If we humans really had the knowledge of good and evil, wouldn't this suggest that good and evil are absolutes and that we should be able to agree on which is which?
What does it actually mean to have the KoGaE?
The Knowledge of Good and Evil
Moderator: Moderators
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1948 times
- Contact:
Re: The Knowledge of Good and Evil
Post #51The "knowledge of good and evil" is represented by consuming the "Big Lie" of the serpent, which is if you follow my lead, "you surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:3). That same "Big lie" is continued on by the followers of Saul of Taurus, who says if you follow my teachings of lawlessness, you surely shall not die, but be changed in a twinkling of an eye. Of course the false prophet Saul, along with 2000 years of his followers, is dead and buried, and only his unclean spirit remains (Revelation 16:13).William wrote: If we humans really had the knowledge of good and evil, wouldn't this suggest that good and evil are absolutes and that we should be able to agree on which is which?
What does it actually mean to have the KoGaE?
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1948 times
- Contact:
Post #52
[Replying to post 50 by bluethread]
The story reads that if you want someone to do something but you don't want them to know that you want them to do something, then this is how you go about getting what you want.
Are you also going to say that the Greek makes it appear that way due to the interpretation?
I said this;
Really, knowledge of good and evil acts come about through trial and error and also have to be tweaked as societies change their dogma and develop more tolerance and understanding. In this, societies have discovered that organised religions held dogmas which claimed to be 'good' but were proven to be 'evil' as time unfolded and mindful connections were made related to observations of the actions of those dogmas.
and you replied with this;
Your argument doesn't leave the reader very informed. It hints at an alternative mystery as if trying to entice the reader to go and discover it for themselves, which is a strange thing to encounter in a debate setting, where the normal thing is to present ones arguments and evidence in an understandable detectable manner.
Is this an example of the difference between 'the way of the nations' and 'Adonai's ways'? One say's 'here look at this' and the other say's 'fetch' and pretends to throw the stick?
I have this image of a guru on a mountain outside his cave. Saying something which appears to sound deep and meaningful, but when examined, says very little at all.
"Somewhat similar, but distinctly different." Oh praise be the gods of enlightenment for once I was blind and now I do see! Why did you not just say this in the beginning!?
Yes, that is a light touch of sarcasm, but come on seriously? You debate with mystical sayings and expect that this will do the trick?
Your responses leaves things 'up in the air' and gives the reader no clarity.
For example, if I were to say to you;
"This is the truth. In my back yard, I am making a candle castle" ;
how is that going to assist you in understanding what that means? The way of the nations explains what it means by making sure one is also made aware of what "making a candle castle" is to begin with.
The way of the Hebrews apparently makes the statement and expects the one who hears it to figure it out for themselves, what the statements means.
How is that helpful? Or are 'the ways of Adonai for his people' intent on 'informing' without actually wanting those being informed to be informed?
If so, why bother at all?
That is not how the story goes. There is nothing in the story which suggests in any way that they had knowledge of one but not the other.They had knowledge of tov, the way thing were created. However, they did not have ra', alternatives to tov, of their own making.
The threat is the GOD?Regarding threats to them, we only see the one, and they had instructions regarding what would happen, if they partook.
The story reads that if you want someone to do something but you don't want them to know that you want them to do something, then this is how you go about getting what you want.
Are you also going to say that the Greek makes it appear that way due to the interpretation?
If these are 'less complicated' how is it that you refrain from showing them as back-up to your argument as well as to help educate?Again, you are mistaking the best fit modern English words associated with the Greek absolutes For the Hebrew terms that are less complicated.
The story also indicates that the nations did not exist then.Before the fall, they only had Adonai's instructions, tov. After the fall they also had the alternative possibilities of their own making, ra', i.e. the ways of the nations.
I said this;
Really, knowledge of good and evil acts come about through trial and error and also have to be tweaked as societies change their dogma and develop more tolerance and understanding. In this, societies have discovered that organised religions held dogmas which claimed to be 'good' but were proven to be 'evil' as time unfolded and mindful connections were made related to observations of the actions of those dogmas.
and you replied with this;
Are you purposefully being reticent?Yes, that is the knowledge of tov and ra'. Adonai's ways and the ways of the nations.
Your argument doesn't leave the reader very informed. It hints at an alternative mystery as if trying to entice the reader to go and discover it for themselves, which is a strange thing to encounter in a debate setting, where the normal thing is to present ones arguments and evidence in an understandable detectable manner.
Is this an example of the difference between 'the way of the nations' and 'Adonai's ways'? One say's 'here look at this' and the other say's 'fetch' and pretends to throw the stick?
Yes, that is the way the Greek concept of "good' and "evil" works. Somewhat similar, but distinctly different.
I have this image of a guru on a mountain outside his cave. Saying something which appears to sound deep and meaningful, but when examined, says very little at all.
"Somewhat similar, but distinctly different." Oh praise be the gods of enlightenment for once I was blind and now I do see! Why did you not just say this in the beginning!?
Yes, that is a light touch of sarcasm, but come on seriously? You debate with mystical sayings and expect that this will do the trick?
So say you , but you back it up with empty silence...empty silence is not a great debating device. Hey I am happy not even to debate but discuss, but even so - your style dioesn't lend itself even to discussion.I agree the Greek concept of absolute "good and evil" are contrived and confusing. However that is not what the Scriptures are referring to when the speak of tov and ra'.
Your responses leaves things 'up in the air' and gives the reader no clarity.
For example, if I were to say to you;
"This is the truth. In my back yard, I am making a candle castle" ;
how is that going to assist you in understanding what that means? The way of the nations explains what it means by making sure one is also made aware of what "making a candle castle" is to begin with.
The way of the Hebrews apparently makes the statement and expects the one who hears it to figure it out for themselves, what the statements means.
I did cut you some slack. See posts #45 and #49. It is you who really need to cut me some slack by substantiating your woefully inadequate explanations with some solid example.I did not ignore that post, but needed time to finish composing it. I am putting in over 80 hrs. a week right now, so I hope you could cut me just a little slack.
Well bring 'em on in then! Your expression implies I have to go looking, but you are making the argument, so a few examples re this would go a long way in helping the process. Do you want the reader to understand your argument? Or do you just want to make the argument and leave the reader hanging?To your point. I agree "good and evil" is a poor choice of words on the part of the translators, with regard to philosphical underpinnings. However, this is one place where there are few alternatives. The translators were mostly of a Greek mindset and there are volumns written to attempt to explain the philosphical differences between Hebrew and Greek philosphy.
Well here you are in a situation where you have the opportunity to educate those who are 'in the ways of the nations' to understand more about 'the ways of Adonai for his people' and all you can do is to make statements which leave the reader no less informed than they were before you made the statements.Tov is Adonai's ways for His people and ra' is the alternatives devised by the nations, which would include the Greek concept of absolute "good and evil". Therefore, your attempts to evaluate tov and ra' as if they were merely another way of referring to the Greek concept of absolute "good and evil", is itself ra'.
How is that helpful? Or are 'the ways of Adonai for his people' intent on 'informing' without actually wanting those being informed to be informed?
If so, why bother at all?
