Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Nice reasonong, but a total reinterpretation of what Scripture says. It says they ate something, not returned something. Now I am not as smart as you call yourself to be but I am pretty sure God knows the difference between eat and return.Nobody knows what they ate because the Bible does not tell us so we cannot know. So we guess. Well, we know it was not an apple. My educated guess is that they gave God back their spirit. This left man kind in a position to need to get spirit back. And then there's when God told them if you do this you will die. Well, the spirit seems to be tied to everlasting life. Not the body and not our soul (unless you're Catholic). Giving up the spirit could put them in a position to know evil. Adam and Eve were created to have the spirit of God. A dog was created to function without the spirit of God and so dogs are normal in the way they function. But humans are missing something and therefore not complete if we do not function with the spirit of God. It would be considered broken if it were a car that was missing a part because it would be incomplete since it would be missing a necessary part. Could it be the spirit that Adam and Eve gave up that caused them to be broken, to have missed the mark, and to deliberately do such a thing was considered sin?
What exactly? Can you quote my words?
Eve most certainly thought a bad thought three times prior to the fall.This is not just knowledge but knowledge of good and evil, i.e., knowledge of morality. Before the fall, everything was good according to their conscience provided by God alone. By definition, they could not think of a bad thought.
that knowing is what causes them to independently decide what isa right or wrong themselves. It is not an experience but a deciding.Adam and Eve would experience good and evil if they ate.
According to God, Genesis 2:
This is not just knowledge but knowledge of good and evil, i.e., knowledge of morality. Before the fall, everything was good according to their conscience provided by God alone. By definition, they could not think of a bad thought.
What was wrong with Adam and Eve knowing good and evil?
Lot of assumptions which direct experience reveals are incorrect as in beliefs and not direct experience.God did not want man to have this ability to decide on his own independently what was good and evil apart from God's standard. But the serpent had other ideas. It tempted Eve in Genesis 3:
Entirely assumed and incorrect, and based on personal beliefs and assumptions.Right, they would be like God, having this ability to decide morality. However, their standard is not the same as God's.
No. Would believe there is good & evil.The Hebrew word for "knowing" is H3045. It is a common word that appears 942 times.
Brown-Driver-Briggs:
Adam and Eve would experience good and evil if they ate.
No. Would believe there is, good & evil.According to Eve:
for obtaining wisdom,
Strong's 7919: To be, circumspect, intelligent
By eating, Adam and Eve would acquire their own abilities to decide what is good or bad, apart from God. And it happened right away:
Believed.At this point, they thought that it was bad to be naked which they didn't think about before they ate.
That’s again assumed.Their consciences are now independent of God due to their 1st disobedience.
Fear is an emotion. Not an object. Not a possession.But have no fear; God will make the reconnection by the Paraclete.
and they are ...?Eve most certainly thought a bad thought three times prior to the fall.
So why does it bother you so much when Christians believe you are wrong?There is no right & wrong or good & evil.
I doubt they ate something. Even today in America we still talk like that. I might say such a thing that you're asking me to do is hard to swallow. And it often does not mean eating something.Nice reasonong, but a total reinterpretation of what Scripture says. It says they ate something, not returned something. Now I am not as smart as you call yourself to be but I am pretty sure God knows the difference between eat and return.
BTW as you haven't answered this in four different threads I have asked you, let me ask again- Do you commit any sins in thought word or deed at any time?
It doesn’t. Thank you for thinking of me though.So why does it bother you so much when Christians believe you are wrong?
The humans were exposed to a source of evil, but the exercise of their free will, within the parameters set by the Creator, would have protected them even from this "supernatural" source. Do you disagree with that? If they had simply obeyed and refused the devil's offer, as they could have.....then none of what followed would have taken place.If God's purpose and hope was to have sinless humans, God was Rather Stoopid. No matter how one reads the Genesis account, the humans were given free will and placed in an environment where they would be exposed to Evil - and, indeed, supernatural Evil. If God thought humans with free will would forever remain sinless in these circumstances, God was a first-magnitude Pollyanna. Bingo, the very first humans blew God's plan right off the bat. I don't find this even vaguely believable.
The 7th day was set aside for all contingencies to be worked out if the abuse of free will ever took place....God was ready with a plan of action, no matter what they chose to do, he would respond to it, and keep his first purpose at the forefront....so that when the 7th day ends, God will then be able to declare it also...."very good". It is the only day without a successful conclusion......did God fail? (Isa 55:11)God, of course, defines Good and Evil. At least in Christian thought, Good and Evil aren't illusory. They actually exist. In the Genesis account, Adam and Eve don't get to define for themselves what is Good and what is Evil - they encounter Evil and succumb to it. They encounter Evil because God allows it.
Of course....all contingencies were covered, no matter what his free willed children chose to do, he would use it to his own advantage.What is believable, and what I believe the Genesis account is expressing is: God intended to create beings with genuine free will who would be capable of genuine communion with Him. Genuine communion with Him requires an understanding of Good and Evil and an appreciation of why God's Goodness (Holiness) is superior and desirable. Hence, Evil had to be allowed in God's creation. Because God is neither Rather Stoopid nor a Pollyanna, He knew that vast numbers of humans (indeed, all of them) would exercise their free will to one degree or another in such a manner as to estrange them from His perfect holiness. Hence, before the creation He implemented a plan - salvation in Christ - that would both glorify Himself and enable fallen humans eventually to enter into His kingdom and enjoy eternal communion with Him.
Why was "the wily serpent" there in the garden in the first place? God stationed him there, no doubt because he was a cherub.....an angel of high rank, placed in a position of great responsibility as an overseer.Any understanding of the Genesis account that sees the wily serpent (whom the Jews didn't equate to Satan, but that's a different issue) as somehow frustrating God's hope for innocent, obedient humans and the Fall as a surprise and disappointment to God strikes me as completely missing the point. But I understand that others' mileage may, and does, vary.
There isn’t a secondary source of beliefs.The humans were exposed to a source of evil
Sorry mate...you don't speak a language I understand....."evil" is not a belief...it is a practice followed by giving in to a thought in the mind.There isn’t a secondary source of beliefs.
(Evil is a belief.)
I appreciate your perspective, Aunty Jane, but it's just not mine. I believe the Genesis account is mythical - a spiritual lesson - not literal in the slightest. The Fall was inevitable because this is what it means to be human. If they hadn't fallen right off the bat, they would have fallen the next week, next day or next year. There was no possibility from the moment of creation that humans with free will would not fall. It was not only inevitable but the only way they could ever enter into genuine communion with God. To remain ignorant of Good and Evil is to be less than human.The humans were exposed to a source of evil, but the exercise of their free will, within the parameters set by the Creator, would have protected them even from this "supernatural" source. Do you disagree with that? If they had simply obeyed and refused the devil's offer, as they could have.....then none of what followed would have taken place.
Thoughts of that nature are indicative of intense emotional suppression, most likely with underlying trauma. Not evil. There is ignorance & judgment apparently, but good is not dual. I’m not suggesting it’s understandable, I’m suggesting it’s reality. Traditionally, this has been referred to as the good news.Sorry mate...you don't speak a language I understand....."evil" is not a belief...it is a practice followed by giving in to a thought in the mind.
We are governed by what we think, but judged by what we do......do you get that?
If it was not literal, then God's first purpose for humans was not literal either. Why did he bother putting material creatures on a material earth in a material Universe if it was only for them to experience this difficult life, grow old and die?I appreciate your perspective, Aunty Jane, but it's just not mine. I believe the Genesis account is mythical - a spiritual lesson - not literal in the slightest.
What gives you that idea? This kind of 'humanity' is all we know, because we never got a chance to experience what life was meant to be like....we all know in our heart of hearts that this life makes no sense at all as the product of a loving heavenly father....our Creator.The Fall was inevitable because this is what it means to be human.
I simply do not understand this way of thinking.....Why would a fall be inevitable if there was no sin nature to begin with?If they hadn't fallen right off the bat, they would have fallen the next week, next day or next year. There was no possibility from the moment of creation that humans with free will would not fall. It was not only inevitable but the only way they could ever enter into genuine communion with God. To remain ignorant of Good and Evil is to be less than human.
I would like to comment because you have written this so well. Well enough that I think I learned something from reading it. May I suggest there was nothing eaten? We speak the same even today in our English when we say such a concept is hard to swallow. All I can come up with for the fruit was they decided to walk by their flesh and so gave the spirit back to God. This would put the body in a position to die and to deliberately do such a thing would be a sin. It would also separate them from God and would require the Christ to get the spirit back for us.~
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I
seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she
did, nothing happened. She remained just as shameless in the buff as before.
It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to feel indecent.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman's moral perception altered when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?
REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions.
(Rom 5:12-21)
Another thing: it's commonly believed the so-called fallen nature is inherited
from one's biological father. Oh? Then whence did Eve get it? She was
constructed with material taken from Adam's body but that was all over and
done with before he tasted the forbidden fruit; so it was too late for him to
transmit the fallen nature to her via reproduction.
FAQ: If Eve's altered state wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to inheriting it
from Adam; then from where? Did God do it?
REPLY: Mr. Serpent is the logical source, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has
the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human
body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16,
Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to
cover up their pelvic areas.
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people . . . in the womb or out
of the womb?
REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate the Serpent's ability to work on
adults, but I'm guessing he gets to most everyone else in the womb. (Ps
51:5 & 58:3)
* I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame
away from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe
fathers propagate the fallen nature when it's been the Serpent all along.
Jesus' statement: "You are of your father the Devil" wasn't idle slander;
rather, it's 100% fact. (John 8:44)
_
Moral perception is a misnomer. Morality is thought, conceptual.~
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the first couple's altered moral perception; but now I
seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat the fruit, and when she
did, nothing happened. She remained just as shameless in the buff as before.
It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to feel indecent.
FAQ: Why wasn't the woman's moral perception altered when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?
The illusion of ignorance.REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come
into the world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions.
(Rom 5:12-21)
Another thing: it's commonly believed the so-called fallen nature is inherited
from one's biological father. Oh? Then whence did Eve get it? She was
constructed with material taken from Adam's body but that was all over and
done with before he tasted the forbidden fruit; so it was too late for him to
transmit the fallen nature to her via reproduction.
FAQ: If Eve's altered state wasn't due to the fruit, nor due to inheriting it
from Adam; then from where? Did God do it?
The serpent is the sneakiness of believing thoughts, about there being good and bad.REPLY: Mr. Serpent is the logical source, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has
the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human
body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16,
Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to
cover up their pelvic areas.
FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people . . . in the womb or out
of the womb?
This is The Womb.REPLY: Adam and his wife demonstrate the Serpent's ability to work on
adults, but I'm guessing he gets to most everyone else in the womb. (Ps
51:5 & 58:3)
* I really have to hand it to the Serpent; he's very good at shifting blame
away from himself. For quite a few years now it's been traditional to believe
fathers propagate the fallen nature when it's been the Serpent all along.
Jesus' statement: "You are of your father the Devil" wasn't idle slander;
rather, it's 100% fact. (John 8:44)
_
Material is assumed. That is suffering (‘difficult’).If it was not literal, then God's first purpose for humans was not literal either. Why did he bother putting material creatures on a material earth in a material Universe if it was only for them to experience this difficult life, grow old and die?
Not at all. It’s the very point while you insist it’s “difficult”, based on “material”, thus with love, overlooking the entire point.It makes a mockery of Christ's sacrifice.....he died for the actions of two mythological humans, tempted by a mythological snake....was Jesus mythological too?
Without beliefs, this makes perfect sense.What gives you that idea? This kind of 'humanity' is all we know, because we never got a chance to experience what life was meant to be like....we all know in our heart of hearts that this life makes no sense at all as the product of a loving heavenly father....our Creator.
Its more the product of a sadistic fiend. That is not the God I know.
Understanding is the thought, understanding.I simply do not understand this way of thinking.....Why would a fall be inevitable if there was no sin nature to begin with?
‘Dead’ in that sense means blinded by judgement, via “knowing” Good “and bad”.God did not create them imperfect...in fact, with their creation he declared everything to be "very good"....imagine what "very good" means in God's vocabulary....?
By their disobedience, they changed the course of human history.
If satan had not tempted the woman to bait the man, then for what reason would they have taken the one thing in the garden that would end their life?
It’s actually very, very , very simple. It’s just how simple it is which seems to be complex.There was no excuse for what they did, because none of them wanted for anything that wasn't within the parameters set for them. All could have thrived in the environment that God had given them....his loving generosity was plainly evident.
But, the devil was not content with his lot...he wanted what did not rightfully belong to him....the worship of the humans. In order to gain it, he had to separate them from God.....he could not force them, but he could deceive them into breaking the only law that carried a heavy penalty, and hope that they fell for it.
The woman was tempted to eat the fruit, but it was not hers to partake of....it belonged to a God who had given them every kind of fruit tree to enjoy the fruitage, but she was tempted to think that in the abundance of what she had already been given, she was somehow entitled to more.
The man had an opportunity to maintain his close relationship with God but couldn't bear to be separated from his wife, so he joined her in full knowledge of what it meant....death for both of them. There is not a single word of remorse from either of them...they knew what they had done. From the moment they ate, they died spiritually from God's view, with sin entering into their physical being, they began the slow descent into aging, sickness and death physically. There was no "tree of life" to come to their rescue....it was now off limits.
Jesus was the one to come to the rescue of their children, who were born in sin through no fault on their part....which demonstrated God's love for mankind, as well as his own. (John 3:16)
Infinitude.Why would a fall be inevitable if there was no sin nature to begin with?