Genesis 3:5 -- When Eve explains to the talking serpent that she cannot eat the fruit of the tree of life lest she will die, the serpent replies:

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be open and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

My question is: Gods?? Really?

There was more than one God? And these gods knew the difference between good and evil? And then Adam and Eve eat the fruit and realize they are naked and are ashamed.

The form in which God created man is somehow shameful and evil? What the hell is that about?

The Catholic interpretation would be Symbolic.. God is showing how the Devil and evil can tempt man. The greatest temptation is pride and the Devil is saying to Eve you will become Gods if you disobey God. Whether God would ever give this power to the Devil is debatable but many men h believe they were Gods. Many Roman Emperors, Napoleon, Hitler and even some modern man. People today may not call themselves Gods but they assume they have the same power as we attribute to God.

Hi Dax:

You are asking questions which I am asking.

Here is one detail that concerns your questions. Consider this comparison of ...

Gen 3:5 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. (KJV)
... with ...
Gen 3:5 given that Elohiym [Powers] is knowing that in the day you eat from him then your eyes will be opened up and you will exist like Elohiym [Powers] knowing function and dysfunction, (AHRC-RMT)

Notice that in the KJV where "God" is rendered from the Hebrew word, "Elohiym", and that "gods" is also rendered from "Elohiym". WHY??? is the KJV making the Hebrew word 'Elohyim', which is plural, singular in one instance and then plural in another?

The AHRC (Ancient Hebrew Research Center) renders "Elohiym" into English as "Powers", plural, in both instances. I suggest that the KJV is rendered that way because of the doctrines of men. Which then would be the better way to read it; according to doctrinal influences or according to the original (as far as we can tell) ancient Hebrew words that were written?

I tend to side with the "Powers" reading or, as in the (sometimes)KJV vernacular, 'gods'.

But also compare ...

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)
... with ...
Gen 1:1 in the summit Elohiym [Powers] fattened the sky and the land, (AHRC-RMT)

So some so-called "God" did not create heaven and earth in this verse. Instead the "Powers" ('gods', plural) filled the celestials and the land. Again, WHY have religious organizations been teaching otherwise and sanctioning books that support their dogma rather than the original words?

You are also referring to ...

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (KJV)

Well, in this case the ancient Hebrew research carried on by another group (The Chronicles Project) has been quite an eye opener. ...

v5 The supreme ones know this. As so, amid the day you consume that being from (the tree) you will have flow to your mind
(the ability) to examine things in detailand increased to the level of these supreme ones, so to have the knowledge which produces satisfaction and fear
(TCP-Chapter 2 Paraphrased Version)

So the Hebrew does not make this necessarily a moral issue like the KJV English rendering "good and evil" makes it seem but rather one of having certain knowledge about this living existence in terms of living in abundance or living in the fear of hardship and death.

Up until this point in time Adam and Eve were instructed in only those things that produced satisfaction. One of the 'gods' changed that ...

v1 To add (to the Earth) the overseer of the creation arrived to set at large everything developed to represent the field **, that Ruler of all supreme ones had made. And this is what he spoke to cause the woman to respond. "Supreme ones have declared that you should not consume anything from the trees of the enclosed area".
v2 And the woman proceeded to declare in response to the overseer of the creation, "Fruit of the trees of the enclosed area are there to consume.
v3 And that fruit amid the tree to develop, in the middle (of) the enclosed area, the supreme ones declared do not proceed to consume being that taken from it. And do not to proceed to touch it, with the intentions of proceeding to transfigure"
v4 And so to declare the overseer of the creation to cause the woman to react,"You won't die if (you) proceed to transfigure”.
(TCP-Chapter 2 Paraphrased Version)
** translators' foot note
2. To open being those to let loose all of the field animals.
Translated cunning or devious, it is the same word that was rendered naked regarding Adam and eve. Both are
incorrect unless you would translate...and the serpent was the most NAKED of all

note by DCInC - The "the overseer of the creation" rendering by TCP comes from the Hebrew word that the KJV renders as "the serpent was more subtil". WHY such a difference? Doctrinal pressures perhaps?

So what about the other 'naked' reference? ...

v6 And the woman as so was satisfied (with the information) that she should consume from the tree so to proceed to perceive. And as so to proceed to (the place of) sights, desiring the recognized tree and she therefore coveted the tree. To the tree (she) reach out to and proceeded to refill (her hand) with that fruit and proceeded to eat. And then (she) proceeded to hand it to (her) husband beside (her) and so he consumed it.
v7 And (then) was added (the ability) to examine things in detail which flowed (to them) to open their eyes on how to change them(selves) was added to (their) knowledge how they could become as the Watchers (supreme ones). And so to proceed to break forth being, (they) proceeded to set it in motion to ascend and so to be finishing by it engulfing them.
v8 Then they heard the voice of Ruler of all the supreme ones join (them), that (voice) to proceed a walk amid enclosed area, for the purpose of assessing the day. And so to proceed the Adam and wife being, to hide in the middle tree of the
enclosed area so as to not have to face Ruler of all the supreme ones.
v9 And so to call Ruler of all supreme ones to respond the Adam and (he) said to (him) "where (are you)?".
v10 And the Adam called back,"To join (us), come away from those with you . Follow my voice to the middle of the garden. (I should) add I have begun to radiate, as so I have begun to become equal to the watchers.
v11 And so to declare (Ruler),"(Who) persuaded your (wife) to select that derived from the tree to develop, as (you) have become a watcher through (him). (He now) remains your commander, (to him) you remain devoted. By consuming (from him) that to derive being, (you must now) continue to consume
(TCP-Chapter 2 Paraphrased Version)

Anything there about being unclothed?

Instead, it seems that Adam and Eve were ACTUALLY transformed into a different level of existence, similar to the (sometimes) KJV 'gods'. How could religious organizations ever sell that concept to their laity? 'Nakedness' seems a more plausible explanation in terms of what we know of our physical existence.

The question that arises from your answer is Why did God or gods put the tree there in the first place if it was not to be eaten? Do loving parents put a bottle of ammonia within reach of their child and then punish the child for tasting it? God is supposed to love mankind more than anything, yet the book of Genesis is loaded with references to God being angry, destroying his creations, punishing not only man but all the livestock on earth (except for Noah's) because of man's screwups. Honestly, the Biblical God of the OT is so like an angry, frustrated redneck father, with his over-sensitive violence and rage. Not a God I care to even think about worshiping.

Hi Dax:

The 'gods' put it there for only the gods to 'eat' from. It was also put there so that the humans would be able to learn what it would take to become 'gods' of a higher level, like the 'gods' who formed them. That could only happen if humans would knowingly accept the responsibility of acting only righteously if made capable of living forever. The stories that follow the happenings in the garden throughout the scriptures give much of the insights into that process of understanding what righteousness is all about and it relates to eternal life.

Hardly. But from time to time you read a newspaper story about how some so-called parents cause great harm to their kids for no good reason causing the child all kinds of grief up to and including death.

A number of the 'gods' are like that. satan, for example. So when the Hebrew term 'elohim' is inappropriately rendered as 'God' instead of 'gods' in many instances the English Bibles make it look like 'God' is the meanie whereas it is actually the 'gods' that are doing such things.

Plus there are a number of irregularities of translation causing this apparent problem of a mean old 'God' in the OT. I've mentioned various ones in other threads and get into bit of that below.

Your example about Noah is one of those instances where it looks like 'God' is doing the "destroying" if you believe the English translations, but is that the case when one actually digs deeper into the original language?

Consider this 'God/gods' example regarding the story of Noah ...
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (KJV) (emphasis y DCInC)
... when compared to ...
v3 And those of the Earth were defiant to the ways of the supreme ones and violence (and war) was ongoing on the Earth.
v4 And the supreme ones who accompanied the Earth, observed the corruption, which was causing the destruction of all of the flesh that walked upon the Earth
v5 And the supreme ones advised Nakha that the end of all flesh was upon them because of the violence. This would come upon men and the fallen ones who had destroyed the Earth. (The Chronicles Project (TCP) - Paraphrased Version - Book 4 - Chapter 1) (emphasis by DCInC)

I have emphasized where the Hebrew 'elohim' (mighty ones) occurs with boldened font to point out the differences. The KJV makes it sound like one 'God' where the TCP describes numerous "supreme ones".

But what else is going on here? It ISN'T the 'mighty ones' destroying the earth either according to TCP. The giants, or fallen ones, who were not descendants of Adam and Eve had a major hand in the destruction of the earth (actually land, as the seas and its life where not in danger of the fallen ones) as mankind battled against them in a losing effort.

But perhaps the changes in the story line doesn't end there and may even lead one to wonder about other ancient texts that weren't 'inspired' but paralleled the ancient Hebrew scriptures in many ways. One lead off could be that of the "fallen ones". Who were they if they were not descendants of Adam and Eve?

In TCP footnotes of their rendering of the Hebrew scriptures quoted above, they write ...
With this being taken into consideration, 'clean and unclean' animals takes on a whole new meaning quite apart from that of traditional religiosity.

I agree that is what one gathers from reading traditional English versions based upon a Hebrew language that has evolved some distance from the original language used to write the beginning of the scriptures called the Torah suspected to have been largely penned by Moses which contains these verses taken from Genesis.

But the Hebrew scriptures reveal a much different story, as much different or more than the short section of the story of Noah above.

TCP has stripped much of that 'evolution' away from what has resulted in the English scriptures with the system that they are uncovering that is built into the original Hebrew scripture. That system sees the words for what they are without some unfounded rules like the one that arbitrarily considers the plural word 'elohim' as a singular word in most instances and plural only once in a while to suit a particular version of doctrines of religious organizations.

For instance, archaeological evidence has recently been unearthed that highly suggests that the ancient Canaanites were not butchered by the ancient Israelites but instead their failing culture actually turned around and flourished after the ancient Israelites entered their territories. And when the ancient Hebrew scriptures are examined more closely with the information being uncovered by the likes of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center the resulting rendering better matches that archaeology than it does the long standing traditional English translations of the Bible.

Shalom