I am sure that I am correct, or the Bible is inaccurate
You can thank Adam for all the disease, starvation, genocide and other suffering.
1 Like
If I take the story at face value, I’d say God would be to blame for putting the tree there in the first place.
Let’s say you have little kids. You set them up a perfect play room, but in the middle you place a loaded hand gun. You tell them to enjoy the entire room, but whatever they do, they can’t touch the hand gun. You leave them to themselves and go on an errand. You come back and one is dead on the floor. Who is at fault here?
1 Like
The other sides feel the same way. Sadly, wars have been fought because of this.
There’s another layer to it. You have innocent children who don’t know what lying is. Then someone comes along, like Satan, and takes advantage of their gullibility.
But it was never meant to be taken as literal.
1 Like
The analogy is way far off.
Both the man and the woman knew not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was a clear understanding of two intelligent adults. The eating of the fruit was not done in ignorance.
Adam is one of the first types of Christ. Adam gave up his life to save his wife from the Devil.
The Serpent did not deceive Adam (1 Tim 2:14)
I am not an all powerful being or anything, but it seems like a huge design flaw if you didn’t actually want someone to eventually eat the fruit. Even if they never did, their descendants would have. The fact that not even one generation made it past the tree test shows that it should have been foreseen, that God wanted it to happen. Part of the divine plan.
1 Like
You do know which side started those wars?
Which war?
Technically, He already knew it would happen.
1 Like
I would say God could foresee the outcome, but not that he wanted it. God’s created man to commune with Him. We don’t easily understand the attribute of God that He cannot look at sin. (Hab 1:13) We see this as Jesus took within Himself all the sin in the world. No one can commune with someone that they cannot look at.
But God had a plan to be carried out by the Last Adam.
This all hinges on it being taken literally. In ancient times through the middle ages, many religious scholars didn’t read it literally.
If you don’t read it literally how do you discriminate the literal from the figurative?
Which is the greater miracle: Moses turning his staff into a snake, or God resurrecting your corrupted body into a glorious body?
Noah’s ark? A talking snake? Creating the heavens and earth in six days? Jericho? Samson? The Earth is 6,000 years old? If it walks like a duck.
You don’t have the freedom to violate someone else’s life, liberty or property. That’s the line. All just laws take away choice in an attempt to protect individual life, liberty and property.
2 Likes
The earth is very old. I just can’t go into all the detail to show you, especially when you don’t want to believe. Gen 1:1 KJV, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” There is a large gap in time between verse 1 and verse 2.
It is not plural heavens. If can read English, God doesn’t create anything until He created great whales on day 5.
If you don’t believe God can do any simple miracles, you’d be foolish to believe God could keep your body from being destined to annihilation.
In the NIV it states “heavens“ in Gen 1:1. Again, goes back to my earlier point that many nuances of the original texts are lost in translation. One cannot inherently claim NIV is more “right” than KJV and vise verse.
There sure as heck could be more than one universe as we meager humans conceptualize it. The new images form the Web telescope are showing interesting things already. The Bible does not exclude this possibility, therefore it cannot be denied.
There is way more nuance than meets the eye on first reading.
In the beginning of God’s dealing with man, God created the earth and its surrounding atmosphere (heaven) in an already created solar system of an already created galaxy.
You may disagree if you like. Do you believe the original Hebrew text is the perfect inerrant word of God? After reading Charlie Garrett’s argument it seems that he does. Made me laugh.
It might not be perfectly inerrant, but considering it is the first writing that must be held up as the standard. Certainly not the KJV or any other latter translation.
With your engineer mind you cannot explain “heavens” as the proper word. You must rely on theologians who for the most part lack basic brain power of logical thinking.
Maybe the KJV translators had Devine help when they chose “heaven”