Adam and Eve Saved the Environment

[Esquilax]

That's a huge difference than what you were arguing.

It's called shorthand, genius.

Also, who are you to tell Maelstrom that his interpretation of the bible isn't correct? You clearly just need to read more of the scriptures! You don't understand a single word of it, that is so obvious. Do some research, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

(Damn, that is easier than providing a cogent argument...)

[Annik]

I'm arguing fact, not the word play atheist like to use.

"Tree of knowledge" is just short hand for "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". You see, the former is much quicker to type out, but just pretend it has that "of good and evil" tacked on to the end and you'll be fine.

[Michael Schubert]

The Eden story of being punished for attaining knowledge seems quite the fitting comparison to illiterate humanity who should simply believe as the church teaches rather than question divine authority. For to question is to gain knowledge and thereby realize faith is based on nothing more than mere ignorance. After all, what better way to keep followers than to instill fear of disobeying?

The writers of the Unholy Babble knew precisely what they were doing in terms of enslaving mankind with religion.

In another post someone asked why Christians insist that atheist read scripture before arguing or making statements about scripture. Well here it is for everyone to read and see, this is the third post that has called the tree the tree of knowledge. Look at the post above this one where I said it was not the tree of knowledge, did Maelstrom care, apparently not, this is an example of how atheist play the parroting game and continue to misrepresent what scripture says and teaches. He wants to refer to us as ignorant, yet who is truly ignorant of what the scriptures say. Just like many others here he as interpreted scripture and the writers intent on something not within scripture, to me this is dishonest at the least. What I would like to know and I suspect other Christians here also, why do you do this, you all parade 'reason' around like it is some kind of holy grail, yet you treat it like a pile of dog .... when it come to scripture.

No, it was in fact the Tree of Knowledge that Adam ate from. How on earth do you know what the writer's intents were? Were they interviewed on Fox "News"?

---

That's a huge difference than what you were arguing.

It's called shorthand, genius.

Also, who are you to tell Maelstrom that his interpretation of the bible isn't correct? You clearly just need to read more of the scriptures! You don't understand a single word of it, that is so obvious. Do some research, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

(Damn, that is easier than providing a cogent argument...)

I agree 100%. One should not cherry pick a text in order to make the publication look good.

[Kayenneh]

Well here it is for everyone to read and see, this is the third post that has called the tree the tree of knowledge.

So, it wasn't an apple Eve ate, it wasn't a snake who tempted her, it wasn't a tree of knowledge, it wasn't really this, is wasn't really that. This is beyond ridiculous! It doesn't matter if it was a fruit, serpent or a tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is a bloody story.

[GodIsDead]

Well, it's bloody, for one thing. The Bible's intricate design: Start off the OT with death, and then let the rest of the Bible tell the wondrous story of God playing with his new toy, death.

[Rahul]

God told Adam and Eve to procreate while they were in the Garden, by the way the tree is not the tree of knowledge.

KJV Genesis

{2:9}
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree
of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.

{3:5} 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. {3:6} 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. {3:7}
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that
they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves aprons.

Whatever.

[Godscreated]

I'm arguing fact, not the word play atheist like to use.

"Tree of knowledge" is just short hand for "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". You see, the former is much quicker to type out, but just pretend it has that "of good and evil" tacked on to the end and you'll be fine.

Excuses, Maelstrom described the tree as one that imparts knowledge of all kinds, MS agreed with him, neither referred to it as giving knowledge of good and evil. The atheist here are the ones who have said be accurate in describing things to Christians, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They screwed up why defend them, or is that the way it works here, defend at all cost.

---

God told Adam and Eve to procreate while they were in the Garden, by the way the tree is not the tree of knowledge.

KJV Genesis

{2:9}
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree
of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.

{3:5} 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. {3:6} 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. {3:7}
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that
they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves aprons.

Whatever.

Thank you for bring the Biblical truth to light, but could be the others will need a flashlight on those words so they can see. Again thanks.

[Doubting Thomas]

Read Rahul's quote of the actual passages and stop trying to argue semantics in order to derail the conversation. Or are you so desperate for a victory that you're going to keep claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

[Godscreated]

Well here it is for everyone to read and see, this is the third post that has called the tree the tree of knowledge.

So, it wasn't an apple Eve ate, it wasn't a snake who tempted her, it wasn't a tree of knowledge, it wasn't really this, is wasn't really that. This is beyond ridiculous! It doesn't matter if it was a fruit, serpent or a tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is a bloody story.

Mary had a little lamb, one day it followed her to school which was against the rule, so the teacher killed it dead, now it goes to school with Mary between two hunks of bread. It doesn't sound much like the original does it, then what the heck it's just a story.

---

Read Rahul's quote of the actual passages and stop trying to argue semantics in order to derail the conversation. Or are you so desperate for a victory that you're going to keep claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Seems he posted the correct words, being accurate is important to the story. You can cry semantics all you want, it doesn't change a thing, Maelstrom described the tree as anything but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You sir are backing a losing cause, but then I understand atheist are here to win at all cost, even when it makes them look stupid.

[Michael Schubert]

Read Rahul's quote of the actual passages and stop trying to argue semantics in order to derail the conversation. Or are you so desperate for a victory that you're going to keep claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

He does that all the time.