Is The Physical Realm Analogous To A Simulated Reality?

[ttruscott]

When God blessed Adam and Eve with the ability to reproduce, it was before the fall.

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

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything. as very good which 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.

It seems to me that this 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.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included, if that was the case.

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

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 imply 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?

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, maybe.

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?

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 they 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 a 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.

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?

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 made everyone without excuse, Rom 1:18-20...

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.

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.

To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) 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. 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 other sinned before him.

 

[Derf]

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

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything. as very good which 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.

It seems to me that this 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.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included, if that was the case.

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

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 imply 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?

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, maybe.

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?

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 they 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 a 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.

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?

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 made everyone without excuse, Rom 1:18-20...

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.

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.

To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) 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. 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 other sinned before him.

Seems like a good OP for a new thread.

 

[Ps82]

I understand some people on TOL are not happy with my repeated references to Psalm 82 but for me it was a great key for opening understanding of how God is working among men and angels. Pretty much everyone accepts that 1/3 of the angels rebelled with Lucifer. Mankind rebelled in the Garden; so, both deserved a consequence from their Creator. Ps. 82 is the second place (Gen. 3 being the first) where God shows us the result of these two rebellions. Gen. 3 is full of symbolism or mirrors of things which exist here and in the super-natural realm. These literal things in the Garden represented more important thing on earth and in heaven. Ground and dust are the very elements of creation. Trees in the Garden represented kingdoms and their kings on earth an in heaven. Fruits are the works men and angels do and if there is a bad tree then there are bad fruits (works).

Now, Ps. 82 reveals the final consequences to come for angels and men. They will both die the Second death together - being The Lake of fire... where God will destroy both the body and the soul. This is why we are told not to fear someone who can kill our present body but to fear more the ONE who can destroy body and soul. Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom.

God has allowed angels and men to continue to exist so that HIS purposes for creation will be fulfilled. Right now mankind is vulnerable to a curse put upon the creation. God cursed the elements of creation for man's sake. Abraham's bosom and hell are temporary barns/places for separating wheat from tares/iow -people after physical death. I don't believe any door has been shut at all regarding hell, ... but one thing most likely has happened after Christ completed his sacrificial work. He took the wheat/saints in Abraham's bosom to be with him as HE waits until the fullness of times are fulfilled. The fulness of times will not even be fulfilled at his return. Although he has accomplished all that is necessary to carry out the fulness of times the end will not come until after our Lord reigns for 1,000 years upon the Earth. In the end the elements of the world will be cleansed of its curse. Those who are saints destined for our Lord's kingdom will be completed and all will have their glorified bodies. The lost angels and humanity will die the same death in the Lake of fire.

Why do I think at some point think Christ went to that heavenly place which men called 'the bosom'? John. 1:18b ... the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."

Well you and ttruscott are having a good conversation; so, I'll bow out. God bless.

 

[Derf]

Pretty much everyone accepts that 1/3 of the angels rebelled with Lucifer.

There's only one passage that references this event, in the least understood book of the bible. It could be that they didn't rebel, but were under Lucifer's headship, so they didn't have a choice. Of course, if we're in a simulated reality, who's to say which creatures are simulations. Maybe nobody has a real choice.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

There's only one passage that references this event, in the least understood book of the bible. It could be that they didn't rebel, but were under Lucifer's headship, so they didn't have a choice. Of course, if we're in a simulated reality, who's to say which creatures are simulations. Maybe nobody has a real choice.

The point of this thread wasn't to say that the creation IS a simulated reality but rather that it may be LIKE a simulated reality.

 

[Idolater]

Ahh, I see what you mean now. I'll have to think about it.

You did a good job thinking about it; that was interesting.

Well Gnostics believe the universe was created by an evil God. I'm not saying that at all. I despise Gnosticism.

Gnostics also say they have secret knowledge. This is the most concerning thing about some of your ideas is that no one ever heard of these interpretations, this idea that we exchange our life with God, it doesn't appear in the literature until like the very recent past. So it was either kept secret through word of mouth for near on 20 centuries, only recently being disclosed (and why'd it take so long?)—or, it's not ancient at all, which is its own problem, but it's less of a problem, and one I'm less concerned about.

iow I'm open to past interpretations of the Bible having been wrong, and that a good and gifted teacher or thinker can reveal a correct interpretation, I'm not open about a recently revealed ancient, secret interpretation being right. That is the reason Gnostics are called 'gnostic' it's because of their secret knowledge. Gnosko being the word for knowledge in the Greek.

Do you know what virtual reality is? Have you ever seen The Matrix before?

Yes. My suggestion is that you merely mean that the physical World is the simulation of the spiritual World, with both together taken to denote all of reality. Anything that does not appear in this space, of the physical plus the spiritual World, is not real. Discussions and debates about Nominalism versus anti-Nominalist positions are fake and gay, it's 100% surely a made up controversy—but the debate is real. That's the catch, with saying there's no truth in an opponent's position, does not remove the dispute itself from the metaphysical and physical record, so the dispute is real, and uncontroversially real, and _not_secret_.

I would say yes. I would even presume that angels can see better ( and more)than we can in our bodies

Does that mean our bodies distract us? See below.¹

. In fact, I might go as far as to say that really seeing, is something that requires a spirit.

Not every creature that has eyes, really sees. Some just respond to stimulus. Eyes just detect photons. You don't need your eyes to see, you see every night in your dreams.

I get what you mean. The brain's visual cortex.

There are somethings we experience that I would guess that angels don't. Perhaps hunger and pain.

Whether hunger and pain are exclusively human qualia—makes sense. Angels don't have bodies, and hunger and pain appear to correlate with bodies.

Have you ever thought about how Jesus (as God; nonetheless) experienced hunger and pain Himself, simpliciter? Meaning to say, before saying something like, "In His _human_nature_ He experienced these things", just sit with that Jesus felt hungry, and Jesus felt pain. We want to say, "Yeah but He didn't experience pain or hunger _as_God_, only in His _human_nature_", but that doesn't explain enough because how does God Who created our consciousness, experience His own creation through this created human consciousness?

I guess that's what you mean by asking whether the physical realm is analogous to simulated reality (the OP), you mean, is it analogous to simulated reality _for_Jesus_ (Who _is_ God). And I think that in some sense it would _have_ to be, _because_ He is God. He made the World (both spiritual and physical realms), He made the ability we have to experience the World, and then He took on this created cognition and perception apparatus Himself Personally—and in a way that the Father didn't. So He is 'wearing the skin suit', and it's not a superficial costume, His 'suit' is on, all the way down to His soul and divinity—He is all-in, on becoming flesh. He'll always be flesh, as much as He'll always be (and always has been) God.

Well the nuance here would be that, once our spirits are disconnected from the body, they go to be with the Lord in the spiritual realm. They don't stay on earth. Ghosts do not exist. We are spiritual beings forced to experience the physical realm through our physical bodies. I don't being our physical bodies necessarily enhance what we experience here on earth. If anything I would say it limits it. Wouldn't you?

¹ That's why I asked, above, if you think our bodies distract us. Is that what you mean by, that our bodies "limit" us? that they _distract_ us? from seeing the true reality of the spiritual realm clearly?

I could buy into that, if so. I think after death things are clearer. I think that what was seen as though a hazy reflection, will be seen very intimately and obv clearly. I think the disposition of our heart/soul either toward (sheep) or away from (goats) the Lord is just as clear in the afterlife also, like with the angels.

Purgatory really exists to prevent moral hazard. You may truly love the Lord. But if you gravely sin continuously like in the days of Noah, you will earn those wages. It's just not eternal. You'll pay it off, you get through it, and Heaven does await.​

​

I am just describing Purgatory, not arguing for it.​

​

We know there's a big difference between someone like the late Pastor Bob Enyart (of happy memory) who was an eminently moral man—and some gravely immoral serial adulterer, habitual violator of the Sixth Commandment, who never goes to church—but really believes the Gospel, and whose heart is truly in the right place. The great grave sinner who's nonetheless a true Christian and believer, will earn the wages of his great grave sinning. They are just not infinite. They have a finite ending. And once you cross the finish line and run your race, Heaven awaits.​

​

I am just describing Purgatory, not promoting it.​

I mean there are sins of the flesh, but there are sins the Devil committed too, when he fell, and he didn't have a body. So I think that maybe the body can limit us due to certain sins being exclusive to the flesh (and so aren't available for angels to commit, even if they wanted to), snares and obstacles which don't apply to angels. But also it could just be a different way of experiencing the physical realm, as part of that realm, in a way, at least it seems by-and-large, that angels are not. Angels seem able to come in and out of contact with the physical realm, and if this is true then it's certainly plausible they can interact with it more indirectly as well. I'm talking about temptation, and suggesting images, thoughts, or ideas.

For example I would suspect that angels, who have no physical bodies, can see the entire spectrum of light. At the moment, you and I can only see a very small bit of that spectrum.

It's interesting to think about how angels experience the physical realm but I think it's more interesting to think about what angels know about what we're thinking and experiencing in our own minds. I mean if they have superhuman observational powers re the physical realm (which is what you're pointing to), then what does that entail about their ability to almost directly intuit what we're silently thinking about or planning to do? They see things only lie detector polygraph machines or EKG machines or NMR machines can see, along with what we all can see.

=
Going back to Colossians 3

$$ Heb 3:12
Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
$$ Heb 3:13
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

This passage suggests—doesn't it? that we are to avoid sin in order to prove our heart is not evil, and really does believe. So one could really believe (and thus have a not-evil heart) and still sin, but he wouldn't be _taking_heed_ of the author of Hebrews (ultimately the Author of Hebrews is the Holy Spirit, even though we don't know who physically penned/dictated Hebrews).

If brothers are exhorting one another daily to not sin, but one of them keeps obstinately sinning anyway, the social pressure there will break them up as a group, or, they'll stop exhorting one another daily to not sin, to maintain the group, even though the group went from _taking_heed_ of the (ultimate) Author of Hebrews, to not taking heed.

Bringing this back to our discussion on Colossians 3, where we discussed a single man who has drifted away from the faith, and how him falling into habitual grave sin is like him dying—here Hebrews implies it is possible for a whole group of brothers to "fall off the wagon", and seemingly irreversibly, unless they resume _taking_heed_ of Hebrews, and exhorting one another daily to not sin—at least in some way.