Did Adam and Eve know Good and Evil before they ate the fruit?

[son_of_Our_Lady]

My question was what you understand by ‘knowledge of good and evil’? I gave my answer. it is your turn now.

I did give you my answer, but I will put it another way.

This is what I understand by knowledge of good and evil:

Knowledge of Good: obeying God
Knowledge of Evil: disobeying God

When Adam and Eve obeyed God all they knew was good. God gave them guidance so that they would avoid evil. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they discovered sin and had to leave the Garden.

Peace be with you

 

[Khalfan]

Scripture and Tradition give us all the raw data we need. The Church interprets divine revelation like the book of Genesis and teaches us all that we need to know about it in order for us to know, love, and serve God properly in this life.

I think we already discussed the details given in scriptures. According to the scriptures, the fruit contained the knowledge which was supposed to be in man. And that one point puzzles the logic behind the loyalty test of God or the act of sin. Anyway, lets conclude like, they knew everything what they needed. Let’s conclude, they must have done something wrong, since there is no logic in GOD being unjust.

Would it satisfy our curiosity to know more? Of course. Is it fun to speculate about what else happened in the “Garden”? Yes. But should we become too attached to our individual speculations? No. We must hold to the truths in the story defined by the Church and realize that the language used in the story may be largely figurative. The story teaches us in a poetic way the truth of man’s primordial sin.

If there was any church or any man made commission to interpret the scriptures exactly as it was and it should be, there wouldn’t have so much of sects in Christianity. You can argue with an Adventist or any protestant, but you can’t convince him. Because what you believe is what seems logic to you and what he believe is what seems logic to him. Both you and him cannot be true in any of the controversial issue. Either his interpretation or yours has to be wrong. 50/50 possibility is there in both sides. That is why I said, human interpretations can be wrong. I think it is better to stick with what seems logic to us and pray to God to lead us in the right path.

I agree with the Catechism about original sin, and by the sound of what you wrote, Khalfan, you agree with much of it too. For instance, you agree that Adam and Eve disobeyed, and (you may not know this) but also that God forgave them.

I agree with you. I didn’t know God forgave them as per scripture. Is it said in Bible? Or Just another interpretation? I am sorry but I would like to know exactly.

Just because God forgives, however, does not mean that He takes away all the “temporal” consequences of sin immediately. For instance, God might forgive me for stealing something. But I will still have to replace the item I stole and go to jail while I am here on earth. When I die I will be able to go to heaven eventually because I have been forgiven of the guilt, but I must first make restitution and reparation for the evil I have done.

I disagree with you here. You are mixed up the spiritual death and the physical consequence here. We have to deal with both God and the person from who got stolen. I think you said that at the end. We must first make restitution and reparation directly with the person. Once that is clear, then we repent and pray to God to forgive us. What God demanded from us to get forgiven is our repentance only.

Eze:18:21: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

God was supposed to be satisfied with our turning back and life according to law and right until Jesus. I don’t understand when it Got changed. Surely, it has to be because of the human interpretations, since God doesn’t change his mind and demand the death of Jesus/himself.

Continued.

 

[Khalfan]

Continued.

So we agree that God forgave Adam and Eve. We just disagree on the means God used to forgive them and the rest of us who sin. Suffering is a means of glory. Suffering for another person reveals the depths of one’s love. Suffering is a means of purification. Put these ideas all together, and it makes a lot of sense that a loving self-sacrificing God would suffer on our behalf in order to show His love for us, purify us, and to reconcile us to Himself. Catholics believe that all forgiveness and salvation comes through Christ. God could have just pronounced forgiveness on all men and made it so by an act of His sovereign will, but God freely chose to forgive humanity through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. It’s His way, not ours.

If Jesus was to die for our wickedness, why would God ever reveal the below verse.

Eze:18:20: The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

God said ‘son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son’; how can he himself do against it? He clearly explained it with all the conditions. The one should die is the soul that sin. Jesus cannot bear the iniquity of us as per God. Our righteousness and our wickedness is our choice. We are accountable for that. Death of Jesus doesn’t change anything in our account.

If God can demand the suffering of Jesus in order to forgive us, we also can demand suffering of any person who sin against us. Are we allowed for that? No. What we should do is,

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4: And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Jesus taught disciples to ask God for forgiveness.

Luke 11:4 “And forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us”.

If God’s forgiveness demanded suffering of Jesus, it is supposed to be the same way we should forgive those who sin against us according to Lk 11:4. Tell me how do you forgive someone? Do you demand his or any relative’s suffering before you forgive him? I don’t think so. God is better than us.

In ones sense, Christ did not have to come. But we would still be “dead” in our sins if He did not. In another sense, it was destined from the beginning that He would come because it was predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament and God Himself beginning in Genesis 3:15.

God could have saved us another way, perhaps. Still, it is proper that Christ came and sacrificed Himself the way He did in order to save us because these actions in history more clearly and perfectly demonstrate to us the love our God has for every human being.

Even if Jesus didn’t come at all, we would never be dead forever. Because, God himself gave us the solution even before Jesus comes.

Eze:18:21: But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Gen 3:15 is an illogical statement.

Gen 3:15 …and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If Jesus came from the seed of Adam and Eve, he must have inherited of the same original sin, as all we do. He must have born in sin. But Jesus was not inherited of original sin. His birth was a miracle of God.

I am not arguing with you, but just giving my understandings. As I said earlier, stick with what seems logic to you.

 

[Khalfan]

I did give you my answer, but I will put it another way.

This is what I understand by knowledge of good and evil:

Knowledge of Good: obeying God
Knowledge of Evil: disobeying God

When Adam and Eve obeyed God all they knew was good. God gave them guidance so that they would avoid evil. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they discovered sin and had to leave the Garden.

Peace be with you

But the knowledge of good and evil was in the fruit. In other words, they didn’t know obeying and disobeying.

 

[dessert]

Can you explain it a bit?

Sometimes we need to know or may ask WHY must we not do something God said not to do and God did tell Adam and Eve why not to eat the fruit, but did they understand the dieing part? No but they needed to head the word of the Lord. Did Adam and Eve have immotality while in the garden? Did the devil know that they did and wanted to steal this from the first man? So what died, their body or their soul?
Our Father God sent His only begotten Son into the world the Word to become flesh by the Holy spirit to redeme man.
dessert

 

[son_of_Our_Lady]

…When a person claims to have found a contradiction in the Scriptures, his interpretation usually stems from a personal bias or a limited understanding of Church teaching, ancient cultures, or the Bible as a whole…

Quoted for truth

When someone finds a contradiction in the Qur’an, the Muslim apologists are quick to point out one (or more) of the following:

Hadiths
Sira
Abrogation
You have to read and understand Arabic to read the Qur’an as it was revealed (this one is nonsense, but many people try to use it)

Khalfan wants to stick only to the Bible which will limit his understanding of the scripture. If he seeks the Truth, he needs to overcome his bias. If he just wants to discredit scriptures or Christianity, he might as well pound sand

(For those unfamiliar with the term “pounding sand” this is an expression to symbolize futility since you can’t successfully compact sand with your fists).

Peace be with you

 

[Khalfan]

Anyway, here is what the Catechism has to say about the discussion:

396
God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

397
Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398
In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God,” but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God.”

And for the rest of us

402
All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. . . .” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

403
Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination toward evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul.” Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

404
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.

Tell me, from which book you quoted these? The name of Book?

 

[son_of_Our_Lady]

But the knowledge of good and evil was in the fruit. In other words, they didn’t know obeying and disobeying.

They knew obey or die. God told them. Once they disobeyed, then they knew other evils (thats why they hid since they were naked)

Peace be with you

 

[son_of_Our_Lady]

Tell me, from which book you quoted these? The name of Book?

This is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

Peace be with you

 

[dessert]

Tell me, from which book you quoted these? The name of Book?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

We cannot fully understand all the teachings we just accept.
Jesus did not inherit original sin, Jesus the Christ was begotten of the Father, not created like Adam and Eve, He was from the beginning at the right hand of the Father, He came from the Father and the Holy Spirit, the three are one as the Trinity,His humanness came from Mary, a second Eve who was full of grace and blessed, mankind represented by the humanness is what was conquered on the cross the sin of disobedience, Jesus was totally obedient to the Father. This is the truth that the justice and mercy of God was lived and died and resurrected in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of man. Dessert

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

She was fully capable to face ANY evil (temptation) because she was given explicit command to not do as God told her not to do.

The ONLY thing required to choose one thing over another is simply to will it (to choose it).

She had all the “guidance” she needed, in God’s direct commands. All she needed to do was simply ask God, at any time, and He would have counseled her as to what His command would be.

But she CHOSE to take counsel of one of God’s creatures, who was “cool” and had appealing form and words, over simply asking God, who was never far off.
She was not guided how to face temptation. Let me explain. Temptation is like misguiding us. Anyone can misguide us regarding anything. It depends upon our intelligence that, if we are able to understand right and wrong, the temptation won’t effect us. Otherwise we will believe whatever the tempter said and just follow, like a kid. What makes us intelligence is our knowledge and experience. If we are not intelligent and don’t have knowledge, we won’t be able to understand any command or instruction. That’s why commands doesn’t work with kids.

The point of the story is that we should have faith in God’s commands first, and use reason ONLY in support of faith and only for “problems” where God’s commands aren’t clear.

You’re more than welcome to not believe that, but that is what the story teaches and if you don’t believe that’s “correct”, then you disagree with the Bible and have made yourself the final arbiter of how to make “moral choices” above God.

Thus making yourself a self-idolater.

In the case of Adam and Eve, the knowledge was in the fruit. Before eating the fruit, their mental state was pure innocense, just like any kid.

That is simply a conjecture on your part. They were made as perfect as humans can be while still possessing free will.

Even the angels “failed” the “obedience test”, and they didn’t have the extra complications inherent in having a biological body to worry about…!

There was no “knowledge” contained in the fruit. The only thing “contained” in the fruit was (LISTEN CAREFULLY!) confirmation that one had chosen to do evil over good upon eating the fruit…!!

Quote:

What was “in” the fruit was the “form” and “taste” of the fruit, which was the form and taste of disobedience to God.

The fruit was not “MAGIC”. It was simply a signal to God, and to man, that man had chosen (willed) “against God’s will”.

The ONLY “knowledge” that the fruit “contained” was the knowledge of what it felt like to disobey God.
Why don’t you just accept,you don’t know what it mean by knowledge of good and evil?

Why don’t you simply admit you have no idea what I’m saying?

I realize you think that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was some kind of magic “pill of knowing all things good and all things evil”, which in a way it actually is in that the only discriminator between good and evil is whether one acts with or against the instructions of God, but the simple fact is that Eve and Adam had a full understanding of good and evil before they partook of the fruit, but they hadn’t EXPERIENCED the KNOWLEDGE (“knowledge” in the biblical sense of “being with” or “experiencing” as a man has “knowledge” of a woman) of evil yet, which they suddenly experienced (knew) upon “eating of the fruit”, whereby they also suddenly “knew” what good was in contrast to their new found evil behavior.

Your rather juvenile view that they were little “kids” is utterly baseless, and makes sense only promoting your view that God is an idiot. Of course, your god would LOVE to have people think God is an idiot.

…continued–>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:

They had no reason to want to “hide themselves” (hide their offense) before their first act of disobedience of God.

After that first disobedient act, that had GOOD reason to hide themselves, don’t you think?
They had enough reason on their body, but they didn’t know it is supposed to be covered. Once they knew, they sewed fig leaves and covered before they hide in the garden.

It (their nakedness) wasn’t SUPPOSED to be covered…!!

Man first chose to cover himself as the “quickest” way of “hiding” himself from God. Then, in a rather wacky chain-reaction, he discovered that seeing the opposite sex “covered” was itself a temptation to “know them” (lust), as probably, the first example of a “forbidden fruit” attraction to arise. Then, progressively, more and more temptations “appeared” to man.

In other words, once man had disobeyed God once, and felt ashamed, BUT DIDN"T IMMEDIATELY DIE, disobeying God got easier and easier to do, which became a habit, and was “imposed” on man as an inherent characteristic known as original sin.

Quote:

Yes, she was capable of facing the temptation,and yes, she was guided enough to have chosen not to succumb to the temptation…
I think I answerd already.

I answerd too also already.

Quote:

I haven’t ignored it,… have I?
Yes. You were afraid to get caught on the knowledge of Adam and Eve. You just wanted to believe they sinned in someway.

Explain that, please. What do you mean “…caught on kowledge of Adam and Eve”…?

I do believe they sinned, and I’ve told you why I believe that.

What is your point?

Quote:

Man had not chosen to be like God until then because man hadn’t thought of it yet.

The temptor simply brought up the subject before any other reason arose to bring it up.

Once again, sin was not “created” by man. It was “created”, to misuse the word “created” a bit, by Satan, and it seems rather fitting that Satan should get “credit” for infecting man with it, wouldn’t you say?
Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If man wasn’t created with the potential to sin.

The potential for sin is indeed inherent in ANY creature possessing of free will, so are you saying that you don’t man wasn’t or shouldn’t have been created with free will?

Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If there wasn’t any tree of good and evil.

There could NOT have NOT BEEN a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Are you saying that God ERRED in making that tree?

Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If God wouldn’t let serpent to tempt them.

There could NOT have NOT BEEN Satan in the garden. Are you saying that God ERRED in allowing evil to exist in the realm of man?

What is your point? That God is an idiot?

See what I wrote above about your god trying his hardest to make people believe that God is an idiot.

…continued–>

 

[Keikiolu]

God wanted us to know good and evil. God wanted to test our loyalty. God wanted evil to exist as a choice, so that he may know how many are choosing good.

My point is that we (man) DID know what good was and what evil was before the fall…!

That tree was named the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, where “knowledge” means “experience of”.

Before the fall, man knew what good was, because it was simply the environment he existed in. He also knew, abstractly, what evil was because he knew that evil must be something that isn’t good, as God made it known to man that evil existed in contradistinction to good when He said “…the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil you shall not eat…” (which specifically counterposed good with evil).

God DID want to test our loyalty…! So we agree on something.

God wanted us to obey Him of our own free will, which test we failed, though we didn’t have to have failed.

Evil already existed before the creation of man. It was “allowed” to exist, while not being created by God, because it was the natural consequence of His giving the power of free will to the angels. One of whom misused his free will, which “created” sin.

God wants ALL people to choose Him. God allows ALL people to either choose Him, or choose to be damned.

God doesn’t want SOME and not want others. You seem to imply that your god specifically “created” evil so that he would have the “pleasure” of having some to be his slaves, and some to sadistically feed into the fires of hell.

That god is not God.

If a DON’T DO command was enough, God wouldn’t ever reveal this much of scriptures instead of some more don’t dos for us.

God WANTED the history of mankind to be very very simple:
*) God creates the universe.
*) God creates man. (…with woman)
*) God tells them not to KNOW (experience) EVIL as opposed to the good that they live in.
*) Man obeys.
*) Man is fruitful and multiplies (while leaving the Tree alone).
*) Time goes on “forever” with man perpetually sinless, and God does whatever God wants to do that is good whenever He wants to do so.

Since God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to grant free will to some of His creations, He had to deal with the those who would abuse the privilege, which some did.

Adam’s test was just the begenning and all of us are accountable for our choice. We are responsible for our deeds as it said in Eze 18:20. Payment of Jesus dosen’t change anything in our account until we repent, choose to be good and seek forgiveness.

The choice to sin, by Eve and Adam, gave mankind a “knowledge” (experience) of evil that was utterly irrevocable and “communicable” by biological birth as witnessed (proven) by the simple fact that humans die.

The only way that that “characteristic” can be “repaid” to God is by an utterly gratuitous GIFT of God.

The only thing that God wants in exchange for that gift is that we “have knowledge of” the primacy of God and at least TRY to follow the example of His Son in ernest.

Just as “biting into” the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of of Good and Evil tore us away from God, “biting into” the “new fruit” (Jesus) of the Tree of Life (the cross) allows us back into His presence.

We still need, of course, to live unsinfully to be with Him in heaven, but the unless one “un-does” (by understanding, by “knowing”, by experiencing) the original human sin (not obeying God’s commands unconditionally) by “eating of the fruit of the tree of life” (“knowing” the suffering of the utterly pure victim) AND renouncing sinning and doing good, one CAN’T hope to be with God after bodily death.

The passage in Eze18:20 does not apply to “original sin”, simply because even an utterly righteous man will still die (bodily) eventually.

The reason is because the sins that are refered to in Eze18 are personal “transgressions” (during a person’s lifetime). Original sin is a universal “taint” that God Himself applied, and only He can remove it.

There is NOTHING that a man can do to “cure” himself of original sin. It can ONLY be a gift of God Himself.

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

They had enough reason on their body, but they didn’t know it is supposed to be covered. Once they knew, they sewed fig leaves and covered before they hide in the garden.

It (their nakedness) wasn’t SUPPOSED to be covered…!!

Man first chose to cover himself as the “quickest” way of “hiding” himself from God. Then, in a rather wacky chain-reaction, he discovered that seeing the opposite sex “covered” was itself a temptation to “know them” (lust), as probably, the first example of a “forbidden fruit” attraction to arise. Then, progressively, more and more temptations “appeared” to man.

In other words, once man had disobeyed God once, and felt ashamed, BUT DIDN"T IMMEDIATELY DIE, disobeying God got easier and easier to do, which became a habit, and was “imposed” on man as an inherent characteristic known as original sin.

Quote:

Yes, she was capable of facing the temptation,and yes, she was guided enough to have chosen not to succumb to the temptation…
I think I answerd already.

I answerd too also already.

Quote:

I haven’t ignored it,… have I?
Yes. You were afraid to get caught on the knowledge of Adam and Eve. You just wanted to believe they sinned in someway.

Explain that, please. What do you mean “…caught on kowledge of Adam and Eve”…?

I do believe they sinned, and I’ve told you why I believe that.

What is your point?

Quote:

Man had not chosen to be like God until then because man hadn’t thought of it yet.

The temptor simply brought up the subject before any other reason arose to bring it up.

Once again, sin was not “created” by man. It was “created”, to misuse the word “created” a bit, by Satan, and it seems rather fitting that Satan should get “credit” for infecting man with it, wouldn’t you say?
Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If man wasn’t created with the potential to sin.

The potential for sin is indeed inherent in ANY creature possessing of free will, so are you saying that you don’t man wasn’t or shouldn’t have been created with free will?

Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If there wasn’t any tree of good and evil.

There could NOT have NOT BEEN a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Are you saying that God ERRED in making that tree?

Man wouldn’t have thought of it ever, If God wouldn’t let serpent to tempt them.

There could NOT have NOT BEEN Satan in the garden. Are you saying that God ERRED in allowing evil to exist in the realm of man?

What is your point? That God is an idiot?

See what I wrote above about your god trying his hardest to make people believe that God is an idiot.

God wanted us to know good and evil. God wanted to test our loyalty. God wanted evil to exist as a choice, so that he may know how many are choosing good.

My point is that we (man) DID know what good was and what evil was before the fall…!

That tree was named the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, where “knowledge” means “experience of”.

Before the fall, man knew what good was, because it was simply the environment he existed in. He also knew, abstractly, what evil was because he knew that evil must be something that isn’t good, as God made it known to man that evil existed in contradistinction to good when He said “…the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil you shall not eat…” (which specifically counterposed good with evil).

God DID want to test our loyalty…! So we agree on something.

God wanted us to obey Him of our own free will, which test we failed, though we didn’t have to have failed.

Evil already existed before the creation of man. It was “allowed” to exist, while not being created by God, because it was the natural consequence of His giving the power of free will to the angels. One of whom misused his free will, which “created” sin.

God wants ALL people to choose Him. God allows ALL people to either choose Him, or choose to be damned.

God doesn’t want SOME and not want others. You seem to imply that your god specifically “created” evil so that he would have the “pleasure” of having some to be his slaves, and some to sadistically feed into the fires of hell.

That god is not God.

…continued–>

 

[Khalfan]

Quoted for truth

When someone finds a contradiction in the Qur’an, the Muslim apologists are quick to point out one (or more) of the following:

Hadiths
Sira
Abrogation
You have to read and understand Arabic to read the Qur’an as it was revealed (this one is nonsense, but many people try to use it)

Understanding of scripture is the issue.

In concern of understanding Quran, it is an advantage. Let me tell you how.

-Do you want to know what is Quran? Just ask any Muslim.
-Do you want to read Quran? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? Read the Original Quran as it is revealed.
-Do you want to read the Arabic Quran? Learn Arabic Language.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Tafseers (explanations of verses with details of situation it revealed) is available in Arabic (written hundreds of years ago) and in translation.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Hadiths (reportings of the companions; like gospels of Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn) are available in Arabic and translated.
-Do you doubt about the reporter? The chain of narrators until it got in to the book is written before each hadith.
-Do you still have problem in accepting Quran? Nothing can help you, but God.

In concern of Bible, it is different.

-Do you want to know what is Bible? Just ask any Christian.
-Do you want to read bible? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? No original Bible is available but earlier copies in Hebrew, Aramic, etc.
-Do you want to read those earlier copies? Learn Hebrew and Aramic Language at least.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Nothing can be done other than interpreting it yourself. The condition is, the concept should match with other verses.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Your logics can be applied.
-Do you still have problem in accepting bible? What do you expect?

If I Quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am your God’- Mark 11:26, will you accept?
If I quote, ‘Khalfan will come in 1979’ –Mark 7:16. Can you prove it wrong?
If I quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am not God, don’t worship me’ –Mark 15:28. Can you prove it wrong?

No one knows what was written originally in Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, Lk. 17:36, Mt. 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 21:44, 23:14, Jn. 5:4, 7:53-8:11 (As per The New American Bible- Catholic; New International Version - Protestant)

How far you are able to understand your scripture?

Khalfan wants to stick only to the Bible which will limit his understanding of the scripture. If he seeks the Truth, he needs to overcome his bias. If he just wants to discredit scriptures or Christianity, he might as well pound sand

(For those unfamiliar with the term “pounding sand” this is an expression to symbolize futility since you can’t successfully compact sand with your fists).

Peace be with you

You are forced to accept what church teaches you in case of doubts in your scripture, but I am not.

I am sorry if i hurted any good Christians like davidmammola, dessert, Valke2, MHalsey etc… I was tempted by Son of our Lady.

 

[Keikiolu]

Understanding of scripture is the issue.

In concern of understanding Quran, it is an advantage. Let me tell you how.

-Do you want to know what is Quran? Just ask any Muslim.
-Do you want to read Quran? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? Read the Original Quran as it is revealed.
-Do you want to read the Arabic Quran? Learn Arabic Language.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Tafseers (explanations of verses with details of situation it revealed) is available in Arabic (written hundreds of years ago) and in translation.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Hadiths (reportings of the companions; like gospels of Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn) are available in Arabic and translated.
-Do you doubt about the reporter? The chain of narrators until it got in to the book is written before each hadith.
-Do you still have problem in accepting Quran? Nothing can help you, but God.

In concern of Bible, it is different.

-Do you want to know what is Bible? Just ask any Christian.
-Do you want to read bible? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? No original Bible is available but earlier copies in Hebrew, Aramic, etc.
-Do you want to read those earlier copies? Learn Hebrew and Aramic Language at least.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Nothing can be done other than interpreting it yourself. The condition is, the concept should match with other verses.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Your logics can be applied.
-Do you still have problem in accepting bible? What do you expect?

If I Quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am your God’- Mark 11:26, will you accept?
If I quote, ‘Khalfan will come in 1979’ –Mark 7:16. Can you prove it wrong?
If I quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am not God, don’t worship me’ –Mark 15:28. Can you prove it wrong?

No one knows what was written originally in Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, Lk. 17:36, Mt. 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 21:44, 23:14, Jn. 5:4, 7:53-8:11 (As per The New American Bible- Catholic; New International Version - Protestant)

How far you are able to understand your scripture?

You are forced to accept what church teaches you in case of doubts in your scripture, but I am not.

I am sorry if i hurted any good Christians like davidmammola, dessert, Valke2, MHalsey etc… I was tempted by Son of our Lady.

I believe in God.

Khal believes in god.

My scriptures and traditions say his scriptures are simply interesting nonsense.

His scriptures are supposedly based on my scriptures, but on some version of “my scriptures” that never existed in the tradition of those who wrote those scriptures.

The “fake materialism” on which islam is based is amusing, at best.

Khal is a GREAT example of an “islamic materialist”.

Still praying for 'ya, Khal…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[son_of_Our_Lady]

Understanding of scripture is the issue.

In concern of understanding Quran, it is an advantage. Let me tell you how.

-Do you want to know what is Quran? Just ask any Muslim.
-Do you want to read Quran? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? Read the Original Quran as it is revealed.
-Do you want to read the Arabic Quran? Learn Arabic Language.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Tafseers (explanations of verses with details of situation it revealed) is available in Arabic (written hundreds of years ago) and in translation.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Hadiths (reportings of the companions; like gospels of Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn) are available in Arabic and translated.
-Do you doubt about the reporter? The chain of narrators until it got in to the book is written before each hadith.
-Do you still have problem in accepting Quran? Nothing can help you, but God.

In concern of Bible, it is different.

-Do you want to know what is Bible? Just ask any Christian.
-Do you want to read bible? Translations are available in almost all languages.
-Do you have doubts in the words or translation? No original Bible is available but earlier copies in Hebrew, Aramic, etc.
-Do you want to read those earlier copies? Learn Hebrew and Aramic Language at least.
-Do you have doubts in the verses? Nothing can be done other than interpreting it yourself. The condition is, the concept should match with other verses.
-Do you want supporting for that explanations? Your logics can be applied.
-Do you still have problem in accepting bible? What do you expect?

If I Quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am your God’- Mark 11:26, will you accept?
If I quote, ‘Khalfan will come in 1979’ –Mark 7:16. Can you prove it wrong?
If I quote, ‘Jesus said unto him, I am not God, don’t worship me’ –Mark 15:28. Can you prove it wrong?

No one knows what was written originally in Mk. 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, Lk. 17:36, Mt. 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 21:44, 23:14, Jn. 5:4, 7:53-8:11 (As per The New American Bible- Catholic; New International Version - Protestant)

How far you are able to understand your scripture?

You are forced to accept what church teaches you in case of doubts in your scripture, but I am not.

I am sorry if i hurted any good Christians like davidmammola, dessert, Valke2, MHalsey etc… I was tempted by Son of our Lady.

Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God, not written by Him. If there are lost or questionable passages, it is because man makes mistakes over time, but the message remains the same

Muslims believe the Qur’an is the literal word of God, eternal and complete. This makes contradictions in the Qur’an much more embarassing.

No Christian should be hurt or offended by your questions or logic Khalfan, everyone questions their faith (you even question your own, or how else would you have learned so much about it). We should all encourage these types of challenges so that we can grow in love for God.

As much as you try to discredit the Bible or the Holy Trinity, I am not offended. God has given us faith, and our faith in God is stronger than any accusation against the Truth.

I did not intend to offend you, but if you were offended was it because I used your argument against you? I thought we were discussing scripture(s)…

You are forced to accept what church teaches you in case of doubts in your scripture, but I am not.

The Church does not force anyone to believe anything, you have a choice to believe what is taught or not. In Islam it’s no different from the countless volumes of hadiths that explain difficult or contradictory passages in the Qur’an. If the Qur’an was easily read and applied, there would be no use for the Hadiths or the Sira to explain them.

Peace be with you

 

[Khalfan]

Can anyone help this guy ‘Keikiolu’, to understand his own scriptures? Let me point out some of nonsense he uttered.

There was no “knowledge” contained in the fruit. The only thing “contained” in the fruit was (LISTEN CAREFULLY!) confirmation that one had chosen to do evil over good upon eating the fruit…!!

You are clearly contradicting Genesis.

Gen. 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.

Serpent says, the fruit contained the knowledge of good and evil. And God confirmed it in Gen 3:22.

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Before the fall, man knew what good was, because it was simply the environment he existed in. He also knew, abstractly, what evil was because he knew that evil must be something that isn’t good, as God made it known to man that evil existed in contradistinction to good when He said “…the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil you shall not eat…” (which specifically counterposed good with evil).

That is not true. If I say ‘don’t eat Mango and Apple’, how you will understand? Not to eat Mango and Apple together or not to eat Mango or Apple at all? It doesn’t have to be counter posed. That is your another interpretation.

If the knowledge was experience, would you say they never experienced Good also before eating the fruit? What you interpret for knowledge of evil is also valid for good.

Evil already existed before the creation of man. It was “allowed” to exist, while not being created by God, because it was the natural consequence of His giving the power of free will to the angels. One of whom misused his free will, which “created” sin.

God wants ALL people to choose Him. God allows ALL people to either choose Him, or choose to be damned.

God doesn’t want SOME and not want others. You seem to imply that your god specifically “created” evil so that he would have the “pleasure” of having some to be his slaves, and some to sadistically feed into the fires of hell.

That god is not God.

Who saying this to whom? Bible says People of Israel are the chosen people of God. How about others? Even today, Jews all over the world want die in Israel –the Holy land.
Jesus said, he came to the lost sheep of Israel. Regarding the creation of evil, my scripture and yours says the same. It is an act against good.

The choice to sin, by Eve and Adam, gave mankind a “knowledge” (experience) of evil that was utterly irrevocable and “communicable” by biological birth as witnessed (proven) by the simple fact that humans die.

The passage in Eze18:20 does not apply to “original sin”, simply because even an utterly righteous man will still die (bodily) eventually.

Go to any Sunday school. The death mentioned is spiritual, not physical. If it was physical, they were supposed to on the same day.

The reason is because the sins that are refered to in Eze18 are personal “transgressions” (during a person’s lifetime). Original sin is a universal “taint” that God Himself applied, and only He can remove it.

Original sin too was a transgression happened during the lifetime of two persons called ‘Adam and Eve’.

 

[Khalfan]

Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God, not written by Him. If there are lost or questionable passages, it is because man makes mistakes over time, but the message remains the same

How do you say that, when verses are lost?

Muslims believe the Qur’an is the literal word of God, eternal and complete. This makes contradictions in the Qur’an much more embarassing.

Allegation? I don’t have to entertain that.

No Christian should be hurt or offended by your questions or logic Khalfan, everyone questions their faith (you even question your own, or how else would you have learned so much about it). We should all encourage these types of challenges so that we can grow in love for God.

As much as you try to discredit the Bible or the Holy Trinity, I am not offended. God has given us faith, and our faith in God is stronger than any accusation against the Truth.

I did not intend to offend you, but if you were offended was it because I used your argument against you? I thought we were discussing scripture(s)…

You used my argument against me? when?

We are discussing scriptures.

The Church does not force anyone to believe anything, you have a choice to believe what is taught or not. In Islam it’s no different from the countless volumes of hadiths that explain difficult or contradictory passages in the Qur’an. If the Qur’an was easily read and applied, there would be no use for the Hadiths or the Sira to explain them.

Peace be with you

Hadiths and other scriptures are to support the readers. Not Quran. Where you heard the names Hadith and Sira, when you don’t know what is it at all? As I said before, Hadith are reports of companions of prophet. Hadiths gives us when and in what situation revelations happened. It also tells, how prophet explained each verse when it is revealed. Read the Quran once to know, weather it convays the message it revealed for.

Please avoid unnessessary allegations.

It is better to know what we are talking.

 

[freesoulhope]

Can anyone help this guy ‘Keikiolu’, to understand his own scriptures? Let me point out some of nonsense he uttered.

I think he is already healping himself!

You are clearly contradicting Genesis…

Would you agree that a literal interpretation of Genesis is clearly contradicting the real world according to the laws of logic and physics? For example, there are no talking snakes in the world at present.

Gen. 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.
Serpent says, the fruit contained the knowledge of good and evil. And God confirmed it in Gen 3:22.
Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

That is not true.

would you agree that a literal interpretation of genesis isn’t the correct way of understanding genesis? Otherwise you would have to believe that the world was made ten thousand years ago.

If I say ‘don’t eat Mango and Apple’, how you will understand? Not to eat Mango and Apple together or not to eat Mango or Apple at all? It doesn’t have to be counter posed. That is your another interpretation.

Would you agree that there is no such thing as a fruit that has the knoledge of good and evil in it. It is an alegorical simili metaphore. To look it otherwise would suggest that a perfectly Good God created sin and evil and put it in a tree.

If the knowledge was experience, would you say they never experienced Good also before eating the fruit? What you interpret for knowledge of evil is also valid for good.

They experienced the love of God, but they had no knowledge of comitting sin. This is the whole point of the story. Argueing over a metaphorical alegorical story that has posible errors in logic and is an imperfect representation of what happened in reality, misses the whole point.