Did Adam and/or Eve know good and evil prior to them eating of the Tree?
God said:
Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”
Nang is on record as I kept saying, suggesting that Adam was created good, like God. Good and Evil were not known until the fruit was eaten. The only reason a person would insist against scripture is to lay the foundation for false doctrine.
I have read ahead and I have verified it. Nang is on record, denying scripture and God's words in Genesis to support the idea that we are saved by Law Keeping.
The use of the following scriptures in reference to the Law is distorted by nang to support salvation by election. If you make a big error in Genesis, it will be magnified 1000 fold, by the time you get to Jesus and that is exactly what I am seeing here.
There are 3 divine purposes for Law and order:
1. To convict men that by nature, they all disobey the holy standards ordained by God. (Romans 1:18-32)
2. To draw elect men to their need of the Saviour, and learn of His true love. (Romans 3:13-25)
3. To guide and maintain regenerated sinners in holy living. (I Peter 1:12-16)
The bible calls the Law the Ministry of Death, Chisled on stone. It also explains that it condemns all people equally, to bring men to Jesus.
The
elect men phrase and the distortion of scripture that I have now seen occur repeatedly by this nang person is enough to allow me to disengage this discussion.
I am not trying to speak for Nang or to defend Nang (and I do not that Nang shares my same understanding.) Other than previous questions (to Nang) the only point I spoke on to you was that it was making too much to try to create a contradiction on the word "good" - one can honestly say that Adam was created good (not flawed, not evil) because God himself called his creation good.
As for further discussion, this branched out because of your additional questions to me. Does this reach beyond the original context of discussion? Likely so, but that was because of the questions you asked.
False accusations? For an accusation to be false, there has to be first an accusation. Where have I accused anyone?
And if you are asking "Are we saved by Law Keeping or Love" without defining what you mean by "law" then I think you are missing the whole point that lies beneath why anyone argues here (when they shouldn't be arguing.) Law has more than one application. Adam was given a law in Eden. Abraham was given a law when he was told to sacrifice his son. Moses was given law to bring to Israel. These are all laws. Yet Jesus gave us a law to love: Love God, Love thy Neighbor, Love thy enemy, Love one Another.
If you want to be technical, then nothing "saves" other than God. If you're not going to be technical, then keeping the law of love brings us to salvation. If we refuse to learn this love we shall not be saved. So if you are going to ask a question about law, define the law. Law of Moses? No, does not save. A list of rules? No, does not save. Yet I think that if you understand love, it is a law in itself, thus explaining the essence of Jesus's commands for us, "Love god, love thy neighbor, love thy enemy, love one another."
As far as you, RR are concerned, I have been cleared of all your charges by nang them-self.
If you agree that Adam was made like God, knowing good and evil, or that God gave Adam the knowledge of Good and Evil before he ate of the fruit, then you can keep on with your vain sophistry, right beside nang. Satan is to blame for the knowledge of Good and Evil corrupting the innocence of Eden. Nang is saying that God gave Adam the knowledge of Good and Evil and is effectively saying that God then punished Adam for the knowledge He had given to him. This is the foundation of error that I pointed out and Mark 10:18 stands as a mountain you and nang can't climb with your biblical deception.
You are typing books to write yourself out of a corner. You jumped in, and took nang's side. You can employ your sophistry all you like, but you can see that my insinuations about nangs false use of scripture are now in the light.
I don't think either of you are children of the devil, but I am positive that your doctrines lack accuracy and could harm others. If you go forward and make a book to attempt to cover your error, I won't reply with anything other than something like this.
Sophistry -the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
