The testimony of truth - The Garden of Eden from the serpent's perspective

[The Canadian Atheist]

Before reading, you must know that there were two different trees, the tree of knowledge, and the tree of eternal life. They both made up God. Some Gnostic texts (like this one) predate the Bible, and the lesson learned in this story is to always question authority. This was later changed in the Christian bible to "Ignorance is bliss: Ignorant slavery is better than dangerous freedom".
According to Genesis 2, Eve was never told by God not to eat from this tree. In the biblical version, as opposed to the Gnostic version, she did not yet exist.
(There is a conflict between Genesis 1:27 and 2:22 as to when Eve came into existence.)
The snake represents gnosis or knowledge (the logos) in nearly all of the ancient mythologies and philosophies. Only in Christianity does the snake appear to mean something evil. When we look at the creation story in the book of Genesis, it is interesting because who lies? Does the serpent lie, or does God lie? The serpent tells Eve (Gen 3:5) " ...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Eve sees (Gen 3:6) "a tree to be desired to make one wise." God tells Adam, who in turn must have told Eve (Gen 2: 17), " .. .for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." She does not die, at least not a physical death. Adam doesn't die either. Neither died in the day of eating the fruit.
Think of the forbidden fruit as the red pill in the Matrix. The reason they chose the serpent is because snake venom was sometimes used for healing: A dangerous bite for the greater good of man.
Exodus 20:5 - You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
This is the story they never told you!
 
The Testimony of Truth
"It is written in the Law concerning this, when God gave a command to Adam, "From every tree you may eat, but from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, for on the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, "On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened." And Eve obeyed, and she stretched forth her hand; she took from the tree and ate; she also gave to her husband with her. And immediately they knew that they were naked, and they took some fig-leaves (and) put them on as girdles. But God came at the time of evening, walking in the midst of Paradise. When Adam saw him, he hid himself. And he said, "Adam, where are you?" He answered (and) said, "I have come under the fig tree." And at that very moment, God knew that he had eaten from the tree of which he had commanded him, "Do not eat of it." And he said to him, "Who is it who has instructed you?" And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me." And the woman said, "It is the serpent who instructed me." And he (God) cursed the serpent, and called him "devil." And he said, "Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good." Then he said, "Let us cast him out of paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
"But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said "Adam, where are you?" God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, "Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger! And what kind of God is this? For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him. And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the children until three (and) four generations." And he said, "I will make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said." But these things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!"

[abdullah]

Lol, Mr Canadian Atheist can you clarify what the point is behind this post?

[Black Muslim]

And your point is ?

[The Canadian Atheist]

And your point is ?

To prove that we're dealing with myth, not history.

[Black Muslim]

OK , time to clear it up . When you want to talk about Islam , DON'T USE THE BIBLE ! Islam=/=Christianity .

[The Canadian Atheist]

OK , time to clear it up . When you want to talk about Islam , DON'T USE THE BIBLE ! Islam=/=Christianity .

The Quran also contains this myth

[abdullah]

Typical atheist behavior. Throws out a claim without even bothering to provide proof. You know what? The only myth is your worldview. Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe. You know what else is a farce evolution, which violates the most fundamental law of thermodynamics. which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms. Which also has no hope in explaining the first cell

[ThatMuslimGuy]

Hey Canadian Atheist. I was an Atheist who converted to Islam. Word of Warning you cannot quote the Bible and expect Islam to match it. You cannot quote the Biblical narrative of the story of Adam as the Quranic one is different.

The clich

[The Canadian Atheist]

Typical atheist behavior. Throws out a claim without even bothering to provide proof. You know what? The only myth is your worldview. Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe. You know what else is a farce evolution, which violates the most fundamental law of thermodynamics. which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms. Which also has no hope in explaining the first cell

What do you need proof of? That the Gnostic texts exist? Go to the museum and see them...
"Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe"
I know, then why do creationists keep claiming that God came out of nothing and then created the universe in six days?
"You know what else is a farce evolution, which violates the most fundamental law of thermodynamics"
The second law of thermodynamics only works on a closed system. Our Earth is driven by various forces, such as energy from the Sun (solar energy, radiation) or the Moon (tides).
Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is violated by creationists, it states that energy can't be created or destroyed.
"which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms."
Transitional fossils. Google it.
"Which also has no hope in explaining the first cell"
RNA -- > DNA -- > Prokaryotes --- > Eukaryotes (via endosymbiosis)
What was so hard to explain? that's fourth grade biology right there.

[abdullah]

What do you need proof of? That the Gnostic texts exist? Go to the museum and see them...

No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist

"Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe"
I know, then why do creationists keep claiming that God came out of nothing and then created the universe in six days?

Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing and we don't claim that the universe was created in six days. 1.It is basic Islamic philosophy that god is eternal and never had a beginning. Look up the Kallam cosmological argument for the existence of god.
2.The word yawm in arabic has two meanings "day" and "any period of time".

The second law of thermodynamics only works on a closed system. Our Earth is driven by various forces, such as energy from the Sun (solar energy, radiation) or the Moon (tides).

Did you seriously think I didn't know you would respond by saying that. We all agree that any valid theory of evolution must explain how it is that life gives rise to low entropy. There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy:

1.Law-like processes (processes that occur in accordance with known physical laws -- gravity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian laws of motion, relativity, etc.). Crystals, planets, mountains etc. are low entropy aggregations created by law-like physical processes.

2.Mind-like processes -- intentionally planned processes, such as machines, architecture, art, etc.

Any valid theory of evolution must incorporate at least one of these two processes if it is to explain the low entropy in living things.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/life_explains_l076791.html#sthash.i1ie41TF.dpuf
Darwinian evolution does not fall under any of two above processes as natural selection is an unguided process with no end in mind.

Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is violated by creationists, it states that energy can't be created or destroyed.

This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural.

"which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms."
Transitional fossils. Google it.

1. I don't think you know what irreducible complexity is. In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical.
2. Did you seriously just cite the fossil record as proof of evolution, it only goes against evolution. Cambrean Period? all them problems it's causing darwinian evolutionists.

RNA -- > DNA -- > Prokaryotes --- > Eukaryotes (via endosymbiosis)
What was so hard to explain? that's fourth grade biology right there.

You didn't even explain the first cell, you just explained the evolution of the cell. I hope you realize this is all theoritical. They have literally zero proof for a cell that can work on RNA alone. Also lets just assume that amino acids can form spontaneously (which they can't btw) It is literally impossibble for the amino acids to randomly combine and form a single RNA that knows how to replicate itself, act as a protein, convert energy,etc.,etc.. Not only that but the "RNA Cell" has another huge flaw.the RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA/protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html#sthash.n2gL6BHu.dpuf

[The Canadian Atheist]

What do you need proof of? That the Gnostic texts exist? Go to the museum and see them...

No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist

"Nothing exploded and became something and then we got this finely tuned beauty called the universe"
I know, then why do creationists keep claiming that God came out of nothing and then created the universe in six days?

Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing and we don't claim that the universe was created in six days. 1.It is basic Islamic philosophy that god is eternal and never had a beginning. Look up the Kallam cosmological argument for the existence of god.
2.The word yawm in arabic has two meanings "day" and "any period of time".

The second law of thermodynamics only works on a closed system. Our Earth is driven by various forces, such as energy from the Sun (solar energy, radiation) or the Moon (tides).

Did you seriously think I didn't know you would respond by saying that. We all agree that any valid theory of evolution must explain how it is that life gives rise to low entropy. There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy:

1.Law-like processes (processes that occur in accordance with known physical laws -- gravity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian laws of motion, relativity, etc.). Crystals, planets, mountains etc. are low entropy aggregations created by law-like physical processes.

2.Mind-like processes -- intentionally planned processes, such as machines, architecture, art, etc.

Any valid theory of evolution must incorporate at least one of these two processes if it is to explain the low entropy in living things.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/life_explains_l076791.html#sthash.i1ie41TF.dpuf
Darwinian evolution does not fall under any of two above processes as natural selection is an unguided process with no end in mind.

Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is violated by creationists, it states that energy can't be created or destroyed.

This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural.

"which also has no hope of explaining irreducible complexity in organisms."
Transitional fossils. Google it.

1. I don't think you know what irreducible complexity is. In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical.
2. Did you seriously just cite the fossil record as proof of evolution, it only goes against evolution. Cambrean Period? all them problems it's causing darwinian evolutionists.

RNA -- > DNA -- > Prokaryotes --- > Eukaryotes (via endosymbiosis)
What was so hard to explain? that's fourth grade biology right there.

You didn't even explain the first cell, you just explained the evolution of the cell. I hope you realize this is all theoritical. They have literally zero proof for a cell that can work on RNA alone. Also lets just assume that amino acids can form spontaneously (which they can't btw) It is literally impossibble for the amino acids to randomly combine and form a single RNA that knows how to replicate itself, act as a protein, convert energy,etc.,etc.. Not only that but the "RNA Cell" has another huge flaw.the RNA world hypothesis can't explain the origin of the genetic code itself. In order to evolve into the DNA/protein-based life that exists today, the RNA world would need to evolve the ability to convert genetic information into proteins. However, this process of transcription and translation requires a large suite of proteins and molecular machines -- which themselves are encoded by genetic information. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html#sthash.n2gL6BHu.dpuf

"No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist"
The burden of proof lies on YOU. You made the claim that they existed, you bring forth the proof. For example, can you prove the invisible pink unicorn does not exist?

"Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing"
Really? Then who created God?

"There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy"
Are you really gonna ignore the Sun?

"This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural."
That is a fundamental law of the universe. Our universe.

"In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical."

God of the gaps fallacy.

Have you heard of Miller's experiment? There is plenty of evidence, you need to start reading the other side too!

No one claimed amino acids formed 'spontaneously'.

By the way, if you apply all this logic to your own Quran, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

What's even more odd is that earlier there was a Muslim on here claiming that there was evolution in the Quran. Yet here you are, disagreeing. Why didn't Allah make it clear: Did evolution happen?
Has the Quran contradicted itself?

As for your rather ancient argument on the Cambrian era:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

[abdullah]

"No I was asking for you for proof that Adam and Eve(peace be upon them both) did not exist. Just because earlier civilization knew of them doesn't mean they didn't exist"
The burden of proof lies on YOU. You made the claim that they existed, you bring forth the proof. For example, can you prove the invisible pink unicorn does not exist?

"Don't put words into our mouths we never claimed that god came out of nothing"
Really? Then who created God?

"There are two, and only two, kinds of processes known to create low entropy"
Are you really gonna ignore the Sun?

"This law only applies to the natural and not the supernatural."
That is a fundamental law of the universe. Our universe.

"In organisms we find organelles of a cell and organs that if you were to take one part away from the organelle/ organ it would render the whole organelle/ organ useless. Therefore the organelle/ organ could not have developed slowly. It  must have appeared in the organism complete in order for it to work. And the chances of that happening via mutation is beyond astronomical."

God of the gaps fallacy.

Have you heard of Miller's experiment? There is plenty of evidence, you need to start reading the other side too!

No one claimed amino acids formed 'spontaneously'.

By the way, if you apply all this logic to your own Quran, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

What's even more odd is that earlier there was a Muslim on here claiming that there was evolution in the Quran. Yet here you are, disagreeing. Why didn't Allah make it clear: Did evolution happen?
Has the Quran contradicted itself?

As for your rather ancient argument on the Cambrian era:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

1. Lets see who made the claim first in order to see who the burden of proof lies on?

The Quran also contains this myth

you wrote this in reference to creation of Adam and Eve

2. Do you not understand basic english, God is eternal he has no beginning and he has no end

3. Sun? You are employing circular reasoning, "evolution is true just because it is and the sun did it." Lulz and since when did the sun become a process?

4. Yes, yes it is. And who might you say created the universe? OUR UNIVERSE?

5. I don't think you understand what the god of the gaps fallacy is. God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
Irreducible complexity is not god of the gaps because it is using KNOWN scientific facts to show intelligent design.

6 Yes, actually I have, and if you actually you studied it you would have known that the materials he used for his early earth where in fact completely different than what geologists think the materials of the early earth were.

7. Read up on Darwin's Doubt and see how the darwinists are scrambling to refute his book.

8. I don't believe the Qur'an supports nor denies evolution, furthermore the only thing I am refuting is Darwinian evolution(random mutations, natural selection, etc.,etc.). I have no stance on god guided evolution.

[The Canadian Atheist]

Yes, Adam and Eve is a creation myth until you can prove that it happened.
But where is the proof?
Atheism is the default position sir.

>> God is eternal he has no beginning and he has no end

Where is the proof? That's a claim. You need to back it up.

Circular reasoning is trying to prove the Quran by using the Quran.

There were many processes to drive evolution, the Sun is just one of them.

You implied that since you didn't know something about evolution, you automatically assumed God did it.

Variations of Miller's experiment have been carried out recently that have been successful. Unlike religion, we don't need to keep justifying the same book. We can change based on observation.

Honestly, people were debating Young Earth Creationism like this not too long ago, most Christians changed their bible to fit evolution,  Muslims are starting to doing it too.
"I don't believe the Qur'an supports nor denies evolution"
So the Quran is agnostic? Great.

You're refuting what? Natural selection? Dude, natural selection is a fact...

[abdullah]

At this point I see no point of carrying on our discussion good bye sir

[Black Muslim]

The Quran also contains this myth

Sure , and melons are tornadoes hitting the tropical areas !

What do you need proof of? That the Gnostic texts exist? Go to the museum and see them...

A miserable failing bluff . Until you prove it's the same in Quran , your words are all trash .

I know, then why do creationists keep claiming that God came out of nothing and then created the universe in six days?

Have not I said that your ignorance will show in every single line you say about Islam ?! We don't believe Allah came from nothing . We believe he exists since ever . He's a creator , he wasn't created ! To say that the creator is created is nonsense ! As for the days , I suppose that "Golden days" are a few ? And before creating Earth , how was a day counted ? That means the mentioned days are periods of time .

Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is violated by creationists, it states that energy can't be created or destroyed.

And you think that the one who put this law is limited by it ? I might get a headache of facepalming .

Transitional fossils. Google it.

Peltdown and Nibraska men . Google them . By the way , the latter is a tooth of a pig .

RNA -- > DNA -- > Prokaryotes --- > Eukaryotes (via endosymbiosis)

Good , did you see that process ? I think not ?

The burden of proof lies on YOU. You made the claim that they existed, you bring forth the proof. For example, can you prove the invisible pink unicorn does not exist?

It seems you have difficulties understanding the unseen in Islam . Allah tells us that there are creatures called angels which are created out of light . We believe in that . Do we need to see them with telescopes or microscopes ? No we don't . It's a matter of belief . And because I know you'll jump the gun and say "Hey , the Muslim admits that he believes blindly !" I'll burst your bubble . I said it's a matter of belief that is based on believing in the whole religion which is in turn based on rational evidence . If we believe in religion , we believe in what it says even if we can't see it with our own eyes .

Really? Then who created God?

I think the whole world facepalmed to this ? For the thousand time : Allah isn't created ! He is the creator ! The creator can't be created !

Have you heard of Miller's experiment? There is plenty of evidence, you need to start reading the other side too!

Look who's talking . The few things I read about this experiment - of the "other side" - say that it was a failure because it didn't match the primitive atmosphere of Earth .

By the way, if you apply all this logic to your own Quran, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Come at us , bro .

What's even more odd is that earlier there was a Muslim on here claiming that there was evolution in the Quran. Yet here you are, disagreeing. Why didn't Allah make it clear: Did evolution happen?
Has the Quran contradicted itself?

Atheists are the last to talk about differences between sects of a religion . They're the only group that doesn't agree on anything at all - besides the madness of "there is no God" - and each individual within it acts however he bloody wants . When you tell them that Dawkins says sex with immature children is ok - And if you bring the marriage to lady Aisha then be ready to get shocked - they say "Dawkins doesn't represent Atheism . What matters is evidence . So if someone decides to oppose completely what the entire nation believed for centuries than that is his own business .

Atheism is the default position sir.

Wrong . Atheism is a demonstration of emotional issues . First they take Atheism as a belief and then look for whatever supports it no matter how absurd it is .

Where is the proof? That's a claim. You need to back it up.

When you need to discuss the basic establishments of logic , you should know that there is no point in talking with such a person .

Circular reasoning is trying to prove the Quran by using the Quran.

You really need to get out of this lala world where you live . Quran is true because of rational and observable evidence .

Variations of Miller's experiment have been carried out recently that have been successful. Unlike religion, we don't need to keep justifying the same book. We can change based on observation.

In your happy dreams ! Maybe Christians need to justify their book . We on the other hand prove YOU wrong and show the error of your ways .

Honestly, people were debating Young Earth Creationism like this not too long ago, most Christians changed their bible to fit evolution,  Muslims are starting to doing it too.

I don't care if some individuals choose the easy way and decide to contradict their book . I don't know what you call this fallacy but it's simply trying to prove something right through saying "People believe it , so it must be right !" .

So the Quran is agnostic? Great.

It seems the man - AGAIN - knows nothing about the differences among people of a religion which don't mean necessary that one is wrong . But no , Quran tells us of creation and Hadith backs it up and makes no room for doubt . End of the story .

You're refuting what? Natural selection? Dude, natural selection is a fact...

Sure , as in that the good characteristics remain . But did a dinosaur become a bird ? Did a bear become a whale ? Did a deer become a giraffe ? Good luck finding one example .