"All Have sinned," really?

[iymus]

was the tree actually good for food?
was the tree actually good to look at?
was the tree actually good for wisdom?

according to Eve it seemed that way yes however she was deceived. Nothing is good if God who is Good tells you not to do it.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

i.e. -- were her lusts here valid in her desires? or is this evidence of her state of deception?
Adam was not deceived, yet he also took and ate. if those lusts are borne in deception, could Adam have taken because of lust?

I am going off of the wisdom bestowed to the disciples from the Holy Spirit

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Male Adam is not blameless however what I do know is the he is specifically not mentioned as being counted with the transgression and he is specifically not mentioned as being the one to be tempted of his own lust and enticed which brought forth lust and brought forth death.

Eve wanted to be Feminist and Adam accepted it, which is normal in our day and age minus the greater responsibilities and consequences.

 

[iymus]

Now that I think about it even further "and this is not to make Adam blameless" but usually when women that are close to me give me food I just eat it no questions.

also upon further examination we can see that the woman was given a greater punishment

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

-------------------------

Adam blamed the woman; Woman blamed the serpent; woman conceived lust which brought forth sin and death: transgression counted with the woman

Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

-----------------------------



--------------------------

 

[posthuman]

I am going off of the wisdom bestowed to the disciples from the Holy Spirit

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

same Paul who wrote 1 Timothy wrote Romans and 1 Corinthians, by the same holy Spirit, and he said sin entered the world, and all of us, through Adam, singular, masculine. i realize that the word in Hebrew for 'man' is the same as the name 'Adam' but here we are reading Greek and we're seeing the name of a person, Adam, not the Greek word for mankind, and it's definitely one person, one man, the very same, Adam.

that Adam was not deceived, but sinned anyway, is extremely significant.

Male Adam is not blameless however what I do know is the he is specifically not mentioned as being counted with the transgression and he is specifically not mentioned as being the one to be tempted of his own lust and enticed which brought forth lust and brought forth death.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
(Romans 5:14)
​

Adam being in transgression is specifically called out in scripture -- which, BTW @Whispered here's more "word for word" evidence in scripture that sin exists and is judged even when it's not a transgression of a specified law -- the context of Romans 5 is not the same context as 1 Timothy, which is to say, the purpose of what is being called to attention isn't the same in both places. here in Romans, it's being explained how that all are under sin. that's by Adam, specifically, not by 'male/female conglomerate' -- this is Greek, and the name 'Adam' isn't the same in Greek as the word 'mankind' so we aren't looking at a case where we have to by context interpret whether we're talking about mankind in general or about the specific person, Adam. we know we are talking about Adam: that's how sin entered mankind. through the one who sinned even though he wasn't deceived; who knew his wife had death, and he did not, and joined her in it, willingly, knowingly.
the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 is explaining Paul's reasoning for women to be under the authority of men in teaching in the Lord: because Woman was deceived, but Adam was not. the statement in v. 14

i know you didn't mean to imply Adam didn't sin, but the facts are that the scripture tells us sin entered the world through Adam, not Woman ((to be later renamed Eve)) - so i object to you saying that we inherit sin from Eve; i believe it's clear from what i've cited that what we inherit is through Adam.

which -- the really salient point here -- makes the virgin birth of Jesus Christ the Spotless Lamb in Whom there is no sin a necessity -- if the degenerate & sin-filled nature of humankind is from their mothers, not their fathers, then Jesus was born sinful.
i didn't notice you comment on that point? tho i'll go back and re-check now. it is really this implication that i object to, and bring up Romans & 1 Corinthians in order to counter-argue against.

 

[Bingo]

 

[posthuman]

Now that I think about it even further "and this is not to make Adam blameless" but usually when women that are close to me give me food I just eat it no questions.

hahaha

beware Italian women; i love it

 

[posthuman]

also upon further examination we can see that the woman was given a greater punishment

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

hmm not sure how you're measuring to get that; she would in sorrow bring forth children, which isn't something one does all the days of their life, but he would all the days of his life in sorrow eat of the ground? so, if we measure by 'amount of sorrow' and measure sorrow by 'time spent in it' then Adam seems to have received more.
it's also for Adam's sake the ground is cursed, not Woman's.

IMO 'the punishment fit the crime' -- and how they are judged reflects how they sinned. that their judgement in that way informs us about what desire they had that underpinned their transgression: Woman wished to rule over her husband, to restrict her conception, to joy in it. Adam wished blessing to result from the fruit of the ground; i believe he sinned because he loved his wife, and hoped that through joining her in sin, he would save her from death - a vanity - while woman, being deceived, sinned because she hoped she would magnify herself, also a vanity.

it's absolutely true that both subtleties are present in us as humans; we sin out of pride in ourselves and sometimes even knowing that what we do is evil, we choose it. we also sin sometimes because we do not understand what we are doing, but have been led astray, whether by someone's influence or by our own vain desires. we sin in direct transgression of commands and also in opposition to eternal precepts of right and wrong where we do not have a command we are liable to, but a truth we have no excuse not to know.

we sin for all kinds of reasons -- or maybe when we get down to it, by another measure, only one reason: replacing the truth with a lie, having 'another god' before the One True God. pride; harkening to a voice other than the Lord's. but we have sin because Adam sinned. he had a choice when Woman came to him, with death in her, and death not in him. he could have let her to die. if he had, what? would God have made a new wife for him? possibly. but he joined her in death, and instead of there being two humans on earth, one with sin, one without, there became two humans on earth, both with sin -- all with sin, until there came the Son of God born of woman but not born of man, the Son of Man in whom there is no sin.

 

[iymus]

hmm not sure how you're measuring to get that; she would in sorrow bring forth children, which isn't something one does all the days of their life, but he would all the days of his life in sorrow eat of the ground? so, if we measure by 'amount of sorrow' and measure sorrow by 'time spent in it' then Adam seems to have received more.
it's also for Adam's sake the ground is cursed, not Woman's.

IMO 'the punishment fit the crime' -- and how they are judged reflects how they sinned. that their judgement in that way informs us about what desire they had that underpinned their transgression: Woman wished to rule over her husband, to restrict her conception, to joy in it. Adam wished blessing to result from the fruit of the ground; i believe he sinned because he loved his wife, and hoped that through joining her in sin, he would save her from death - a vanity - while woman, being deceived, sinned because she hoped she would magnify herself, also a vanity.

it's absolutely true that both subtleties are present in us as humans; we sin out of pride in ourselves and sometimes even knowing that what we do is evil, we choose it. we also sin sometimes because we do not understand what we are doing, but have been led astray, whether by someone's influence or by our own vain desires. we sin in direct transgression of commands and also in opposition to eternal precepts of right and wrong where we do not have a command we are liable to, but a truth we have no excuse not to know.

we sin for all kinds of reasons -- or maybe when we get down to it, by another measure, only one reason: replacing the truth with a lie, having 'another god' before the One True God. pride; harkening to a voice other than the Lord's. but we have sin because Adam sinned. he had a choice when Woman came to him, with death in her, and death not in him. he could have let her to die. if he had, what? would God have made a new wife for him? possibly. but he joined her in death, and instead of there being two humans on earth, one with sin, one without, there became two humans on earth, both with sin -- all with sin, until there came the Son of God born of woman but not born of man, the Son of Man in whom there is no sin.

Sighs

The Woman is of the Man so his punishment applies to her. You think the man eating the dust of the earth and the woman eating ribeye steak? If the earth was not cursed for Adams sake they would be devoured.

In a post above you are trying to rationalize why Adam should be counted with the transgressions when it gives why Eve is counted with the transgression in the New Testament.

I believe you are being disingenous because if these verses

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

had stated

And the Woman was not deceived, but Adam being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding He shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

And when Adam saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, He took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto his wife with him; and she did eat.

then your Correction and Reproof would have been strong and swift.

Pro 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
------------------------------------

This is why there are thousands of different Christian denominations with me.
You can be honest with me. Even though those verses seem to say what they say you don't feel like they should say what they say because the woman is supposed to be pure or immaculate compared to the seed of Man.
My reading comprehension can be above average at times but my righteousness without faith is as dirty rags so no condemnation from me.

 

[Whispered]

same Paul who wrote 1 Timothy wrote Romans and 1 Corinthians, by the same holy Spirit, and he said sin entered the world, and all of us, through Adam, singular, masculine. i realize that the word in Hebrew for 'man' is the same as the name 'Adam' but here we are reading Greek and we're seeing the name of a person, Adam, not the Greek word for mankind, and it's definitely one person, one man, the very same, Adam.

that Adam was not deceived, but sinned anyway, is extremely significant.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. ​

(Romans 5:14) ​

​

Adam being in transgression is specifically called out in scripture -- which, BTW @Whispered here's more "word for word" evidence in scripture that sin exists and is judged even when it's not a transgression of a specified law -- the context of Romans 5 is not the same context as 1 Timothy, which is to say, the purpose of what is being called to attention isn't the same in both places. here in Romans, it's being explained how that all are under sin. that's by Adam, specifically, not by 'male/female conglomerate' -- this is Greek, and the name 'Adam' isn't the same in Greek as the word 'mankind' so we aren't looking at a case where we have to by context interpret whether we're talking about mankind in general or about the specific person, Adam. we know we are talking about Adam: that's how sin entered mankind. through the one who sinned even though he wasn't deceived; who knew his wife had death, and he did not, and joined her in it, willingly, knowingly.
the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2 is explaining Paul's reasoning for women to be under the authority of men in teaching in the Lord: because Woman was deceived, but Adam was not. the statement in v. 14

i know you didn't mean to imply Adam didn't sin, but the facts are that the scripture tells us sin entered the world through Adam, not Woman ((to be later renamed Eve)) - so i object to you saying that we inherit sin from Eve; i believe it's clear from what i've cited that what we inherit is through Adam.

which -- the really salient point here -- makes the virgin birth of Jesus Christ the Spotless Lamb in Whom there is no sin a necessity -- if the degenerate & sin-filled nature of humankind is from their mothers, not their fathers, then Jesus was born sinful.
i didn't notice you comment on that point? tho i'll go back and re-check now. it is really this implication that i object to, and bring up Romans & 1 Corinthians in order to counter-argue against.

Hard to pick out what you're saying there or to whom however, if I read you right you think I said what I bolded in your remarks above. I did not. Therefore you're right, I didn't imply anything about Adam nor Eve as you detail above, because I never actually said those things. Maybe go back and read whatever post you thought pertained to those matters and address the actual author.

As per your remark about Adam was not deceived by woman, that is by scripture clearly not true. Adam was with the woman at the time she encountered the serpent and he, whom God told not to eat of the tree, did! That would make the argument man is appointed to be head of a woman because woman was deceived by the serpent but the man was not, hogwash.
That the man was with Eve at the time she was misled by the serpent and chose to eat of the fruit she offered him while knowing what God told him personally about not eating of that, shows the man was too weak to obey God's edict because he was persuaded to disobey God by the woman. That doesn't make man qualified to be head over a woman because his wisdom and resolve is superior to hers.
We both know this issue was hashed out in a different thread and for a prolonged period of time. Despite your implied invitation to continue that I respectfully decline. And for the above reason.

 

[Whispered]

FALSE

where there is no law there is no transgression.​

(Romans 4:15)​

​

"transgression" here is παράβασις in Greek -- it is never translated as "sin" -- it means 'violation'
there is no violation of law when there is no law.

"sin" in Greek is ἁμαρτία and it's found in this verse:

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given ​

(Romans 5:13) ​

​

sin exists even when it is not particular transgression of a particular given law. how many times now have you been corrected on this?
wanna try using your 'word-for-word' requirement in judgement on yourself?
are you not guilty of that thing you accuse others of?

sin existed before the law. sin exists without the law. transgression is not accounted where there is no law.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, ​

and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ​

(Romans 2:12)​

​

even among all who are without the law, there is sin, and it is judged.

​

​

​

No, the scripture is clear. You are free not to believe it.

 

[Whispered]

to be fair he didn't say he was talking about babies that have cancer.
and he didn't say all babies have cancer.
he said 'babies born under the law' are born into bodies which are 'cancer prone'....

It's odd that you posted his quote and then presume to say he didn't actually mean what you re-posted from him.
People choose to answer on his behalf and yet he remains quiet. I find that odd.

 

[posthuman]

the scripture is clear.

yes, the scripture is clear, sin exists apart from the law and before the law:

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given​

(Romans 5:13)​

and yes, you are clearly wrong, and you clearly reject correction:

Without the law there is no sin, the Bible says.

the Bible says there is sin without the law. and you know that; you've been corrected and informed a dozen times.
but you don't apparently care. you like your idea better than what the scripture actually says.

The Book of Romans chapter 4 verse 15.

for where no law is, there is no transgression.
(Romans 4:15)
​

that does not say what you say it says. it says there is no transgression -- a word which means violation of a commandment -- where there isn't a law.

don't pretend i'm being harsh for no reason; we spent multiple pages going over this some months ago, and i began by gently correcting you, but because of your stiff-necked rejection of the very verses you quoted, saying over and over they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say, i grew sterner in rebuking you even as you grew more stubborn. if you want to go on and embarrass yourself in this thread, too, having that same conversation all over again, go for it. but i think you ought to accept what the Bible says instead, and i hope this time you will.

 

[posthuman]

It's odd that you posted his quote and then presume to say he didn't actually mean what you re-posted from him.
People choose to answer on his behalf and yet he remains quiet. I find that odd.

you really do have a reading comprehension problem?

like, seriously, do you have a diagnosed condition?

garee said:

Babies born under the law are born into a corrupted cancer prone bodies body that in the end die. The wrath of God revealed from heaven.

100 % of the 90% cure rate die.

point out where he said anything about babies having cancer?

I asked them to provide, the word for word scripture that states what they claimed about babies that have cancer.

he said babies are born into "cancer-prone" bodies that decay. not 'babies with cancer' as you misstated, but babies who, like all of us, are susceptible to cancer and in high percentage, eventually develop it.
humans are susceptible to cancer. fact.
a large number of humans get cancer. fact.
human flesh is in a continuous state of decay. fact.
human bodies die. fact. 100% of them.

i'm defending garee from unwarranted attack here because i love garee. he is often abused here on the forum and he is quite meek about it. yes, he's weird, we all know - and yes, he says some things that are wrong. it's not like i never challenge him over any of it; have a dig through my post history if you want.
but i read how you made this demand for a 'word-for-word' quote from the Bible from him for what he said, and i thought, that's ridiculous. God says i should defend those who have no defender, and the fact is, what garee had said is supported from scripture. that's why i stood up for him here.

 

[Whispered]

yes, the scripture is clear, sin exists apart from the law and before the law:

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given​

(Romans 5:13)​

and yes, you are clearly wrong, and you clearly reject correction:



the Bible says there is sin without the law. and you know that; you've been corrected and informed a dozen times.
but you don't apparently care. you like your idea better than what the scripture actually says.

​

for where no law is, there is no transgression. ​

(Romans 4:15) ​

​

that does not say what you say it says. it says there is no transgression -- a word which means violation of a commandment -- where there isn't a law.

don't pretend i'm being harsh for no reason; we spent multiple pages going over this some months ago, and i began by gently correcting you, but because of your stiff-necked rejection of the very verses you quoted, saying over and over they say exactly the opposite of what they actually say, i grew sterner in rebuking you even as you grew more stubborn. if you want to go on and embarrass yourself in this thread, too, having that same conversation all over again, go for it. but i think you ought to accept what the Bible says instead, and i hope this time you will.

Wow, you're being harsh because that's who you are. Don't use me as your excuse.

Furthermore, and lastly, what many Christians do not understand is that God's law began in Eden. When God told Adam directly, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Because if you do you shall surely die.

That was the law of God. The first law ever uttered by God to man.
When the Saint Apostle Paul states that without the law there is no sin, that's precisely what he said! You do not have to accept that but be sure you are not able to correct anyone who reminds you of that passage that you choose to ignore.

Sin was not in the world before God uttered His law to Adam. Paul's observation was in error. Gee, he's entitled to be wrong! Imagine that.
We know sin was not in the world before the law because after God created all things pertaining to the heavens and the earth, the world, He declared it was very good!
That would mean it was without sin.
Or, if one insists Paul was right, then they are saying God gazed upon all He had created as related in Genesis and upon the sixth day He decreed sin and all He created was very good.

Which is their burden to defend as it is not scripture.

Or, they could realize that when God's first law was uttered by God to Adam, that that Omniscience with the forbidden tree in the garden of God's creation would be the cause of the first sin and that is what Paul was referring to.

The Book of Genesis chapter 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.


You are able to believe as you will, however, I am entitled not to be the target of your anger. I frankly do not concern myself with your acceptance of my point of view which is sustained by scripture. If I continue to debate this with you it will only inspire your harsh personality to continue invited by that , me, which causes it to express itself.
That would be wrong on my part after the fact you are wrong in yours.

This concludes our debate on this matter. Believe as you will.

 

[posthuman]

Hard to pick out what you're saying there or to whom however, if I read you right you think I said what I bolded in your remarks above. I did not.

it's pretty simple. i quoted iymus and everything i wrote was directly related to and in response to things he had said, except for one small parenthesis where i tagged you to draw your attention to a verse i was quoting to him:

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
(Romans 5:14)
Adam being in transgression is specifically called out in scripture -- which, BTW @Whispered here's more "word for word" evidence in scripture that sin exists and is judged even when it's not a transgression of a specified law --

that part, and that part only, bracketed by "--" on either side, was to you specifically.
because this verse came up in conversation with him, and it states that people sin in ways other than transgression of a commandment, thus putting your belief that 'sin doesn't exist without the law' in direct contradiction with scripture again.
thought you might like to stay informed


with regard to 'i know you didn't mean to imply Adam didn't sin' it's a direct response to this:

#2 No one is saying the Man is not blameless for listening to his wife however the woman is implicated specifically as being in the transgression.

 

[posthuman]

Furthermore, and lastly, what many Christians do not understand is that God's law began in Eden. When God told Adam directly, thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Because if you do you shall surely die.

so this is how sin was found in Satan? he ate of the tree? when? Satan didn't sin until after Eden was planted?

quit with the gymnastics.

• Romans is not talking about 'do not eat of the tree in the midst of the garden' when it says 'the law'
• Romans says there isn't 'transgression' when there is no law to be transgressed. it doesn't say there is no sin without law.
• Romans says there are many who sin who do not have the law
• Romans says sin was in the world before the law
• Romans says sin seizes the opportunity of law to come to life - therefore it pre-exists the law, though it is dead without it, being powerless
• Romans, Colossians and Galatians all say we are not under law. John says we are liars if we say we have no sin. therefore if we sin, we do it without law. therefore there is sin without law.

 

[posthuman]

Or, if one insists Paul was right, then they are saying God gazed upon all He had created as related in Genesis and upon the sixth day He decreed sin and all He created was very good.

so you're saying Paul was wrong?

 

[posthuman]

I am entitled not to be the target of your anger.

you're not; lies are.

sin was in the world before the law.

Satan was in the garden before Woman was deceived. he wasn't part of the creation of the heavens and the earth - God didn't look at Satan while he was looking at all the things He made in Genesis 1, calling them good. the angels were witness to this creation - Job 38:7

 

[posthuman]

When the Saint Apostle Paul states that without the law there is no sin, that's precisely what he said!

​

​

except that's not at all what Paul said -- it's what you say, but it's not what the Bible says, at all.

​

​

where there is no law there is no transgression.​

(Romans 4:15)​

​

parabasis: a going aside, a transgression​

Original Word: παράβασις, εως, ἡ​

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine​

Transliteration: parabasis​

Phonetic Spelling: (par-ab'-as-is)​

Definition: a going aside, a transgression​

Usage: a transgression, overstepping, deviation. ​

​

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given,​

but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.​

(Romans 5:13)​

​

hamartia: a sin, failure​

Original Word: ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ​

Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine​

Transliteration: hamartia​

Phonetic Spelling: (ham-ar-tee'-ah)​

Definition: a sin, failure​

Usage: prop: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed. ​

​

​

this is what upsets me: willful, knowing rejection of the truth of scripture, exchanging the truth for a lie.
not even out of ignorance or confusion or deception - but knowingly.
repeatedly refusing the truth over and over when it is point-blank staring you in the face, choosing vanity instead of life.
that is wickedness.

 

[EternalFire]

the age isn’t exact from person to person.

Isaiah 15
By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey.

This is a great scripture for this discussion. What you are quoting is actually found in Isaiah 7:15-16.

 

[JamOn]

This is a great scripture for this discussion. What you are quoting is actually found in Isaiah 7:15-16.

yup seems my fingers forgot the 7: lol