@Wheezy_Knight Said
Then who are the "Us". It's taught that the "US are the heavenly host"?
Or are people being taught something that isn't true again.
Well, from a Christian perspective, the "us" could be seen as God speaking to himself as much as anything else. However, even if we agree that the "us" is God speaking to angels, again I say, "so what?" Nowhere does this suggest that angels are equal to God, which is how this tangent started. I was questioning the belief held by JWs.
@Wheezy_Knight Said
That the "us" represents one who has knowledge of good and evil.
Well, the text actually makes it pretty clear, I would have thought, that the "us" in "man will be like us" is probably tied to the next part of that sentence which says, "having knowledge of good and evil." It does seem self explanatory that the "us" has knowledge of good and evil.
Literally, 'knowledge'. And...?
@Wheezy_Knight Said How can being learned be evil unless you need people ignorant?
As to the text saying or implying that man having knowledge is considered bad by God, this is blatantly wrong. Is it saying that man has
knowledge from what he did? No. Is it saying knowledge is bad? No. It is saying man has
knowledge of good and evil. Are they the same thing? No. Do I need to know what it is to kill, in order to understand philosophy or science? No. Do I need to see pictures of the Nazi holocaust, Islamic be-headings, suicide bombings or honour killings to know that not all belief systems are used to do good? No.
I am a teacher, and it does not take long to work out the "innocent" kids from good homes, and kids who grow up seeing things they would be better off not seeing. The kid from the bad home might have more knowledge than the innocent kid, but, is he better off?
@Wheezy_Knight Said Or are we talking allegory again?
Is it literal or allegory?
Does it matter? The aim of this text is not to impart scientific information, it is about the nature of people and God. You don't believe in God. That's fine. You do not have to. I don't accept naturalism. So far as I know, I am allowed to disagree with naturalism. I am sure you have reasons you consider valid for having your belief, just as I have reasons I consider valid for having mine. And, I am quite sure that we could disagree with each other and attack each others belief if we really wanted to.
But, I have to ask, is there a point to this? Doubtless, you and I can both attack each others beliefs - I can bring out all the stupidity of the ET boffins and we can both have a field day (you know, the race of humans that was described in marvelous detail. Their culture, their clothing, their rituals, their history, all discussed at great length for five years, and turned out it was based on less than a couple of non-human teeth, a weather faded rock and ET boffin incompetence of the kind that said the coelecanth was extinct for millions of years while South African fisherman were catching them. The same idiocy that wrote marvelous stories about how Neanderthals were not human, until it turned out that Neanderthals are actually are human, requiring the writing of a whole new marvelous story. The outright deception of ET boffins when they refused to discuss things like awareness and free will, because they knew their argument was ridiculous, so they patently avoided discussing it... that kind of stuff). But again, is there a point?