Furthermore, it's a lie negated by a pile of evidence found even just in this thread.
Your pile is the hot, messy and smelly kind. Nothing to back it up that is observable, testable and falsifiable.
OTOH, we have the Garden of Eden and places in the Bible are actual locations.
The Biblical Garden of Eden
Fraud.
I don't see any dinosaurs.
My point was actual locations, so I scored there. The dinosaurs are on the land that stretches out next to the river. There's one that appears to have crawled out of the river, a brachiosaur is nearby and sticking its neck and head out of the trees, pteranodons fly high around the mountain tops and an enormous mastodon behind the tiger on the right. Notice they all live peacefully with one another and humans rule over all animals. This is a 16th century painting, but quite good in depicting the action. Eve looks to be offering the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge as the serpent watches over them. Adam and Eve didn't last very long in paradise. Unfortunately, they could not move the ToK, but they could've moved away from it and lived in the hills. Speaking of the serpent, it represents you and the non-believers that have fallen under Satan's lies and trickery in the form of ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.
You provided nothing in terms of location so you scored nothing. While you won't want to admit it, mankind has grown and learned much since the 16th century.
As to Satan's lies and trickery, that is among the stereotypical nonsense from ID'iot / creationists who have never read the Genesis fable. You should read it. It is the gods who lied. Satan told the truth.
How about I educate you regarding the Bibles you have never taken the time to read.
So, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):
quote:
Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Commentary: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. Are you keeping up so far?
quote:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Commentary: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.
quote:
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
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.
Now we have two questions:
1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are
any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...
Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.
Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to decieve and God by definition is sinless.
Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.
So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.
Onto our second question:
Exactly
who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:
A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God
If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has
not brought it into the world.
If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)
If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.
Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is
not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:
What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, the Gods are all good and all evil at the same time and are completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and the tree was told not to indulge), then man is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient,
must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.
According to the fable you never bothered to read, the gods lied. Satan told the truth. How ironic.
.
