The Tree In The Center of The Garden

[footwasher]

so in other words you have nothing. got it.

And "knowing" as used in genesis means to experience it. Adam was not a retarded person. He knew it was wrong to disobey God. So he knew right from wrong. He had never experienced doing wrong before but he knew what it was. I don't have to murder someone to know what murder is, or that it is wrong and against the law. But if I did murder someone then I would have experienced murder and would understand at a deeper level what I had done and the consequences I would have to go through.

So according to the meaning you assigned to the word "know", these children have not " experienced " evil. C'mon, gimme a break.

Deuteronomy 1:39And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad--they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.

Isaiah 7:15"He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

[Cerebrum123]

So according to the meaning you assigned to the word "know", these children have not " experienced " evil. C'mon, gimme a break.

Deuteronomy 1:39And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad--they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.

Isaiah 7:15"He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

Context dude, context. That is what really is important in understanding definitions of words.

[Sparko]

Context dude, context. That is what really is important in understanding definitions of words.

egggzactly. FW is just cherry picking verses out of context.

He argued it was not a command from God to not eat from the tree, and the text plainly has God saying they broke his commandment. Case closed. At this point FW is just spinning in place repeating himself and trying to toss out verses without context. I guess he doesn't take God at his word.

Genesis 2:16
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.”

Genesis 3:11
And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

[footwasher]

Context dude, context. That is what really is important in understanding definitions of words.

I dunno, fella. He claimed "know" was the hebraism for "experienced". I asked him how that view was not seen in two other occurrences.

Thats just special pleading, fella...

[Sparko]

I dunno, fella. He claimed "know" was the hebraism for "experienced". I asked him how that view was not seen in two other occurrences.

Thats just special pleading, fella...

The greek word used in Genesis 3 is

yaw-dah' - to know by experience

And that is clear by the context.

I see you are now avoiding the issue of whether God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree or just "warned" him. eh, fella?

[footwasher]

The greek word used in Genesis 3 is

yaw-dah' - to know by experience

And that is clear by the context.

I see you are now avoiding the issue of whether God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree or just "warned" him. eh, fella?

Answer, the question. In the two other occurrences of the Hebrew word yaw-dah, does the context support an understanding of not being able to differentiate good from bad or of not having experienced evil?

It's not rocket science. For those not able to differentiate good from bad, you don't give laws. What's the point? They can't tell right from wrong. You give warnings about real consequences that occur from ignoring those warnings.

Don't play in traffic.

Avoid rough neighborhoods.

Yada, yada, yada...

[Sparko]

Answer, the question. In the two other occurrences of the Hebrew word yaw-dah, does the context support an understanding of not being able to differentiate good from bad or of not having experienced evil?

It's not rocket science. For those not able to differentiate good from bad, you don't give laws. What's the point? They can't tell right from wrong. You give warnings about real consequences that occur from ignoring those warnings.

Don't play in traffic.

Avoid rough neighborhoods.

Yada, yada, yada...

first answer the question, does Genesis say that God commanded Adam not to eat from that tree?

[Cerebrum123]

I dunno, fella. He claimed "know" was the hebraism for "experienced". I asked him how that view was not seen in two other occurrences.

Thats just special pleading, fella...

If not, I will know

[footwasher]

first answer the question, does Genesis say that God commanded Adam not to eat from that tree?

I have already stated that commands can be rules or warnings.

God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but the prohibition was a warning, not a rule.

Suppose there is a rule that students can't go to the restroom more than once in a class session.

If a student is unaware of the rule and asks to go a second time, I can stop him from going.

"You can't go because the rule allows only one visit per class."

This prohibition is an enforcement of a rule. Observing the rule is right. Breaking the rule is wrong. Both teacher and student know they have done right or wrong when they follow or break the rule.


Do we need to have a sense of wrong to avoid disrupting the rule system? Sure. Both of us realise that breaking the rule hampers the functioning of the class. That's why rules are formed.

Suppose the restroom is in darkness because of flooding AND an electrical point has shorted. I have been informed not to permit students to use it for an hour till the fault is fixed.

If a student asks to go and I have not received information of the toilet being recommissioned I can stop him from going.

"You can't go to the restroom, because the lights have failed and if you go you will get hurt."

This prohibition is a warning. Both the teacher and the student are not breaking a rule when they disobey, they are ignoring a warning.

Do we need a sense of right or wrong to decide whether to observe the prohibition? No! All we need is a sense of self preservation.

[footwasher]

It is one of them. Certainly not all of them however. One use the word has means sexual intercourse for example. Here's a good example about the word "know" and how it means by experience, or by familiarity.

Genesis 12:10-12King James Version (KJV)

10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.

11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

Do you really think that after all that time Abram was just now realizing that his wife was beautiful?

It's also used when God speaks about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 18:20(NIV) Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Do you think that God didn't already know?

Sorry, you're not making much sense, or answering my point.

[Cerebrum123]

Sorry, you're not making much sense, or answering my point.

I'm giving examples on how the word "know" is used in the way Sparko pointed out. It certainly makes sense, and is directly answering your point. Unlike your evasive drivel so far. I'm done here, it's obvious that you can't interact with anything meaningful to this discussion.

[Sparko]

I have already stated that commands can be rules or warnings.

God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but the prohibition was a warning, not a rule.

Suppose there is a rule that students can't go to the restroom more than once in a class session.

If a student is unaware of the rule and asks to go a second time, I can stop him from going.

"You can't go because the rule allows only one visit per class."

This prohibition is an enforcement of a rule. Observing the rule is right. Breaking the rule is wrong. Both teacher and student know they have done right or wrong when they follow or break the rule.


Do we need to have a sense of wrong to avoid disrupting the rule system? Sure. Both of us realise that breaking the rule hampers the functioning of the class. That's why rules are formed.

Suppose the restroom is in darkness because of flooding AND an electrical point has shorted. I have been informed not to permit students to use it for an hour till the fault is fixed.

If a student asks to go and I have not received information of the toilet being recommissioned I can stop him from going.

"You can't go to the restroom, because the lights have failed and if you go you will get hurt."

This prohibition is a warning. Both the teacher and the student are not breaking a rule when they disobey, they are ignoring a warning.

Do we need a sense of right or wrong to decide whether to observe the prohibition? No! All we need is a sense of self preservation.

A command is not a warning. It is an official order. The warning might be included in the command, like "don't post profanity on tweb or you will be given points" but that doesn't make it a warning and not a command. It is a command with the consequences laid out for you.

When God Commanded, "Don't eat from the Tree or you will die" - it was an official order to Adam.

Is English not your first language or something? At least look up the greek and translate it to your native language. No amount of wiggling will change the fact that God COMMANDED Adam to not eat from the tree.

End of story. Fini.

[footwasher]

A command is not a warning. It is an official order. The warning might be included in the command, like "don't post profanity on tweb or you will be given points" but that doesn't make it a warning and not a command. It is a command with the consequences laid out for you.

When God Commanded, "Don't eat from the Tree or you will die" - it was an official order to Adam.

Is English not your first language or something? At least look up the greek and translate it to your native language. No amount of wiggling will change the fact that God COMMANDED Adam to not eat from the tree.

End of story. Fini.

[footwasher]

I'm giving examples on how the word "know" is used in the way Sparko pointed out. It certainly makes sense, and is directly answering your point. Unlike your evasive drivel so far. I'm done here, it's obvious that you can't interact with anything meaningful to this discussion.

[Sparko]

greek - hebrew. Yeah I made a mistake there. Wasn't paying attention.

But as to the rest of your post, Puhleeeeeze! You are just spinning around making up excuses like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. It is obvious to everyone. You are not fooling anybody.

God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree. That was an ORDER, not a suggestion. Adam was capable of obeying it without having experienced good and evil. He knew that disobeying God was wrong. He even taught that to Eve. God has never done anything evil, so are you saying he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? Good and evil? Neither have the angels that did not rebel with Satan. They have not sinned and they know good from evil.

If there can be no sin without a law, then how can Adam be a sinner? The bible says he is a sinner.

How could Satan be a sinner and evil? If he was an angel who did not know good from evil, how could God blame him for doing evil?

Hmmm?