The fall

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

God told Adam he could 'freely eat' from the garden except for the one tree. clearly Adam had free will and was able to decide for himself what he considered 'good' to eat.
Adam named every living soul. clearly Adam had an intuitive sense of what was a 'good' name vs. what was a 'bad' name.
Woman saw the tree of knowledge of good from evil was 'good' for food. clearly she knew what 'good' meant vs. 'bad'
Woman considered the tree 'desirable for wisdom' -- clearly she knew the difference between undesirable/desirable and discerned the goodness of wisdom vs. the evil of folly. she was deceived about which was which at this point, but the text makes it inescapable that she 100% had these concepts and understood them.
God gave Adam the job of tending the garden. clearly Adam knew what was good for the garden and what was not good, or he would not be able to do 'his job'
God gave them commands and held them accountable for transgressing those commands. clearly they had the capacity to understand these commands and the understanding that obeying God was good but disobeying Him was evil. clearly God does not punish them for disobedience when they are such mindless idiots that they can't even comprehend whether disobedience is wrong or not.

i'm sorry but your view that they are mindless imbeciles with no comprehension of even the most basic ethics, less understanding than a toddler, is ridiculously absurd. it contradicts the scripture and makes God unjust & evil. it's basically the lie of Satan. it is a most regrettably common view taught all over in the vast majority of todays modern churches, and i'm not surprised you're repeating it here, but it's absolutely rubbish IMO

Magenta · Dec 28, 2020

SophieT said:

What occurred to me is that whatever the reason Adam ate, it seems obvious he loved his current life more than the life God promised him through obedience... and it struck me, that that very same problem remains a major deterrent, even among present-day Christians. It seems simple enough to understand in terms of man putting his own will ahead of God's will... as if man could possibly know better than God

Magenta · Dec 28, 2020

oyster67 said:

I think it is overexposed

calibob · Dec 28, 2020

Blade said:

Never been a sinner, I've never sinned
I've got a friend in Jesus.
So you know that when I die, he's gonna set me up
to the spirit in the sky
(Start riff here)

infinitekhanol · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

God told Adam he could 'freely eat' from the garden except for the one tree. clearly Adam had free will and was able to decide for himself what he considered 'good' to eat.
Adam named every living soul. clearly Adam had an intuitive sense of what was a 'good' name vs. what was a 'bad' name.
Woman saw the tree of knowledge of good from evil was 'good' for food. clearly she knew what 'good' meant vs. 'bad'
Woman considered the tree 'desirable for wisdom' -- clearly she knew the difference between undesirable/desirable and discerned the goodness of wisdom vs. the evil of folly. she was deceived about which was which at this point, but the text makes it inescapable that she 100% had these concepts and understood them.
God gave Adam the job of tending the garden. clearly Adam knew what was good for the garden and what was not good, or he would not be able to do 'his job'
God gave them commands and held them accountable for transgressing those commands. clearly they had the capacity to understand these commands and the understanding that obeying God was good but disobeying Him was evil. clearly God does not punish them for disobedience when they are such mindless idiots that they can't even comprehend whether disobedience is wrong or not.

i'm sorry but your view that they are mindless imbeciles with no comprehension of even the most basic ethics, less understanding than a toddler, is ridiculously absurd. it contradicts the scripture and makes God unjust & evil. it's basically the lie of Satan. it is a most regrettably common view taught all over in the vast majority of todays modern churches, and i'm not surprised you're repeating it here, but it's absolutely rubbish IMO

I agree with your line of thought.

I personally believe that the soul is capable of reasoning. He has the ability to think, interpret, know, understand, explain and form opinion about things existing and happening around him and take decisions by choosing between alternatives. This is the way God made him.

infinitekhanol · Dec 28, 2020

oyster67 said:

I doubt it

UCA4J · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

Genesis 3:6 doesn't say "who was with her" it says she ate, she gave to her husband "with her," and he did eat.
there are 3 events there -- her eating, her giving fruit to Adam, and Adam eating. there may be any space of time between these events, and in fact we know there are spaces of time and unrecorded events because God judged Adam because he listened to her -- but gave no record of her speaking to him.

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you

(Genesis 9:9)

compare this -- God makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants 'with him'
does this necessarily mean that everyone descended from Noah was standing beside Noah when God said this? that includes me & you -- were we there? so 'with your seed after you' isn't saying we're all congregated together on Mt Ararat; it's saying we are all joined together in the covenant. it's 'with Noah' in the inclusion of the covenant, not 'with Noah' in space & time.

so i think that knowing Adam wasn't deceived, he can't have been standing beside her when she was, or when she ate. she eats, and death enters into her. she goes to Adam. she says something to him. he makes a decision and she gives him fruit. now he has fruit 'with her' - and he eats, and then he is in transgression 'with her' -- the 'with her' doesn't necessarily have reference to being in proximity to her while she is deceived by the Serpent and taking from the tree; it can be referencing 'joining her' in eating the forbidden fruit, and i think that all the other details we know about this indicate that he wasn't.

not arguing that Adam didn't sin; of course he did. but for Adam to be standing right beside his wife watching the serpent deceive her, watching her take and eat the fruit, and say or do nothing about it, Adam has to be either a enormous idiot or equally deceived, and he is neither. Woman was first in transgression, and Adam was not deceived. if Adam is guilty of failing to stop her, then Adam is first in transgression because in that case he would have failed before she ate: she thinks she can't even touch the fruit, so if we accuse Adam of allowing her to eat, then he's guilty from the moment she reaches out her hand, but she's not guilty until she eats. this contradicts scripture, because we know she was first in transgression -- and we know Adam wasn't fooled.

but God does not hold him accountable for Woman's sin -- tho Adam himself in his confession takes her sin on himself ((a figure of the last Adam who was to come)). God holds the Serpent responsible; that is who is cursed. Adam & Eve are both guilty of transgression and suffer the results of their transgression, but He does not curse them.

I quoted gen 3 v 6 using the KJV, with a bit of my wording, in a conversational manner.

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

UCA4J said:

in the KJV you will notice "who was" is italicized, indicating it is not part of the actual text but an interpretive addition by the translators. i.e. it is not translation it is inserted words they thought would make the text flow better in English.

if you have a paper copy of the KJV it's a good idea to get yourself a black marker and cross out everything italicized.

calibob · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

Genesis 3:6 doesn't say "who was with her" it says she ate, she gave to her husband "with her," and he did eat.
there are 3 events there -- her eating, her giving fruit to Adam, and Adam eating. there may be any space of time between these events, and in fact we know there are spaces of time and unrecorded events because God judged Adam because he listened to her -- but gave no record of her speaking to him.

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you

(Genesis 9:9)

compare this -- God makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants 'with him'
does this necessarily mean that everyone descended from Noah was standing beside Noah when God said this? that includes me & you -- were we there? so 'with your seed after you' isn't saying we're all congregated together on Mt Ararat; it's saying we are all joined together in the covenant. it's 'with Noah' in the inclusion of the covenant, not 'with Noah' in space & time.

so i think that knowing Adam wasn't deceived, he can't have been standing beside her when she was, or when she ate. she eats, and death enters into her. she goes to Adam. she says something to him. he makes a decision and she gives him fruit. now he has fruit 'with her' - and he eats, and then he is in transgression 'with her' -- the 'with her' doesn't necessarily have reference to being in proximity to her while she is deceived by the Serpent and taking from the tree; it can be referencing 'joining her' in eating the forbidden fruit, and i think that all the other details we know about this indicate that he wasn't.

not arguing that Adam didn't sin; of course he did. but for Adam to be standing right beside his wife watching the serpent deceive her, watching her take and eat the fruit, and say or do nothing about it, Adam has to be either a enormous idiot or equally deceived, and he is neither. Woman was first in transgression, and Adam was not deceived. if Adam is guilty of failing to stop her, then Adam is first in transgression because in that case he would have failed before she ate: she thinks she can't even touch the fruit, so if we accuse Adam of allowing her to eat, then he's guilty from the moment she reaches out her hand, but she's not guilty until she eats. this contradicts scripture, because we know she was first in transgression -- and we know Adam wasn't fooled.

but God does not hold him accountable for Woman's sin -- tho Adam himself in his confession takes her sin on himself ((a figure of the last Adam who was to come)). God holds the Serpent responsible; that is who is cursed. Adam & Eve are both guilty of transgression and suffer the results of their transgression, but He does not curse them.

UCA4J · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

in the KJV you will notice "who was" is italicized, indicating it is not part of the actual text but an interpretive addition by the translators. i.e. it is not translation it is inserted words they thought would make the text flow better in English.

if you have a paper copy of the KJV it's a good idea to get yourself a black marker and cross out everything italicized.

why would I cross out any of the text in the KJV. ?

calibob · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

Er, which translation? I copied these from biblehub just a couple of moments ago;

Bible > Genesis > Chapter 3 > Verse 6

◄ Genesis 3:6 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

King James Bible
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.

Darby Bible Translation
And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure for the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to give intelligence; and she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

World English Bible
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.

Young's Literal Translation
And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make one wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;

posthuman said:

I learned that doin Old testament studies. Very early;

. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

calibob said:

Er, which translation? I copied these from biblehub just a couple of moments ago;

Bible > Genesis > Chapter 3 > Verse 6

◄ Genesis 3:6 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

King James Bible
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.

Darby Bible Translation
And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure for the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to give intelligence; and she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

World English Bible
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.

Young's Literal Translation
And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make one wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;

I learned that doin Old testament studies. Very early;

. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

whoops!

i was going by what i thought i remembered, which wasn't right.
man, i gotta remember that my memory isn't so great

thank you for showing me where i was wrong

it is nice to see that kjv doesn't add the 'who was' to 'with her' here; now that i see it i don't know why i was thinking it did.

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

UCA4J said:

because the italicized words are not part of the scripture, they are part of someone's interpretation of what should be in the scripture.
scripture isn't written in English. Hebrew and Greek do not have the same grammatical structures as English. sometimes translators 'fill in' words that aren't actually part of the original text as God gave it, because in order to translate there are necessarily phrases and words that cannot be put 1-to-1 into the strange foreign language that we speak. kjv does a good job of pointing out most of this by putting words in italics that have been added to God's original word.
if you would like to read scripture in as close to it's word-for-word form as you can, but you would not like to learn the original languages and you would not like to read any other version than kjv, then it would be advisable to cross out everything in italics. none of it is literal translation. the kjv translators thought you might like to, in fact, and that's why they were kind enough to identify the words that are not part of the Bible with italics.

up to you. just saying it would be a good idea IMO.

UCA4J · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

because the italicized words are not part of the scripture, they are part of someone's interpretation of what should be in the scripture.
scripture isn't written in English. Hebrew and Greek do not have the same grammatical structures as English. sometimes translators 'fill in' words that aren't actually part of the original text as God gave it, because in order to translate there are necessarily phrases and words that cannot be put 1-to-1 into the strange foreign language that we speak. kjv does a good job of pointing out most of this by putting words in italics that have been added to God's original word.
if you would like to read scripture in as close to it's word-for-word form as you can, but you would not like to learn the original languages and you would not like to read any other version than kjv, then it would be advisable to cross out everything in italics. none of it is literal translation. the kjv translators thought you might like to, in fact, and that's why they were kind enough to identify the words that are not part of the Bible with italics.

up to you. just saying it would be a good idea IMO.

in my KJV those words aren't italicized, but a few are.

pottersclay · Dec 28, 2020

Eve was deceived....tricked

Adam...trusted eve and serpent

ewq1938 · Dec 28, 2020

It's important to have extra words when translating from one language to another because language say things differently. I can't think of a single time where any italicized words are misleading and should be removed.

posthuman said:

because the italicized words are not part of the scripture, they are part of someone's interpretation of what should be in the scripture.
scripture isn't written in English. Hebrew and Greek do not have the same grammatical structures as English. sometimes translators 'fill in' words that aren't actually part of the original text as God gave it, because in order to translate there are necessarily phrases and words that cannot be put 1-to-1 into the strange foreign language that we speak. kjv does a good job of pointing out most of this by putting words in italics that have been added to God's original word.
if you would like to read scripture in as close to it's word-for-word form as you can, but you would not like to learn the original languages and you would not like to read any other version than kjv, then it would be advisable to cross out everything in italics. none of it is literal translation. the kjv translators thought you might like to, in fact, and that's why they were kind enough to identify the words that are not part of the Bible with italics.

up to you. just saying it would be a good idea IMO.

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

ewq1938 said:

how about John 8:24, John 18:5, etc?

there is no 'he' in the text; Jesus is identifying Himself as I AM THAT I AM, the YHVH

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

pottersclay said:

if Adam trusted Satan wouldn't that make Adam deceived?

same for his wife while she was deceived - whose name is not Eve until Adam heard and believed the promise of The Seed, btw. it's for this that God says, Adam has become like one of Him.

ewq1938 · Dec 28, 2020

posthuman said:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This makes sense in English.

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

This doesn't make as much sense because it is broken English. To remove "he" the verse would have to read this way to make sense:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am THE I AM, ye shall die in your sins.

posthuman · Dec 28, 2020

ewq1938 said:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This makes sense in English.

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

This doesn't make as much sense because it is broken English. To remove "he" the verse would have to read this way to make sense:

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am THE I AM, ye shall die in your sins.

what Jesus literally says is,

if you do not believe that I AM you will die in your sins

The fall

What caused Eve to take the fruit of knowledge?

Rebellion against God.

Believing the serpent.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Sinner saved by grace

Active member

Active member

Banned

Senior Member

Sinner saved by grace

Banned

Sinner saved by grace

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

pottersclay

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member