So who was in the wrong here?

Right.

Why wasn't Adam's name Parchm or Eyphah instead?

Going by text.

All of them had a share.

Adam was older, heard the instruction straight from God, and didnt say squat when the snake was talking, or when Eve gave him the fruit.

Punishment: "dying you shall die" vis aging, and to eat bread by the sweat of your brow.

Eve: 1) The command was not to eat; she was being Selfrighteous by telling the snake the tree should not even be TOUCHED.
2)She SAW the fruit was good, believing her eyes instead of God's word.
Punishment: "dying you shall die", painful childbirth

Snake: temptation, arguing with commonsense against the word of God
Punishment: eat dirt, and be ready to be crushed by the seed of Woman.

An instigator (snake) an enactor (eve), and an abettor (adam). Different individual crimes, not one crime.

Satan. That forbidden fruit and serpent was for certain a creation of Satan.

Women are less divine than men. Eve was going to tempt Adam with the apple eventually.

Knowledge, so stay dumb and rejoice.

This.

God, primarily. Omniscient and omnipotent, so he both knows that Satan will enter Paradise and has the power to stop it, is also aware of literally everything that will happen even before he created them, (including from the time he caused the "first cause" of the universe, lol, he's just an NPC and plays along with a script he's already seen since the beginning of all things) including that his greatest creation will fall for his temptation as a result, and everything else will follow; does he do the least of his jobs, and keep the Prince of Darkness himself out of his perfect environment? Nope, couldn't be bothered. And so two naive and innocent human beings are become blamed for something almost entirely not their fault. The whole tale reads as simply the worst fanfiction one could ever spin into a literal metaphysical narrative subsequently believed in and forming the basis of one's spiritual practise around. The second party in the wrong are Christians, for actually and seriously believing that this allegory is literal, and helps explain the state of our reality and species today. I genuinely don't what to do anymore, if such stories can be not only taken literally, but also seriously combined with a set of abstract philosophical arguments pertaining to first causes, necessary beings, and so on wherein the story and the arguments apparently both describe the same being. I really don't know what can be done at this point.

This. Knowledge is bad for you, kids. Come join our Church today. We'll get rid of your existential malaise, give you the eternal life™ you want, and even give your children a few nice things too :)

>eve is supposed to be the fairest most beautiful thing imaginable
>it's always some 4/10 with no ass and titties
When will artists get it right, fucking brainlets

According to the Bible: the snake, Adam and Eve
According to retarded Christian tradition: Eve, also the snake is the devil despite literally being a snake

Woman. Always the woman.

There's a Pastor who posts vids on Youtube on how Satan is actually a dinosaur.

>The Old Testament
>Generally known worldwide for centuries as the most profound book ever compiled
>People devote their lives to deciphering the immense wisdom put forth from tongue to tongue, from messiah to saint.
>Some people consider the book so great that they spend the vast majority of their waking hours in huge pantheons dedicated to the scripture and it's tales.
>Book considered so great that it is said to enlighten others who take special heed, guiding them thereafter into an afterlife of eternal reward
>Other books speak of times in history, such as the precursor to WWI, this book speaks of the creation of the entire universe and life itself
>Many consider every single answer to life to be found cryptically laid out in earnest.
>mfw first two or three pages in everything was perfect and then a woman ruined everything forever

Attached: 1524438424063.png (310x384, 145K)

>most profound book ever compiled
>is itself a compilation of stolen and altered stories from previous cultural mythologies
heh, nothing scriptural kid

incel

No it was Tyrone and Jamal get those kike names away. Its real nigga hour in eden

But don't forget to pay the tithe.

And you've created a separate ego in your mind to justify and rationalize your concept of evil.

The devil is (You).

Yes, Father.

The omniscient/omnipotent argument. The best rebuttal being 'oh well it's a mystery, don't worry YOU'LL SEE!'

uh eh ok

iz all a dibine blan :DDDD

reminder: the snake was NOT satan

what kind of asshole throws a snake in someone's backyard?

Attached: oh no bro.png (632x628, 66K)

Man, of course.

God creates man- not as a novelty way to acquire novelty worship, but to allow man to share in his rule of all creation. Like all things, he creates them because it is good for them to be.

God caters to their every physical need, gives them the assignment of tending and naming creation- drawing out its beauty by discovering and naming its forms, and is friends with them, regularly visiting his presence among them. It's a great vision of human happiness, unequalled until the New Testament.

Only one thing does God forbid- namely, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (which also has connotations of All Knowledge, and the power which goes along with this). This is to remind man that for all his supremacy among creatures, man is still himself a creature, created in dependence upon realities that man did not create.There is a concrete reminder and focus for this transcendent dimension of human being. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is marked off there to shape man's free will and practice to man's best advantage. If we treat the story as a parable, trying to tell us something about the human condition, it illustrates the rightful place of human beings in the metaphysical order.

God has given Man wisdom equal to this task: they know that if they eat the fruit, they will surely die. They are tempted, but they see through the temptation immediately. They are not passive recipients of temptation, but active agents. They know that they have every reason to trust God that they would die, and are weighing up the potential benefits- achieving divinity and power on their own terms- against the risks. They choose the risk, alienating themselves from God in the very act. They test the divine love, itself an act of self-exaltation which they know better than to do.

And since the perfection of the supernatural friendship which they have cast away is the guarantor of much of their happiness, when they can no longer rely on this friendship, they are abandoned to their own nature: man and woman have no guarantor against the disharmony of their interests, and no guarantee of friendly relations with God. So they hide and feel shame and invent clothes to hide the shame. They are by nature material, and thus mortal, and so they are condemned to death. They have to work for their subsistence, and are subject to their physical limits even in childbirth. Their society is poisoned- the husband's physical superiority and freedom make him dominate the woman, in turn producing resentment.

Genesis illustrates a profound truth: that true human happiness is not to be found on human terms, but only in friendship with the supernatural and ultimate good beyond what we can guarantee for ourselves, from which we find ourselves alienated. If that Good foresaw the Fall, it was because he already reckoned with the price of redemption, and judged that price acceptable for having Adam and Eve and their descendants exist at all.

>is itself a compilation of stolen and altered stories from previous cultural mythologies
is this supposed to be a bad thing?

>God creates man- not as a novelty way to acquire novelty worship, but to allow man to share in his rule of all creation. Like all things, he creates them because it is good for them to be.

Already my man claims to know gods logic.
Oh when people claim to know the mind of god. It's one of the most ironic and hypocritical things humans are capable of.

It literally says that in the text.

(Genesis 1;26) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

"31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."

Yeah.......

bibviz.com/

WRONG. Real Adam and Eve were MONGOLIAN.

Why did he put the Tree there in the first place, and why did he let Satan enter too? Also, is it merely a parable, or a literal account that affects us in real ways? It can't be imaginary if Christ was himself a real figure that apparently died for the implications of what Genesis details, this sacrifice still relevant to the people of our world today.

The tree is there to show man that there are some good things which he cannot access on his own terms, and to shape his conduct around this fact. It's a crucial part of the best way of being human- to have boundaries which one respects and freely submits to. The serpent is allowed in to show that man is partially responsible for reckoning with evil. Part of the perversion of the temptation is man's giving up his rightful rulership over the lower nature. To an extent, the serpent is there to show that evil has its own agency, and man's role remains to defeat it.

As for the genre, regardless of which details may be literal, the problem it points out is quite real and not imaginary (that is, our alienation from God and the insufficiency of our own nature for our own happiness). That problem is quite enough for Christ's sacrifice to be necessary and redemptive.

God for creating such feeble species

womantoid

>(Genesis 1;26) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

based & übermenschpilled

Nobody, and the serpent has been wrongfully accused of treachery for centuries. This part of Genesis is about childhood and coming of age.
>Elohim simply wished to protect his children from knowledge of good and evil with a little white lie about the tree
This is not wrong. He was simply being a good parent.
>the serpent simply told the truth about the tree, as it was true that Adam and Eve would not die as a result of eating from it
This is not wrong. He was simply being honest.
>Eve matured first (like how girls typically mature a little before boys, both mentally and physically, or so they say) and tasted the fruit of the tree like all adolescents do
She did nothing wrong. The child becoming independent from the parent at sexual maturity is a natural process.
>Adam followed Eve in breaking from the protection of their Father and becoming an independent adult
He did nothing wrong either.

Attached: 1544794575478.jpg (764x1024, 141K)

It's not a maturity metaphor.

Why not?

Because it’s evident that they are already mature by the time of the temptation. They have received, and understand, the orders to rule creation and multiply. They are able to think critically about what the serpent says. They are God’s viceroys, not his pets, and God has not hidden anything from them, but told them the full truth. Adults are subject to limits- they know their place and have responsibilities, which bracket their freedom.

The temptation is to be other than they are- a false vision of adulthood, grasping in vain after power, giving up true freedom in the process.

Fair enough. Makes a bit more sense than how I see it coming from a non-Christian culture. I am still not sure the serpent did anything wrong, though.