impart knowledge of any kind (including good and evil) if eaten by humans?

What fruit of what tree will kill humans the day they eat it?

The bible tale is very specific in regards these conditions.

Is the tale NOT true (literally)? If not, why is it presented as truthful?

[1213]

Thus, those who eat a lot of bananas, oranges and apples know a great deal, particularly if they chant that incantation?

Sorry, I didn’t mean that the “incantation� makes the change. I meant, if there is set same conditions for any fruit as in the A&E story, and things happen as the conditions tell, then the result will be the knowledge of good and evil.

I don’t mean that fruits give the knowledge, if there is not same conditions that actually also come true. Meaning, if eating the fruit doesn’t mean at the same time rejecting God and choosing evil, then it will not give the knowledge of good and evil.

Right. Since they evidently did not die that day as "scripture" dictates, redefine the word "die" to mean something completely different so the obvious error is "explained."

What do you think die means? Why is your definition correct? How many times you have died? Do you rely only to second hand knowledge?

BTW, "Simple minded people" was not intended for anyone personally or any group in particular; however, if someone thinks the shoe may fit they are welcome to try it on for size.

The whole idea of “simple minded� people is interesting. How could someone determine who is really simple minded? Maybe quite difficult to say who is simple minded, if one does not have mind reading abilities.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thus, those who eat a lot of bananas, oranges and apples know a great deal, particularly if they chant that incantation?

Sorry, I didn’t mean that the “incantation� makes the change. I meant, if there is set same conditions for any fruit as in the A&E story, and things happen as the conditions tell, then the result will be the knowledge of good and evil.

I don’t mean that fruits give the knowledge, if there is not same conditions that actually also come true. Meaning, if eating the fruit doesn’t mean at the same time rejecting God and choosing evil, then it will not give the knowledge of good and evil.

Okay. If a person eats fruit and does NOT reject God or choose evil, will they NOT know about good and evil?

Is there something negative in knowing about good and evil? That seems like useful knowledge in real life.

Why would a supposed supernatural entity be opposed to H. sapiens knowing about good and evil?

Right. Since they evidently did not die that day as "scripture" dictates, redefine the word "die" to mean something completely different so the obvious error is "explained."

What do you think die means?

I accept Merriam Webster Dictionary definition: "to suffer total and irreversible loss of the bodily attributes and functions that constitute life"

Why is your definition correct?

Take it up with Merriam Webster Dictionary. If additional or more precise information is required forensic pathologists / biologists can be consulted. Feel free.

Is there a different definition that you prefer / suggest / defend?

How many times you have died?

Is that a trick question?

Do you rely only to second hand knowledge?

I have observed death occurring in people and other animals. I may not know the exact moment it occurs, but am reasonably certain it has occurred, particularly after rigor mortis sets in.

Do you have first-hand knowledge of death (as defined above)?

BTW, "Simple minded people" was not intended for anyone personally or any group in particular; however, if someone thinks the shoe may fit they are welcome to try it on for size.

The whole idea of “simple minded� people is interesting. How could someone determine who is really simple minded? Maybe quite difficult to say who is simple minded, if one does not have mind reading abilities.

Simple minded is defined as: "1. free of deceit or guile; artless or unsophisticated. 2. lacking in mental acuteness or sense. 3. mentally deficient." www.dictionary.com

Several of those parameters can be measured others are matters of general observation or opinion. No mind reading (or gods) required.

[1213]

Okay. If a person eats fruit and does NOT reject God or choose evil, will they NOT know about good and evil?

Yes, then the situation is not same as in the A&E case.

Is there something negative in knowing about good and evil? That seems like useful knowledge in real life.

To know evil, person must know godless things, and they can be painful. It would have been easier to ask directly from God all things. By rejecting him, we learn what good and evil really are by hard way, by experiencing this world full of evil and godless people who murder steal and lie and don’t love others as they should.

Why would a supposed supernatural entity be opposed to H. sapiens knowing about good and evil?

I think God didn’t oppose us to get the knowledge, because he made it possible. But I think he wanted us to have opportunity to go easier path.

I accept Merriam Webster Dictionary definition: "to suffer total and irreversible loss of the bodily attributes and functions that constitute life"

Ok, that is fine and in my opinion in principle same that happened to A&E. They were expelled from paradise and so suffered total and irreversible loss of the bodily attributes and functions that constitute life with God.

Simple minded is defined as: "1. free of deceit or guile; artless or unsophisticated. 2. lacking in mental acuteness or sense. 3. mentally deficient." www.dictionary.com

Several of those parameters can be measured others are matters of general observation or opinion. No mind reading (or gods) required.

Probably, but that is quite simple minded definition, because it takes in to account only those matters that can be seen and assumes that person who knows more about “sophisticated� things thinks more complex way. Person who knows lot, doesn’t necessarily think very complex way, he just swallows everything that some “sophisticated� person has said and repeats them a way that some interpret as complex mind.

[ttruscott]

...

I'm no Saint either. Read the first part of chapter 5 of Acts. It tells of the extortion murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira at the hands of Saint Peter and his band of thugs. I am a much better person than those folks, as, I suspect, are you.

In the context of reading scripture to understand sin I offer:

Luke 18:10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11T he Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.�

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 13 by ttruscott]

Not all the versions are wrong - even the one's written correctly can be read wrong. It is all interpretation and all interpretation is from a preconceived bias. The bias universally agreed to be wrong in the anti-Christ bias.

This might be slightly off topic but I'm wondering since entire thread is about different interpretations of bible.
How do you know which interpretation is wrong and which isn't?

...

Is that interpretation correct? How can you know? If you can't know how can you base any debate on arbitrary interpretations that all could be wrong?

It is in the last sentence of the post #13 you quoted from:

That is why I contend that no bible study will bring you the truth, only the Holy Spirit.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

Nearly ANY position, proposition or ideology can be constructed with "internal cohesion."

So what should such cohesion be taken to indicate?

It indicates a logical construct which is harder to ignore than a haphazard illogical construct. Science can be such a logical construct if they would only drop the non-experimental, non-repeatable and therefore non-scientific constructs of evolution and global warning as science, for instance. It is illogical to define a process then place that which is outside of the process into the category...it make science suspect.

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Nearly ANY position, proposition or ideology can be constructed with "internal cohesion."

So what should such cohesion be taken to indicate?

It indicates a logical construct which is harder to ignore than a haphazard illogical construct.

Being "harder to ignore" is no indication that a position, proposition, ideology is anything more than imagination.

Science can be such a logical construct

Correction: Science IS such a logical construct. It is the best means so far developed to learn about the environment – based upon observation, detection, measurement of what exists and occurs in the real world.

Many religionists dispute or dismiss scientific studies that do not support (or conflict with) currently popular or ancient religious stories about proposed supernatural entities.

Science would be more than happy to confirm supernatural entities and events IF they could be shown to be something other than imaginary – or fanciful "explanations" for gaps in present knowledge.

if they would only drop the non-experimental, non-repeatable and therefore non-scientific constructs of evolution and global warning as science, for instance.

The vast body of science (scientific study) has nothing to do with evolution or global warming. All the science that goes into our systems of communication, transportation, construction, space exploration, modern medicine, etc, etc are not dependent upon or necessarily connected to evolution or global warming.

It IS demonstrated repeatedly that evolution occurs – every time a microbe becomes antibiotic resistant, for example. Only the very uninformed or naïve refuse to accept that evolution occurs. Those who do deny verifiable scientific studies usually do so because the findings conflict with ancient religious beliefs formed in an age of ignorance about the Earth and its biosphere.

Global climatic changes over time have been documented beyond any reasonable doubt. For instance, only a few fanatics refuse to accept that the Earth has had periods of continental glaciation. The climate WAS different in those times.

What may be reasonably studied and debated is how much influence human activity has on climatic changes. Some favor denying any influence while others claim great influence. The answers lie in continued research – NOT in adherence to religious dogma and literature.

It is illogical to define a process then place that which is outside of the process into the category...it make science suspect.

Is it NOT illogical to claim knowledge of supernatural entities and events based upon "He said so, or This book says so, or I think so, or I believe so, or I had a dream (or other psychological episode)", etc?