• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The writer of Genesis 1:29 ignored there are plants that can't be eaten

That was the Tree of Kno
But did they have knowledge of good and evil before they ate from that tree? I have never understood the biblical narrative where they are warned of eating from the tree and "expected" to obey the command, but their knowledge of good and evil was either nonexistent or limited. If they had no knowledge of good and evil, it wouldn't have been such a number for them to eat from the tree despite the command. I've heard it said they had "basic knowledge", whatever that is, but that doesn't exactly convince me. Where does the Bible say they had "basic knowledge"? Isn't that just conjecture?
 
From what we can deduce - there was only one tree that was "poisonous" to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.
That was the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. God had warned them about it.
But the verse says on the surface of the whole earth. You need to move on from the it-was-Eden argument, I think.
 
Nit picking is easy.

And we're dealing with authors who lived 2,000 years ago.
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear — because if (this is based on your argument, not mine) there were no uneatable plants at the time of Gen. 1:29, and the uneatable plants had occurred between verses 1:29 and 9:3, then the verse 9:3 would seem misleading, as though there were still no uneatable plants.

9:3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."
 
But did they have knowledge of good and evil before they ate from that tree? I have never understood the biblical narrative where they are warned of eating from the tree and "expected" to obey the command, but their knowledge of good and evil was either nonexistent or limited. If they had no knowledge of good and evil, it wouldn't have been such a number for them to eat from the tree despite the command. I've heard it said they had "basic knowledge", whatever that is, but that doesn't exactly convince me. Where does the Bible say they had "basic knowledge"? Isn't that just conjecture?
Think about it...Adam and Eve were created without sin...they did not know sin because they had never experienced it...only when they disobeyed and broke God's law did they know, by experience, what sin was...the tree was just like any other tree in the garden, it was not the tree, but their actions that condemned them...what it represented was good...if they obeyed God and did not eat...or bad if they disobeyed God and ate from that tree...at the moment they ate/disobeyed, they were in actions, telling God they did not need Him for guidance...they could make their own choices in life, independent of God...
 
Genesis 1 & 2 are allegory; they are not a basis for scientific knowledge of the world. The Bible is not a science-text and does not, in fact, pretend to be. My thought on this topic is informed by both Jewish and Christian scholars and theologians alike.

". . .

In the Middle Ages, Saadia Gaon argued that a biblical passage should not be interpreted literally if that made a passage mean something contrary to the senses or reason (or, as we would say, science; Emunot ve-Deot, chapter 7). Maimonides applied this principle to theories about creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe.

It is only because the eternity of the universe has not been proven that he interpreted the verses about creation at a point in time literally (Guide, II, 25), but he still insisted that the creation story as a whole was written metaphorically (Book I, Introduction).

To Saadia and Maimonides, belief in the truth of the Bible does not require a denial of science ("reason," "logic") when the two seem to conflict. These philosophers imply that questions of science should be left to scientists and scientific method. In fact, Maimonides quotes a passage in the Talmud in which Jewish scholars abandoned an astronomical theory of their own in favor of a theory of gentile scholars (Pesahim 94b).

Maimonides approved of their action, saying that "speculative matters everyone treats according to the results of his own study, and everyone accepts that which appears to him established by proof" (Guide, II, 8). To him, clearly, Science is a matter of speculation and is not the field in which the Bible seeks to be decisive. . ."

Source
 
Last edited:
Think about it...Adam and Eve were created without sin...they did not know sin because they had never experienced it...only when they disobeyed and broke God's law did they know, by experience, what sin was...the tree was just like any other tree in the garden, it was not the tree, but their actions that condemned them...what it represented was good...if they obeyed God and did not eat...or bad if they disobeyed God and ate from that tree...at the moment they ate/disobeyed, they were in actions, telling God they did not need Him for guidance...they could make their own choices in life, independent of God...
Yeah,... I don't know of any evidence that man learns that way.
 
But did they have knowledge of good and evil before they ate from that tree? I have never understood the biblical narrative where they are warned of eating from the tree and "expected" to obey the command, but their knowledge of good and evil was either nonexistent or limited. If they had no knowledge of good and evil, it wouldn't have been such a number for them to eat from the tree despite the command. I've heard it said they had "basic knowledge", whatever that is, but that doesn't exactly convince me. Where does the Bible say they had "basic knowledge"? Isn't that just conjecture?


Intellectually, they have an idea about right and wrong - since they both obeyed God in other things.
The Bible never mentioned any disobedience from them until that day with the serpent - so we can deduce that
they've always exercised obedience to God.


This must be the "basic knowledge" that you heard about: Obedience to God is good.
They know what was good, after all they were created in goodness - they were surrounded by goodness!



Genesis 1
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.





Basing it from the narrative, this is what we know about them:
They both knew it was wrong to eat from that particular tree, and it was right to eat from all the other trees!

Therefore, they had some knowledge of what is right and wrong.

They didn't try to eat from the forbidden tree.....until the serpent talked Eve into disobedience.



When they had chosen to disobey God and bit from that fruit - they had EXPERIENTIALLY known evil at that very moment.
They committed the sin. They experienced evil first-hand.
At that point, right and wrong was not just an idea any more - they now fully understand.


Their sin was not about gaining knowledge. Their sin was about their DISOBEDIENCE to God.
They've put their own will above the will of God.
 
Perhaps I wasn't clear — because if (this is based on your argument, not mine) there were no uneatable plants at the time of Gen. 1:29, and the uneatable plants had occurred between verses 1:29 and 9:3, then the verse 9:3 would seem misleading, as though there were still no uneatable plants.

9:3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

No, it's not misleading!

Genesis 9:3 was simply a part of the covenant that God was OFFICIALLY DECLARING to Noah.
The only difference with what God had officially declared to Adam in the garden is that Noah can eat meat!

Call it an official announcement of an agreement between God and Noah (who was at that time the new beginning for mankind)!
It's only the group of Noah that's left of mankind, thus they're like in the position of Adam and Eve - to start from scratch and filling up
the earth with people!



The flood covered the entire earth! The devastation wasn't only to mankind.
It is possible that almost all plants died in that flood, except for a few like the OLIVE Tree. Perhaps, what few surviving types of plants were edible.


Furthermore,


Genesis 6
21 You are to take
every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”



Therefore, there must be kind that are not to be eaten! Those kinds did not enter the ark!



Another thing.....

Genesis 9
20 Noah,
a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.


Noah, being a farmer.......knew about plants!

He must've saved some seeds and brought them along in his ark, which is why he proceeded to plant a vineyard!
If he had thought about saving grape seeds to make wine, surely he thought of other seeds too, for eating!




If God had said to take every kind of food for eating - we can safely assume that all seeds that
came from vegetables and fruits that were brought in the ark, were all going to yield edible plants!
 
Last edited:
But the verse says on the surface of the whole earth. You need to move on from the it-was-Eden argument, I think.


No, it was specifically said that it's in the garden of Eden.



Genesis 2
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.



And we know that the garden of Eden was a specific place since Adam and Eve were driven from it after the fall!




Genesis 3
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
 
Last edited:
The writer(s) of Genesis in chapter 1 verse 29, ignored the fact that there are plants we humans can't eat from.

"And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." [Genesis 1:29]

Here are two other translations of the same verse:

"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

"And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food."

You have the mystery of the Universe before you and THAT is what you pick?
 
But the verse says on the surface of the whole earth. You need to move on from the it-was-Eden argument, I think.


Well, look at this!


Genesis 2

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

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.”




Since the instruction was that Adam can eat from any tree in the garden (except for that Tree of Knowledge),
we can safely say that all trees in the garden are good for eating!

Now......we don't know about trees
OUTSIDE the garden, do we?
There was no instruction about being able to eat from any tree outside the garden!

But what we do know - life was extremely hard for Adam and Eve when they were driven out of the garden!
Experiencing what poisonous plants are, must be part of that!
Trial by fire?
You don't necessarily die when you eat a poisonous food, but you'd know you won't want to eat it again!

All it takes is one experience with unedible food, and they'd know that not every plant is friendly.
 
Last edited:
"mystery of the trinity"

That's a less inconsequential one to consider.

On as less divine level, The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are pretty much recognizable in any elderly man that has raised a family.

He is, in every way, both a Father and a Son. He is also the recipient of and the giver of love, if that is his privilege, and that would be the function of the Holy Spirit.

This is less obvious to the less "experienced".
 
That's a less inconsequential one to consider.

On as less divine level, The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are pretty much recognizable in any elderly man that has raised a family.

He is, in every way, both a Father and a Son. He is also the recipient of and the giver of love, if that is his privilege, and that would be the function of the Holy Spirit.

This is less obvious to the less "experienced".
As a Muslim I simply reject it, instead of coming up with excuses for it. And the mystery of the Universe? The Qur'an tells us something and then are things that aren't necessary for us to know.

I only hear the word "mystery" from Christians. I suppose it's because their Bible is so filled with inconsistencies that the only way to "believe" in it, is to call everything that doesn't make sense, a mystery.
 
The writer(s) of Genesis in chapter 1 verse 29, ignored the fact that there are plants we humans can't eat from.

"And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." [Genesis 1:29]

Here are two other translations of the same verse:

"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

"And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food."
Will the real god please stand up. One sentence out of that big old book and three interpretations of what 'god said'. Hmmm, interesting.
 
As a Muslim I simply reject it, instead of coming up with excuses for it. And the mystery of the Universe? The Qur'an tells us something and then are things that aren't necessary for us to know.

I only hear the word "mystery" from Christians. I suppose it's because their Bible is so filled with inconsistencies that the only way to "believe" in it, is to call everything that doesn't make sense, a mystery.
Rot and nonsense.
 
Will the real god please stand up. One sentence out of that big old book and three interpretations of what 'god said'. Hmmm, interesting.
I know, right? You were almost kicked out of the sub you don't belong to.
 
Will the real god please stand up. One sentence out of that big old book and three interpretations of what 'god said'. Hmmm, interesting.


I know, right? You were almost kicked out of the sub you don't belong to.

Hahahaha....I think he's lost! Hahahaha

He can't even tell which section is appropriate for his condescensions, and he wants to show he's credible! Go figure the mystery of idiocy!:ROFLMAO:
Hahahahaha

He must be a poster child for the ignorant new atheists! They're just all blabbers! Lol.
I know many educated atheists must just be rolling their eyes at him! hahahahaha

New atheists to atheism is what Westboro is to Christianity! :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom