Divine Knowledge Of Good And Evil Before Human Knowledge Of Good And Evil

[Stumpmaster]

There are five explicit “good”s before the climactic “very good” on day six of the Creation Week.

Six Days of Creative Work, Five Declarations of Goodness​

# (Gen 1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Even the sly serpent was very good before it wasn't.

It’s easy to overlook, but:

• The serpent, described in Genesis 3 as “more cunning than any beast”, was already present and part of that “very good” creation.
• Its cleverness was a created attribute, not yet corrupted by rebellion or deceit.

So the “slyness” wasn’t inherently evil—it was a trait within the boundaries of divine goodness… until misdirected.

# (Gen 2:9) And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Tree Type 1: Pleasant to the sight & good for food

Tree Type 2: Tree of Life

Tree Type 3: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Boom.

There we have Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil existing before Human Knowledge of Good and Evil.

​

 

[MatthewG]

cool

 

[Davy]

Even the sly serpent was very good before it wasn't.

Not what The Bible actually teaches.

You may not understand it right now, but the only thing that existed regarding the potential for sin before Lucifer rebelled was God having made the angels also with free will. Before Lucifer rebelled there was no sin, no evil. Once Lucifer rebelled in coveting God's throne, wanting to be God, that is when the first sin happened (1 John 3:8), and is also when God ENDED that 'old world' when Lucifer first rebelled and drew a third of the angels into rebellion with him.

Genesis 1:1, in the "beginning", was God's ORIGINAL PERFECT creation, no sin, no evil, Lucifer following God, and was created as a covering cherub to guard God's throne (Ezekiel 28 with the parable using the "king of Tyrus").

Thus Lucifer's rebellion happened at some time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2; we do not know exactly when, but it was in between the time of those two verses. The reason is because, per the Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 is showing God having laid the earth in a waste condition using waters of a flood. I realize that is not the 'popular' interpretation of that verse, but Bible scholars familiar with the Hebrew of that verse know better, as the English translation of that verse suggests the earth had literally not been formed yet, when Hebrew tohu for "without form" actually means something that was once in a good state going to a waste and a ruin. The Jeremiah 4:23-28 Scripture uses that "without form" translation for Hebrew tohu also, but it instead is God revealing what He did with bringing a previous destruction upon the earth.

This means that from Genesis 1:3 forward, God is refurbishing His original creation that He placed in "bondage of corruption" because of Lucifer's original rebellion. Apostle Paul actually shows that about the creation in Romans 8:18-25.

And Peter in 2 Peter 3 when he spoke of those who are willingly ignorant that by the Word of God the heavens were 'old old', with the earth standing out of the water, and in the water, which is how the earth then perished being overflowed by water, Peter was NOT pointing to the flood of Noah's day. The Israelites were never ignorant about the flood of Noah's day.

And that idea that the heavens were of old by The Word of God points to God's original time of creation in the "beginning" when He spoke and the creation came forth. Then that idea of the earth standing out of the water, and in the water, is about the Genesis 1:6-9 verses when God moved portions of those waters that had covered the already created earth underneath those waters.

And in Isaiah 45:7 when God said He creates 'evil', that also is often misunderstood, because it means He USES Satan as a punishing rod upon the rebellious FOR THIS PRESENT 2ND WORLD EARTH AGE for after Lucifer had already rebelled (see Isaiah 10 where God uses "the Assyrian" as a TYPE for Satan, and said he was "the rod of Mine anger"). When Lucifer is in God's Garden of Eden tempting Eve, he had already rebelled and fallen, and was in his role as the adversary.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Not what The Bible actually teaches.

Mine does.

The rest of your post seems to make my case, so . . .

 

[XtraPercept]

What is Scripture? If you tell me "the Bible," this is true, but it does not provide definition. Without definition, there is no understanding, only sensation.

As children learn a word by contextual clues, so do adults. How many words have you sought definition for? How well do you understand them?

Let us understand Scripture! These are the words of God, words from the Spirit of truth. This is how we have dozens of books by multiple authors written over the course of centuries in a singular voice, concatenated as the collective Scriptures today.

Do you think the Lord limits Himself to a singular tome? You cannot understand until you seek the meaning with desperation!

Look at Simon Peter when Jesus sought to wash him.

The Master Himself stooped to wash Peter's feet, but Peter perceived this as the Master being put to disrespect and thus declared, 'you will never wash my feet, Master!' Peter's intent was pure for love of his Master.

But the Master said in response, 'if I do not wash you, you cannot be with me.' And this of course distressed Peter deeply, and immediately seeing this light, Peter lunged at it saying 'then wash me all over, not just my feet Master!'

But again the Lord gave him light, reassuring him that he was already clean and only needed his feet washed, at which point Peter understood and thus acquiesced.

Do you see the meaning? Why would Scripture tell us that one must hate their life to gain it, lest they love their life and lose it? Have you sought understanding?

 

[Stumpmaster]

Why would Scripture tell us that one must hate their life to gain it,

Joh 12:24-25 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (25) He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

It's one of Christ's Kingdom Principles, the earthly weighed against the heavenly.

Paul takes the Principle further:

2Co 4:16-18 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. (17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, (18) while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Mine does.

The rest of your post seems to make my case, so . . .

It's an interesting point you make.

In its created state, it was no different from the rest of the animal kingdom. It was only when it manifested a carnal mind and caused offense that God judged it, and rightly so.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Thus Lucifer's rebellion

It's a foolish assumption...and you could possess so much more divine insight if you parked this nonsense and actually studied the chapter.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

# (Gen 1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Even the sly serpent was very good before it wasn't.

It’s easy to overlook, but:

• The serpent, described in Genesis 3 as “more cunning than any beast”, was already present and part of that “very good” creation.
• Its cleverness was a created attribute, not yet corrupted by rebellion or deceit.

So the “slyness” wasn’t inherently evil—it was a trait within the boundaries of divine goodness… until misdirected.

There was ample time for Satan's fall between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1, so you have not proven what you mistakenly think you have.

 

[Hiddenthings]

There was ample time for Satan's fall between Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1, so you have not proven what you mistakenly think you have.

Not a single passage in the Bible contains the above.

I guess there was enough time for Satan to write his memoirs, go on a world tour, and still make it back to tempt Eve.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Not a single passage in the Bible contains the above.

Says you.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Says you.

If it did, you would have provided it, but it doesn't, so you didn't.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

If it did, you would have provided it, but it doesn't, so you didn't.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 would be a good place to start. Oh, I know that you think you know what those verses are about (I took a peek at your thread on it), but you don't.

Let's start here:

Is "the king of Tyrus" (Ezekiel 28:12) a man or an angelic being?

If you believe that it is a man, then make your case.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Is "the king of Tyrus" (Ezekiel 28:12) a man

Correct...Wick and I are opening the truth on this here

Unlocking Ezekiel 28

This thread is a discussion (@Wick Stick) on Ezekiel 28 focusing in on the symbols and their interpretation. This passage is typically used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel although neither are mentioned in the chapter. Let's begin.

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Correct...Wick and I are opening the truth on this here

Unlocking Ezekiel 28

This thread is a discussion (@Wick Stick) on Ezekiel 28 focusing in on the symbols and their interpretation. This passage is typically used to prove that Satan is a fallen angel although neither are mentioned in the chapter. Let's begin.

www.christianityboard.com

Make your case here, and then I will refute it.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Make your case here, and then I will refute it.

No need for duplication. You and I both know Ezek 28 is a terrible chapter to force your origin story.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

No need for duplication. You and I both know Ezek 28 is a terrible chapter to force your origin story.

Exactly the type of evasive non-answer I expected.

I made a comment on THIS THREAD.

You responded to my comment on THIS THREAD.

If you think that you can prove that "the king of Tyrus" is a man, then do it on THIS THREAD.

Just cut and paste your error here, and then I will refute it. If not, then I will not bother to acknowledge you anymore on THIS THREAD.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Just cut and paste your error here, and then I will refute it. If not, then I will not bother to acknowledge you anymore on THIS THREAD.

It was enough to make the point that Ezek 28 is a terrible chapter for you to place your origin story.

 

[Nameaboveallnames]

Anybody else?

 

[Hiddenthings]

View attachment 67338

Anybody else?

Perhaps only those who attempt to force an origin story into a chapter about the king of Tyre...a lament, would interpret it this way, much like what’s happening in this thread.