Hints in Genesis Adam and Eve were sinful before they ate...

[Right Divider]

By the way...post number 11 is not showing up in my feed here. It is missing.

Calling post 11 - post 11 where are you??

Take me off of your ignore list (or click "Show ignored content").

 

[JudgeRightly]

Take me off of your ignore list (or click "Show ignored content").

@ttruscott

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

 

[ttruscott]

I don't see that logically connected. Why do you say this?

That YHWH must be an evil or false god?

To my mind they must think that HE is lying to them in HIS proclamation and if lying then evil and if evil then a false god.

But according to the pov of their fall being AFTER the proof by HIS creation of the physical universe, at this point they know HE is GOD and have no excuse but somehow feel equal to HIM - the only language I have is from a post lapsarian creation of the physical universe.

 

[Ps82]

I posted this in another thread and it was suggested it would be a good stand-alone topic so here goes! I post from the pov that we were created as SPIRITS before the earth was created which sheds quite a new light on Christian theology.

I do not offer this as proof of my Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) because there is only the same proof as any other sect has, that is, either none or the witness of the holy spirit in your heart by faith. I am not offering proofs, I am offering a new pov based only upon an interpretation of scripture.

I suggest there are good reasons to believe that Adam and Eve were already sinners when they were sown into the earth. Let's look closely to see if there are any clues about this:

I agree they were spirits (male female spirits). I hope to see, ttruscott, if we agree on more. I don't believe they were yet equipped to function in their destiny. They were not completed souls in Gen. 1. They became that when their spirits were added to their body in Gen. 2.

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything as very good which is accepted to imply Adam and Eve were very good also before they ate. But very good must include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

Why must it include the angels. Scripture was written as man's history ... now Satan does intervein / inter twine our history and Psalm 82 tells us what happens to him because he did. Ps. 82:6-7 shows God, the fair judge, speaking to Satan when he says: "I have said, 'Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.'" The status of princes is often used to talk about men who led the tribes of Israel. Not all of them were good people and not all are saved. IOW, rebellious angels, including Satan, and lost humanity are equally due the same punishment when all is finished. Being the Lake of Fire.

It seems to me that Gen 1:31 somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

I think that is the case. They fell before humanity came on the scene.

If we accept that Satan et all sinned AFTER the proof of YHWH's divinity and eternal power rendered no one without an excuse, we are in the untenable situation that Satan and the demons knew they were doomed if they fought against YHWH but then started the war in heaven against HIM anyway! Were they suicidal or what?? So at least some of the people created in GOD's image had a free will and scorned GOD unto damnation before the creaton of the physical universe.

The way I've understood matters is this: Angels were given super-natural bodies. Not like ours made of the ground (elements of our very created world). Perhaps they felt they were eternal and that God could do nothing about their status. ??? Whatever, they chose to rebel in their day. Yet, they were wrong to think they were eternal.

If you read KJV carefully you will find that Woman/Eve wanted to be like the gods/angels. Many people say she wanted to be like God ... but there is a slight difference. They must have been beautiful ... Obviously she wanted all knowledge of good and evil to be like them ... and I, at this time, consider there may have been another thing they desired. They wanted the physical beauty of the angels for it is said they discovered they were naked! That means they lacked something they and it didn't occur when they ate. All this physical things playing out in the Garden mirrored spiritual matters. They did not like the way had created them after HIS OWN IMAGE. They wanted knowledge he had not given them ... and all was a rejection of HIM as their LORD.

Second:
It is not proven that very good refers to a state of being and not to a purpose.

Love this idea. He did create everything well and that even included giving humanity freewill.

If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church (His sheep gone astray) by training them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.

Cool. I sort of see it this way ... He created our manifested world (Gen 2 not Gen 1) ... the phase of the Garden well and good also. But, he had a plan to correct things when ever needed. It seems from our history that it didn't take too long before that plan was required. The plan was to curse the elements of creation FOR MAN'S SAKE and for mankind to partake of it for the rest of his physical life. A chance for humanity to be redeemed and things to be made new again.

Third:
The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD, verse 1:31? Does it not suggest that GOD created something as not good?

How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?

The spiritual entity called male/female was one entity in Gen. 1. Existing but not functioning. God gave the human race a purpose at that stage - Be full of fruit and multiply. Mankind possessed what was needed to fulfill this but but the process was to happen between a man and his wife. Therefore, it was not good for mankind to be alone but to join together to become (another) one. One who would leave his mother and father and take a wife. Then they and their offspring would also have fellowship with their LORD and Creator.

Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?

And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper

suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...

So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example.

I hope you and I are seeing the same thing. Had to be for sex and having babies. God planned for it to happen this way. God the Spirit was going to personally bring the Messiah through Woman not the Male. She was separated for God's purposes not just Adam's pleasure.

Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you! ?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Or only a bit of miscommunication?

Might The LORD have just been enjoying the things he was manifesting in Gen. 2. These things were created by him and for him ... and he was enjoying seeing Adam name them. Why the rush to bring Woman forth out of Adam's essence right away?

Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and
faithful, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse? If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they had had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm. Do we only think that erm means naked because we need it eisegetically to avoid the implication that Adam was a sinner before he ate?

If Adam and Eve were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is an euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being merely unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness ! When sinfulness is represented as being naked like it is in Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. it means to be fallen and sinful, not merely unclothed. And, it is seen, being naked in sin is also related to being blind.

Adam and woman had bodies when in the garden. Whether they didn't wear clothes or not is immaterial. They were missing something they thought they were going to obtain by eating 'the fruit' and when they didn't, then they saw they were missing it ... unclothed. Since the term unclothed is mentioned then I suggest they thought their outward appearance would have changed. Since Woman wanted to become like the angels in knowledge then might she have also wanted to be like the angels in appearance. They didn't receive that desire but had actually attempted to reject God's image for them. Since they had sinned and received the knowledge of evil ... they understood they had done something worthy of death in God's eyes and had failed! They hid from the presence of the WORD (The LORD God).

Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco... another blasphemy altogether!) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars (those paragons of interpreting GOD's theology) and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?

Lost me a bit here ... but they were not evil while in the garden but they did have freewill given to them by God. God did not create puppets that could do what he made them do. They had a choice. They chose wrong and it has been called the original sin. IOW, the first. God sent them out of the Garden fairly rapidly. It was upon the cursed Earth/ground that their sins began to increase due to the extra knowledge they had acquired.

Fourth:
I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before the creation of the physical universe which can be surmised from Job 38:7 where ALL the sons of GOD sang HIS praises for this act which was the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power that rendered everyone without excuse, Rom 1:18-20... Iow, if you are a son of GOD, you were probably there at the creation of the physical universe and sang your heart out!!!!

Ps. 82 lets you know who the children of God were in the beginning. They were the angels and humanity. In ch. 82 God stands before a congregation (crowd) of gods/angels. Verses 1-5 reveals Satan accusing God of being an unjust judge for HE was treating humanity too kindly. Then in verse 6 God speaks: "I have said, 'Ye are gods; and ALL OF YOU are children of the Most High.' Now, who are the 'all of you?' Obviously the gods are HIS children ... but due to the fact that Satan has been accusing the pitiful state of humanity ... then God was saying that mankind are also HIS children. Therefore 'sons of God' can refer to angels and/or men depending on the circumstances of a situation.

Fifth:
Then there is also Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law is NOT given to the righteous to steer their decisions but to the sinful to convict them of their sin. Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. which suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.

In part I agree. I do believe our Christ covers our sins for those who acknowledge HIM as our Lord. Yet, I think even we will be awarded according to our works whether they be good or bad. It is said that some will make it to the kingdom but as a burned stick... still smoking from fire. Works are important for we will be judged by the works done in our present bodies ... and will suffer loss in eternity due to some. I do agree with the idea that the law exists to reveal sin to people who are in rebellion. The consequences following sin experienced here on earth is a deterrent to sin and if willing a possible repentant heart.

Sixth:
Then as well, there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. in the garden. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate. The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden, was the first to bring evil into world.

Consider this: Adam is a name we know, which represents the first mankind/humanity. Adam was created male/female spiritually. Spiritually ONE entity. Therefore the name Adam represents the first of humanity... therefore, it was Adam (male/female) who brought sin into the world. True, after their separation as two entities they both took a bite, but collectively as ONE/male/female/mankind entity it was by ONE mankind/Adam that sin entered the world.

To sum up the hints that Adam and Eve (not just in the serpent) were sinful in the garden before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil. Since being naked is not a sin then there is no reason for their eyes to be opened to their nakedness when they ate. If nakedness does refer to their sin, then remember they were naked before they ate.
4. Job 38:7 suggests we all saw the act of creation of the physical universe so we are without excuse, Rom 1:28-20.
5. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
6. Adam was the first to bring sin into the world implying that he was sinful when he was placed in the garden because others sinned before him.

Woman was God's idea. Adam was not looking.
Woman and all humanity will be blessed by the fact that God alone chose to bring the Messiah through Woman. He wanted her separated for his purposes. Even Jesus looked at his mother from the cross and said, Mary, and said (KJV), "Woman behold your son." Mary was the literal earthy mother who represented the Woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15-16.
# 5 ... where is that command? Adam was given a choice.

 

[ttruscott]

?? What proof are you talking about? Why do you think Satan rebelled before he committed his act of rebellion?

I think he rebelled before you think he rebelled, not before he did rebel...

The proof I am talking about is the proof that YHWH was NOT lying when HE proclaimed HIS deity, Cor 1:23, and by creating the physical universe before everyone's eyes, Job 38:7 HE proved HIS claims of Col 1:23 which rendered Satan et al with no excuse for their rebellion, Rom 1:20. This is in post #1.

I contend that no one would ever rebel against the proven GOD, El SHADDAI ! !!!

Or, and this is important, that the serpent/Lucifer was not evil at the time God declared everything good, but he rebelled after that declaration.

Then HE rebelled against the proven GOD because the physical universe is what was called very good and IF Satan saw that creation, Job 38:7 I cannot conceive that anyone would accept the proof of HIS deity and eternal power yet yet still rebel and go to war against HIM!!!

Therefore I accept that the fall must have been BEFORE the creation of the physical world.

Or against the God who made him? Why the emphasis on "proven"?

Because no one would rebel against HIS proclamation HE is our creator GOD and HIS gospel AFTER HE gave the proof of HIS deity and power by creating the physical universe as Rom 1:20 tells us happened!

But it then makes no sense to have God call His creation "very good", if sin had already been introduced. And it speaks opposite of Paul when he says through one man sin entered the world.

Either:
very good has no moral implication but refers to the fact that the earth was created as a very good place for HIM to rehab HIS fallen elect, HIS sheep gone astray into sin, ie, the sinful people of HIS kingdom which I think is the most plausible,
OR:
the creation of the spirits in HIS image, fallen or not, was not considered a part of everything without that being specifically stated. Job 38:7 says ALL the sons of GOD cheered and sang the praises of God at the creation but orthodoxy contends this only refers to part of the sons of God in all of creation, only the angels...

I accept that the reversal of the orthodox position of all or everything in these two places at least should be reversed to mean some ... some of everything was very good and all of the sons of GOD saw the creation of the physical universe... I just apply the meaning of all the same as orthodoxy but in different places.

So, to avoid a seeming complexity you invent multiple others?

Col 1:23 is a complexity??? Let me cut to the meat then:
and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;

This verse says GOD proclaimed HIS deity and the gospel to EVERY creature under heaven and the verb tense of PROCLAIMED says it was fulfilled at least once in the past and able to be fulfilled again...the orthodox eisegetic use of the word says it has never been fulfilled yet and it is even absurd to think it has ever been fulfilled but PCE contends this has been fulfilled in heaven before HIS creation of the the physical universe and the use of this tense for the word proclaimed is proper, just contentious.

I suggest the proclamation was made to ALL the sons of GOD ever created, in the spirit, before the creation of the physical universe. Before the proof of HIS divinity, this proclamation of HIS divinity and HIS gospel of salvation for all allowed for some to rebel against HIM.

Satan did not rebel against the GOD whose divinity and power, as El Shaddai, were proven Rom 1:20, the satanic rebelled against HIS claims
made without proof the HE was our GOD. HE warned everyone created in HIS image that some of our choices could end us in hell but by putting our unproven hope, our faith, in HIM as the only Saviour from the consequences of choosing to be sinful in HIS sight, we would never have to fear hell because HE promised to save us from any and all sin.

And HE called for us to choose....to put our faith, our unproven hope, in HIM as our LORD and Saviour or to put our faith, our unproven hope, in HIM being a liar about all this, therefore a sinner himself and therefore a false god.

This choice by faith is what separated all of creation into the reperobate and the elect and the elect into holy elect and the sinful elect, needing their saviour.

 

[ttruscott]

when , before the fall no , after the fall yes

So nakedness was not sinful before they ate but it was sinful after they ate ... I think you mean naked bodies before eating and naked in sin after eating, a very orthodox way of thinking but it does not deny that the interpretation of naked as referring to being sinful at both times before and after eating, follows the meaning of the word naked as scripture uses it to denote sinfulness.

That is, the word naked is used properly to mean sinful so to render it as sinful before they ate does not stress the scriptural use of the word, only the opinion of orthodox theology.

 

[ttruscott]

they where kicked out of the garden because the disobeyed the one thing they were told not to do which lead to spiritual death (separation from God) and physical death

I agree but I believe this first happened in heaven before the creation of the physical universe and then was recreated (re-enacted?) on earth in the garden as a type to point back to the first, spiritual, fall in heaven.

 

[Derf]

That YHWH must be an evil or false god?

To my mind they must think that HE is lying to them in HIS proclamation

Which proclamation do you mean? About dying from eating of the tree of knowledge?

and if lying then evil and if evil then a false god.

Yes, that would make sense...if God lies and if lying is evil, then God must be evil. I'm not so sure that it then follows that such a God would be false...depends on what "god" means to them.

But according to the pov of their fall being AFTER the proof by HIS creation of the physical universe, at this point they know HE is GOD and have no excuse but somehow feel equal to HIM

You don't think Satan and his angels would rebel against the creator God? Yet they were created, so even without the rest of creation bearing witness, their own existence bears witness, including the finite mess of their memory of the past.

- the only language I have is from a post lapsarian creation of the physical universe.

I think that description is adequate.

 

[ttruscott]

lucifer fell after creation was finished .

1. How could anyone rebel against the person who had just PROVEN HIS deity and HIS eternal power, Rom 1:20 For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, [that is: PROVEN] being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

2. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) [13] is not compelling to every exegete and it is not compelling to me either, there being no proof that it refers to Satan and many do not agree that it does.

 

[ttruscott]

everyone dies physically even Christians ,inherited sin nature.

I find no compelling reason to ascribe inherited sin to any of GOD's attributes... Did HE do this to us for love, for justice, for ...?

and just repeating this dogma does not tell us why it does not contradict Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son (US) shall not bear the iniquity of the father (ADAM), neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked (THOSE WHO CHOSE BY THEIR FREE WILL TO BE WICKED) shall be upon him.
This agrees with Jer 30: 29“In those days, it will no longer be said: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge.’ 30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

HIS plan for all creation was the heavenly marriage.
HIS plan for each of us is the heavenly marriage.
Everything HE has ever done or will ever do conforms to this purpose, this plan, and He has never done anything that would slow this plan down or put it off or side track it in the least!

It implies that ALL of HIS being, all of HIS Sovereignty, all of HIS love, HIS righteousness and HIS nature as just have one perfect focus, to culminate HIS relationship with HIS creation in the heavenly marriage: one plan, one focus upon an ultimate value.

Therefore:
this implies that everyone ever created in HIS image, ie, able to be a proper Bride for HIM, was created perfectly capable and able to become HIS bride, not held back by any imperfection or lack of acceptance by HIM.
Isaiah 43:7, 21
7 "whom I created for my glory"
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Ecc 7:29 Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
Upright: S3477, yashar, straightforward, just, upright:... GOD created no one disgustingly corrupt, enslaved to sin and unable to be HIS Bride.

ImCo, by their coming into being every single person must have been within HIS plan, not separated from HIM by anything for any reason until they decide by a mature free will to reject HIM and HIS plan. HE cannot marry an evil person so why would HE create by any means, any system at all, evil people? It is impossible. No one inherited any sinfulness from Adam nor any judgement for any another person's sin.

Loving righteousness cannot create evil!
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. Can darkness come from light? Can stagnant foul water come from a spring of pure life giving water, James 3:11-12? Can a good tree produce rotten fruit, Matthew 7:18? Of course not and neither can dark (evil ) come from Light (loving righteousness). This foolishness is like striking a match and expecting dark to fill the room!

GOD cannot create evil people by any means including forcing them to be born without their aquiessence into Adam's sin. Orthodoxy only needs this blasphemous doctrine because they have completely accepted the hypothesis that we are created in sin on earth so there is no time for us to sin by our free will.

 

[ttruscott]

QUOTE="way 2 go, post: 1930208, member: 2749"]
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed...my position exactly except it was before Rom 1:20

 

[ttruscott]

IOW, rebellious angels, including Satan, and lost humanity are equally due the same punishment when all is finished. Being the Lake of Fire.

Ummm, then how does Jn 3:18 apply that believers (elect in my meme) are never condemend while those who never have believed are condemned already? I think tthe rebelliops anggels adn lost humanity are the samepeople but the lost sheep are not int hat group, thou lost...

The lost sheep are the sinful people of the kingdom as spirits or as people and the people of the evil one are the demonic reprobate in spirit or in body...but both are sown, not created into mankind, Matt 13:36-39.

 

[ttruscott]

Love this idea. He did create everything well and that even included giving humanity freewill.

It especially includes HIS giving us a free will because without it we cannot fulfill the purpose for our creation, that is, to become his Bride in the heavenly marriage.

 

[ttruscott]

You don't think Satan and his angels would rebel against the creator God? Yet they were created, so even without the rest of creation bearing witness, their own existence bears witness, including the finite mess of their memory of the past.

I think they rebelled against HIS claims to be divine and the only saviour in HIS gospel of salvation as mentioned in HIS proclamation Col 1:23 only to be proven wrong when, as per Rom 1:20, the creation proved HIS claims to divinity and power.