Of course, you are right. There’s nothing ungrammatical about a double negative that has the meaning of a positive.
My question can still be asked even with the positive:
A double negative that emphasizes a positive is called a litote.
Awesome sauce!!! 
*To all: This will be my last post for a while because my next semester of college has begun. I am pursuing a Certification in Technical Writing. Please know that I have much enjoyed our interactions during this Christmas break and I thank all of you for the challenges you brought to me. Responsibilities kept me busy and I could not reply as much as I wished, nor to everyone I wished, but I did gain a lot to contemplate as I read through everyone’s replies - and I read everyone’s replies. I thank all of you for the splendid experience! I’ll be hoping to type some more during Spring Break.
Keep on being good to each other!
In the name of our Saviour, Jesus, The [size=85]LORD[/size], I am,
Dennis!*
Hey, Steve!
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, indeed we do learn to be good by having to suffer consequences for the wrong choices we make, what you called contrast.
Well, most of us can, anyway.
And yes, if any one of us gets to have everything their heart’s desire, without the hardship necessary to acquire his or her desire, a human being is made who causes a lot of other human beings to experience Pain and Suffering, to experience Evil.
Of these, whether child or adult, we say: “They can get away with murder.”
And isn’t murder the definite evil that any one of us can inflict on another?
So, why do we know that murder is the definite Evil one human being can inflict on another?
Because we have a conscience.
From where, then, or how, did we get this conscience - this knowledge of the difference between good and evil?
And, for having this conscience, why are we unable to realize the ideal that this knowledge of the difference between good and evil creates in us?
Shouldn’t our conscience be able to regulate our interactions with others? Indeed, what is the purpose of a conscience if there are no other human beings to interact with? And, isn’t it true that, for many of us, our conscience does regulate our interactions with others, however imperfectly, so that we don’t cause too much Pain and Suffering, that is to say, Evil?
And isn’t it true that as we grow into our sentience - into a being who is self-aware, capable of communicating with language and able to comprehend abstracts such as love and beauty, hatred and vengeance - that we loose our innocence?
Do you agree that our conscience is what regulates our behavior as we interact with others?
Do you agree that, as we grow into sentience, we loose our innocence because we have a conscience passed on to us?
If so, then how did we come to be the kind of people we are; the kind of people who know of the difference between good and evil, and yet are unable to realize the ideals this creates in us?
The answer I found is in Genesis.
The first two human beings were different from us in several unique ways, for one they didn’t have belly buttons!
For another they were sentient and they were innocent - if we define innocence as not knowing of the difference between good and evil.
In other words they didn’t have a conscience. That is why we say that they were truly innocent.
Can you imagine being a human being who is sentient, but yet innocent?
No, I can’t either.
So, if it is proper to define our conscience as our knowledge of the difference between good and evil, could we not call that unusual tree with the similar name - the one they were forbidden to eat from - the tree of conscience?
Think about it.
Now, we know that something radical changed in the first two when they ate the fruit of this tree, and we note that they did not immediately die a physical death, as Ishsha believed they would if they even touched its fruit. So, physical death cannot mean what Jehovah Elohim meant when He said, “In the day you eat of it, in dying, you will die.”
Instead, their eyes were opened (a euphemism for being made aware) and the words of The Nacash came true when they became “wise,” like the elohim.
So, given the report of what happened after they ate the fruit, and given that we can rightly call the tree that produced the fruit, the tree of conscience, it is logical to conclude that it was the fruit that either activated or infused a conscience in them. Thus, I have concluded that they were not created with a conscience either in them, or activated in them.
In other words, they were created to be simultaneously sentient and innocent.
So, if this logic accurately reflects the reality of that time, the question that needs to be answered is why did Jehovah Elohim do all this, why did He go through all this trouble?
That was the pondering of many a year, until I realized that there is a link between virtue and righteousness.
Righteousness is simply doing what is right, when given a choice to do what is wrong. So, to be righteous, you have to first know of the difference between what is right and what is wrong to do.
Virtue, then, is choosing righteousness, consistently.
That is why we say that Jehovah is virtuous, that He is good, exactly because we believe that He knows of the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and He always does what is right and good to do.
Now, it seems pretty obvious that the command not to eat from the tree of conscience is some kind of set up.
If the Calvinist are right, and Jehovah knew, as a fact, that the first human beings were going to turn before He created them, then the closest thing we can compare His actions to is a sting operation.
This set-up, then, must have been intended to entrap them and make them fall.
Just like a DA, with the fore-knowledge that a person is a drug dealer, can set up a situation that will result in the drug dealer being caught doing what he is prone to do, buy and sell illegal drugs, despite the drug dealer knowing that, “the command,” is that he should not buy and sell illegal drugs.
This means, logically, that if Jehovah knew of their fall as a fact before He created them, then the first two of us were no more free to choose than the drug dealer would be free to choose, even for being aware that he will pay a steep price for disobeying the command.
So, Augustine of Hippo was right to conclude that the fall came within the first thirty minutes of their creation. “Get on with it, already!”
Have you ever thought of their fall this way? What rebuttal can be brought against this way of thinking?
Still, the command was given to innocent human beings, and that is where the above analogy takes a serious turn.
Now, I had already concluded from my studies that Jehovah Elohim could not possibly have known, as a fact, that the first two were going to turn before He created them.
This, then, is where possibility comes into play, for either they would choose to trust Jehovah when tested and resist The Nacash’s words or they would not. Either choice then puts into play the direction of our future.
I say this because I have come to perceive that omniscience is not knowing everything, rather it is knowing every thing that is knowable.
What could not be known, then, is the choice these two would make between trust and distrust for being both sentient and innocent.
Trust. That was all that was required of them. And Isn’t that what everything with which we have to do with our Creator is all about?
So, if Jehovah did not fore-know their fall as a fact, then the command creates a set up - not to fail - but to succeed.
That is why I call their failure, The Turning, because that is what they did. They turned from Jehovah because, at the least Ishsha, if not Ish as well, had come to believe that Jehovah was, “holding out on them.” After all, they had been in the garden for quite some time by now, witnessing the times when the Divine Council met on earth, in the garden - for The Nacash was an elohim.
This is how I have come to see this historic scene in my mind’s eye
One day, The Nacash walks up to Ish and Ishsha with a sense of purpose. Now, for being an elohim and possibly being on Jehovah’s Divine Council, it may have been that Ish and Ishsha were acquainted with It. It then asks a question that sounds like It is asking them for clarification, as if It had heard something odd. “Indeed! Is it true that you are allowed to eat the fruit from every tree in the garden?” Ishsha then replies with what she thinks is a correction to The Nacash’s question, "We may eat from every tree in the garden, except from the tree in the middle of the garden; from that tree Elohim has said that we may not eat it, nor are we allowed to even touch it, or we will die. The Nacash then replies with a pleased question of both surprise and acknowledgment. “Not, ‘in dying you will die?’” (Which was the exact phrase Jehovah Elohim spoke). It then quickly strikes at the heart of the distrust It heard in her reply and said, “It is that Elohim knows that when you eat of it, you will become aware and be wise like all the elohim.”
These words spoken, they part company.
After consideration of these words, she and Ish wandered over and lingered around the tree, just looking at it. Suddenly, Ishsha, overcoming her fear by believing her own distrust in Jehovah Elohim, a distrust fueled to flame by the words of The Nacash, reaches up, tears off a fruit and bites into it. Standing there, chewing it and not dropping down dead for having both touched it and biting into it, she finishes her bite and swallows. Then, she takes another as she holds the rest of the fruit out to Ish while still chewing. Ish takes it and watches as Ishsha swallows the second bite. She is still standing upright, imploring him with her eyes and a satisfied smile to join with her. He then eats of it and, swallowing the bite, he takes another, feeling his love for her overcoming his own fears and fueling his own distrust. Then, as they are eating, they begin to feel something happening inside of them. They feel awareness dawning on them and they know, now, why Jehovah Elohim told them not to eat from it. But, it’s too late, for they now know why they can’t go back: the change is permanent and they know it because now they know of the difference between good and evil. However, it is not pleasant to feel these new feelings dawning in them because they are uncomfortable feelings that will come to be called guilt and shame. They look at each other and they see that each is no longer wearing a covering of light, a covering of glory that emanated from within. They see that they are naked. As they look with shock on the revealing of each other, there is a powerful new feeling rising - and, reaching down, they cover their genitals with their hands.
Soon enough, they come to sew fig leaves together to form a girdle they can wear around their waists. Their sexuality was never the same again.
(This idea of a covering of glory is borrowed from Jewish tradition: it has its basis only in that tradition and in the fact that celestial beings effuse light.)
But, what if they had resisted, what if they had decided to trust Jehovah?
First of all, it had to be a very real possibility that they could have turned away and not have eaten. To that possibility, this is what I have to offer concerning why Jehovah did things this way.
Remember, I wrote about virtue that it requires the virtuous one to have the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. But, virtue requires something else, also. That something else is a temptation to not choose righteousness. In other words, virtue that is not tested is not virtue because without the temptation to choose wrongly, virtue cannot be demonstrated!
And that is the key to understanding why Jehovah did things the way he did - He was giving the first two human beings a chance to acquire virtue, first, before they acquired a conscience!
Therefore, they must have had a very real ability to choose to retain trust in Jehovah, rather than harboring the notion that Jehovah was untrustworthy, that He was withholding something of value from them.
Then, after the temptation, as they walked and talked with Jehovah, telling Him of their adventure, Jehovah would have given them permission to eat from that tree! Their trust in Him would have produced a different effect in them as the fruit did what it was created to do, because now it would be mingled with trust and joy for their having passed the time of testing, thus acquiring virtue!
And the Tree of Life would continue to serve them well as the regenerative properties of its twelve fruits kept them, and all those who would follow, healthy and vibrant for the eons of time.
And the world would be a better place as Jehovah enabled Ishsha to conceive. Her new name, Chava, "Mother of the Living, would be a name associated with celebrations of joy, instead of being associated with pain and sorrow, as she brought forth human beings who knew of the difference between right and wrong and always did what was right for having a powerful conscience that led them to be virtuous; human beings who could interact with each other to the benefit of all; human beings who did not inflict Pain and Suffering ; human beings who would be complete, even as their Father in heaven is complete.
Human beings dwelling on an Earth that was not hostile to them; an Earth that did not provide its own Pain and Suffering; an Earth that was not sacrificed to their redemption; an Earth that provided everything any would ever needed to live fulfilled lives of creativity and adventure into ages and ages of time.
One more thing to ponder concerning the Tree of Life. If Jehovah knew of their turning as a fact before He created them, then the creation of this tree is a superfluous act of creation at best, and a deliberately misleading act at worst, because, for His knowing as a fact of their turning, He would also know that He would have to ban them from eating its fruits! So, why create it in the first place, unless He always intended for them to have access to it? This idea then makes the creation of this tree an act of optimism that their trust in Him would prevail! Thus, it is indicated that He could not have fore-known their turning when He created them, exactly because He created this tree alongside the other one.
[size=150]~[/size]
John wrote that Jesus came to annul the work of the Adversary.
Jehovah’s plan then, from that time when the world He intended for us to know was disrupted, right on into this age, is to restore each and every one of us, one by one, either in this age, or after death, to be what we were always intended to be completed, and therefore, good.
And that is why I say, “Be good!”
It is, after all, what you were created to be!
Dennis!
Awesome sauce??? I’ve never heard of that expression before, but I like it, Steve!! 
Paidion, Steve and I were discussing whether or not Adam and Eve had a conscience before they sinned. I believe they had one. However, Steve disagrees. So we have agreed to disagree. 
I found this short article, that sides with Steve:
Did Adam have a conscience before the fall?
Again, much depends on definitions - as I have hammered away at here. Let’s view the short answer and commentary:
I really like this professor (R. C. Sproul) , talking on evil and suffering. Dry as dust, like reading Aristotle…But full of good points and methodologies. He’s also a very good speaker and entertaining. Am I the only one, who heard the whole talk 
http://sunsetchristianradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/APPROVED-LOGO.png
There are “good” answers and “answers that come close”, to the problem of evil and suffering, Davo. They are both from historical and contemporary perspectives, by professional theologians and philosophers. I’m sure someone of your caliber, would pick one of these “good” answers. We will have to wait for the “DEFINITIVE” answer, when God reveals it to everyone. The good answers are like picking 5 (out of 6 numbers), in a big lottery drawing. The “DEFINITIVE” answer, is having all 6 winning numbers. 
And some answers (not named and perhaps given on this forum). reflect the good professor’s (R. C. Sproul) dad’s words. 
I have only begun to read it, but already, I agree with the main thesis—that God is WHOLLY GOOD, and in Him is no darkness at all. That has been my position now for decades. I am also inclined to accept his thesis that God is omnipotent only in that which does not conflict with His character (as well as that which is contradictory such as His inability to create a stone so large that He cannot lift it).
That God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) is a Biblical example of His inability to do that which is in conflict with His character. Thus Murray believes being cruel, coercive, destructive, and deceptive is contrary to God’s character, and therefore He cannot act in those ways. I am beginning to think that Murray is right about this. So Murray seems to believe that “the problem of evil” (Why does God allow the millions of atrocities that are constantly occurring?) is that God DOESN’T allow them in any sense of “allow.” The reason He does nothing to stop them is that he CANNOT stop them. Doing so would require coercion, and that is contrary to God’s character. This is the first satisfactory answer to the problem of evil that I have ever encountered.
There are some concepts that Murray brings up with which I disagree, but I am excited about his justification of his main thesis. Some people are violently opposed to this thesis. I presented it on another forum, and I was asked by the creator of the forum why Murray and I don’t write our own bible and instigate a new religion.
The reason He does nothing to stop them is that he CANNOT stop them. Doing so would require coercion, and that is contrary to God’s character. This is the first satisfactory answer to the problem of evil that I have ever encountered.
If a plane flying over the ocean suddenly has all of it’s engines stall and it hurdles toward the ocean, how would God’s intervention to save everyone be coercion?
Qaz - I’ve read a number of compelling arguments re: the O.T. cherem and whether God commanded it and referenced them on this forum, I’ll try to find them and link to them.
A good starting point is Bob Wilson’s very good paper 'Reading the Bible like Jesus Did". Here is an excerpt:
Using Violence (a major reversal) In the O.T., a common way to deal with evil people was to kill them. This was commanded for a rebel child, a sexual sin, doing Saturday work, etc. Even a spouse or a child teaching false ideas must be assassinated (Deut 13:6-11; 17:2-7; 18:20; 21:18-21; 22:22-4; Lev 20:9-13; 24:10-23; 27:29; Ex
31:12-17; 22:20; 2Kgs 2:23f; 23:30).
Violence & ethnic cleansing were also a key in delivering Israel from her pagan enemies. Being “holy” required, “Show them no mercy… kill everything that breathes… women, children, and infants.” Such calls for “vengeance” implied, “Blessed is the man who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” A variation was, “Kill all the boys, but (as war’s “spoils,”) save every virgin girl for yourselves!”
(Dt 7:1f,6; 20:14-18; 2:34f; 3:6; 1Sam 15:3; 27:9; Jos 6:20f; 8:24f; 10:28-40; 11:11-20; Ps 137:8f; Num 31:17f,27; 2Chr 15:13; Nahum)
Believing God had typically brought victory by violence, Jews must expect the Messiah, as a king like David, who had many military exploits (2Sam 7), would again “rescue us from the hand of our enemies” by slaughtering their Gentile oppressors (Lk 1:74). But Jesus boldly rejects the devout’s reading that God had promised to again show Israel belongs to Him, by violently conquering their pagan enemies (Jesus looks to non-violent texts: Ezek 45:9; Hos 2:18; 4:2f; 5:2; 10:13; Isa 1:15; 2:4; 9:5; 11:6-9; Mic 4:1-4; Zech 9:9f; Ps 46:9; Job 16:17).
Jesus never calls his followers to kill, but to renounce violence and repayment. He warns that violating his “path of peace” only leads to future destruction. For those “who draw the sword will die by it.” So when his men use a weapon, or cite Elijah’s way to “destroy” God’s enemies by fire, he rebukes it. He also explains that “clubs” were not needed to capture him. Because, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight… but my kingdom is not” (Lk 1:79; 19:41-4; 9:51-56; Mt 26:51-56; Jn 18:36; cf 1Kgs 18:38-40;
2Kgs 1:10; Num 16:28-35).
He defined his mission by quoting Isaiah 61’s “setting free the oppressed” (Lk 4:16-30). But he eliminates the line Jews loved: another “day of God’s vengeance” on Israel’s oppressors. And he sensed this twist means, he won’t be “accepted as a prophet.” So, he seals their anger by adding that he will copy Elijah in healing hated enemies such as Nathan, a pagan general. Similarly, when John the Baptist stumbles because Jesus did not free him from their enemies, he cites his healings as fulfilling his view of Messiah
(Lk 7:22f; Cf Isa 35:5f & Jonah). For Jesus had radically redefined what it means for God’s Davidic King to win the battle that frees us from evil. Jesus’ Last Supper identifies him with Passover’s theme of liberation. But he ignores the Exodus victory’s reliance upon killing enemy nations. For the enemy that needs to be overcome is sin and the devil. Thus, he reveals that God’s true way to do this, is not as a warrior-king who sheds his enemies’ blood, but as a Servant who absorbs and defeats evil by letting his own blood be shed.
Indeed, Jesus’ way reverses Israel’s interpretation. The key to overcoming our enemies is love & mercy that returns good for evil. For imitating “God who is merciful” requires being “kind to the wicked” just like God! So, “Love your enemies so that you may be children of your Father.” For “peacemakers” are God’s true children, and it’s “the meek who will inherit the earth.” Indeed, Jesus’ only action toward the “Canaanites,” that Israel had tried to annihilate, was to “grant mercy” (Lk 6:27-35; Mt 5:5-9,38-48; 15:21-28; 10:38).
“Losing our life to save it” can mean, “Do not resist evil,” but “turn the other cheek.” It will mean no more “eye for an eye,” but “forgive everyone who sins against us.” For “Even pagans love those who love them.” But God’s way means the test is to “love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you.” For what looks like a way of loss is actually the way to “overcome evil with good” (Lk 9:23f; 11:4; Rom 12:21).
[tag]Bob Wilson[/tag]
Allow me to repost a pertinent post:
"Thus says the LORD of hosts: “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (I Samuel 15:2-3, spoken by Samuel to King Saul)
If you read the rest of the chapter, you will see that Saul fulfilled this command, except that he spared some animals and the Amalekite king, Agag. Saul “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (verse 8). Shortly thereafter, the prophet Samuel himself killed Agag (verse 33).
So I guess there were no more Amalekites left in the world after Saul and Samuel finished their job, right?
Wrong.
About 15 to 20 years later (according to some timelines I consulted), David went to war with the Amalekites (as recounted in I Samuel 30). David defeated them, and of the Amalekites “not a man escaped, except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled” (verse 17).
Umm…
How can we go from ZERO Amalekites to well over 400 Amalekites in two decades or less? I know where Amalekite babies come from, and so do you. Amalekite babies require Amalekite parents! But there weren’t any Amalekites at all, because they were all slain by Saul and Samuel, right?
Wrong.
We have here biblical proof that the language which, when literally understood, sounds like genocide, means anything but. Whatever Saul did, he left enough Amalekites alive that less than 20 years later 400 of them ran away from David.
We have here an example of an idiom. When God told the Israelites to kill all the men, women, and children, nobody at the time interpreted it literally. (Similarly, I’ve heard many Americans talk about “bombing such-and-so back to the Stone Age”, though nobody understands that literally.)
So next time someone is troubled about God commanding genocide in the Old Testament, you can assure him that God never did any such thing. He merely used language which has been ignorantly interpreted in a literal manner not intended. Can you imagine what people speaking a language yet unborn 3,000 years from now are going to make of our American documents that speak of “bombing X back to the Stone Age”? They’ll make a hash of it, even as we have of God’s supposedly genocidal commands.
It’s ridiculous. We grossly distort the Bible, then blame God for commanding something (i. e., genocide) that He never commanded.
Who’s saying that God’s intervention WOULD be coercion? Not Richard Murray and not I. I have not said that God cannot save a believer from harm regardless of Steve Gregg’s false accusation that I have. I was mistaken, however, in saying in the above post and also on the other forum that Richard Murray’s explanation solves the problem of evil. I should have said “partially solves the problem of evil.”
Murray has strongly affirmed that God is completely good, that in Him is not darkness at all, that He does not violate people in any way, does not coerce them, does not kill them, etc. Here is how Murray explains why it is written in the Old Testament that He did such evil things:
qaz wrote:
I wonder if Murray has a theory on the verses that say God commanded Israel to slaughter children and infants. I have a hard time accepting the idea that God actually did, but I’ve yet to read a compelling theory that explains how these verses ended up in the Bible if God didn’t in fact command these slaughters.
In his book “Don’t blame God” John Schoenheit gives examples of how the OT writers used certain literary devices like “metonymy.” The White House decided that dogs s/b granted the right to vote! Obviously the White House is a building but this method of substituting one noun for another is a common device OT writers used in relation to God and Satan according to this book,
Awesome sauce??? I’ve never heard of that expression before, but I like it, Steve!!
LLC, It’s a teenage girl expression but if the shoe fits i’ll wear it!
Steve7150 wrote:
If a plane flying over the ocean suddenly has all of it’s engines stall and it hurdles toward the ocean, how would God’s intervention to save everyone be coercion?
Who’s saying that God’s intervention WOULD be coercion? Not Richard Murray and not I. I have not said that God cannot save a believer from harm regardless of Steve Gregg’s false accusation that I have. I was mistaken, however, in saying in the above post and also on the other forum that Richard Murray’s explanation solves the problem of evil. I should have said “partially solves the problem of evil.”
OK Paidion so why then wouldn’t God intervene and save the folks on the plane? I don’t see any free will issue, do you?
It was not meant to support the non-violent God hypothesis (unless possibly indirectly). It was meant to support the progressive revelation of God’s character and purpose. The earlier Hebrew view was that Satan was an agent of God who couldn’t act without God’s permission, and so when Satan acted violently, it was considered tantamount to God acting violently. But many years later when 1 Chronicles was written, and right through to New Testament times, Satan was considered to act independently and in opposition to God.
So in earlier Hebrew times, when Satan brought about an evil, it was said that God brought it about, since it was believed to amount to the same thing since God “allowed” Satan to do it, supposedly for a higher purpose. But Richard Murray believes that God doesn’t “allow” evil in any sense of the word. The most effective way to understand Murray’s position is to read his book.
One more thing to ponder concerning the Tree of Life. If Jehovah knew of their turning as a fact before He created them, then the creation of this tree is a superfluous act of creation at best, and a deliberately misleading act at worst, because, for His knowing as a fact of their turning, He would also know that He would have to ban them from eating its fruits! So, why create it in the first place, unless He always intended for them to have access to it? This idea then makes the creation of this tree an act of optimism that their trust in Him would prevail! Thus, it is indicated that He could not have fore-known their turning when He created them, exactly because He created this tree alongside the other one.
Eli,
Putting aside a couple of references that Jesus sacrifice was pre-ordained before the foundation of the world and granting that “Open Theism” is true i find it hard to believe God had no idea what would happen. Additionally why not just forgive them, why curse Eve, why curse the ground with thorns and thistles, why appoint Adam as our representative and in effect punish us for Adam’s transgression? We are told we need to be more then conquerors, we need to be overcomers, we need to put on the full armour of God. So it sounds to me like we sorta want Heaven on earth right now but God himself has decided we need to develop our spiritual muscles by overcoming evil. To overcome evil it has to exist in this age. Not a popular message but to me it seems to line up with reality and with scripture better then any other idea.
Just came across this sentence in Richard Murray’s book:
.
Here are my thoughts. I believe God did intend them to eventually eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil—but not while they were immature. That is the reason He forbade it. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with knowing the difference between good and evil. In fact the writer to the Hebrews indicates that it’s a sign of maturity:
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)
God God never forbade them from eating from the Tree of Life, but there is no evidence that they ever did so. My thought is that God wanted them to mature through receiving life from that Tree.
But the Serpent wanted them to do it the other way around; eat right away from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s not always with bad things with which Satan tempts people, but He often tempts them to use good things in the wrong way—money, sex, food, etc.They acted according to the Serpent’s suggestion and ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil , but were not mature enough to handle that knowledge. They were mature physically, but not mentally and emotionally. So God drove them out of the Garden, and prevented them from returning so that they would not eat from the Tree of Life and perpetuate their lives in their fallen condition.