Was Adam Made Holy

Magenta, Ro. 5:14 death reigned from Adam to Moses. What Law was in effect between the time of Adam and Moses? Do not eat from the knowledge of good and evil which men could not get into even if they wanted to. Sin was in the world before Law was given the first Law was the only Law do not eat from this tree For the claim of sin before Law to be true then sin was in the world before the command not to eat was given. the Wage of sin is death but men died before Sinai and had no understanding of why. These are those who died but have not been judged yet

Yes, death reigned from Adam to Moses, AFTER Adam sinned. Sin was not in the world before that. It and death entered then.

“Sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Rom 5:12)

Day three would seem to be when he found bride in the heart of Satan a corrupted the whole creation . day four the temporal time keepers were turned on .The glory of God as the light signaling the presence of God the light of the world had departed . Three is used as a number metaphor it would seem in that way.

I think Adam because he was to be used as a husband or farmer sowing and reaping like that of our God. Mankind was the last of his works of faith . . created on day 6. Marked with 666 his number.

All of the work of husbandry .. . plants animal had to be in place before he could command them . The loving commandment was . Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over every living thing that moves upon the earth. But not have dominion over each other. But rather works that God had prepared as one like the Father and the Son, one work, one faith .

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 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. 27-31

He is preparing a new place for believers . It could be a place where a stomach for food or food for the stomach is not necessary?

perfect rest.

Is the teaching sin was in the world before the Law? What was the first Law? Who was sinning before the Law was given? Did Eve commit any sins before she ate the fruit? Stealing, coveting, doubting God? Were these before or after eating the fruit? Of course they were before. Why then no reaction to them being committed. Ro. 8: 1 where there is no Law there is no condemnation. The only Law said do not eat from the tree and it was that sin that opened the way for Law to do what the Law does which I listed above. That was the only Law over men until Sinai and yet men were dying having never eaten from the forbidden fruit.

One sentence sums up all I am trying to get across with many words. Beautifully stated. thanks

What you are arguing is when sin entered the world with when Adam and Eve became aware of sin. Is taking what is God's after He tells you no sin or not sin? Remember everything that is not done in faith is sin. Is coveting your neighbors, in this case the Lord's, fruit sin or not sin? Or were these actions holy, righteous and done in faith?

last try, I have enjoyed the discussion. The question now is why won't you answer my question about whether their actions leading up to eating is righteous or sin? If taking the forbidden fruit is righteous. If the coveting and doubting what God said is righteous then we don't have a problem with your claim. If these things are not righteous then sin and death still entered the world through Adam but it was from all the sins He committed.

===============================================================
Adam came in contact with God, (walked with Him, talked with Him, served Him),
one cannot come into direct contact with The Holy God, and be un-holy...
as it is written:
ISA. 59:2.
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you,
that He will not hear.

Before the 'fall', there was NO 'separation', Adam and Eve were given eternal life and their off-spring,
for eternity - but, as we have read, because of our ancestor's un-holy behavior, our separation from God
was sealed, and so death was brought into existence...

how can we possibly thank our Holy Saviour for 'not writing us all off'??? but instead, He has, for His
own reasons established an Holy Love/order for us, and has made a 'way to reconcile us unto His Holy bosom
to be 'members/family' in a place, an Holy Kingdom that is beyond our imagination, for His own purpose...

Please answer if what was done before eating was sin or righteousness. Was taking God’s possession against His will sin or righteous? Was coveting what was God’s sin or righteous? Not having faith sin or righteous? Their sin did separate them but it was only when they were made aware of their sin there was no law that said don’t steal or they would have been convicted at that point. Likewise nothing that said don’t covet or they would have been convicted at that point. Just because there is no law outlawing what is sin does not make it less sin it just makes it unrecognized sin And uncharged Romans 5:13-14. Romans 8:1

all of mans actions are either good or evil the Law and only the Law defines which is which. Until that Law do not covet man does not take it into account as sin Romans 8.

One could make the point that, instead of physical death, God showed grace to them, sacrificed a lamb and made a covering.

Whispered said:

I suggest you look up, "the", as is applied in English grammar.

Click to expand...

Grammatically speaking, "the" could apply to posthuman or it could apply to any saint.

Best practice is to avoid making any accusation and just stick to discussing the text without insinuating the believer is ignoring Genesis (or any Scripture for that matter).

Whispered said:

As you can see, it does not speak of Eve going to Adam , nor Adam seeking Eve before what transpired in verse 6.

Click to expand...

And Gen 3:1-5 does not speak of Adam being with Eve when she was deceived by satan, but that does not stop you from insisting he was with her.

Whispered said:

Verse 6 tells us Adam was with her. If you go into those particulars, you cannot ignore that in those verses we do not read Eve seeking out Adam prior to verse 6. Or vice versa. We learn Adam was with her. With. Preposition.

Click to expand...

And it has been explained to you that "With. Preposition." was added to the text by the translators.

Whispered said:

That's awfully late coming into your argument. It is also incorrect.
3:6 waTëre häiSHäh Kiy †ôv häëtz l'maákhäl w'khiy taáwäh-hû läëynayim w'nech'mäd häëtz l'has'Kiyl waTiQach miPir'yô waTokhal waTiTën Gam-l'iyshäH iMäH waYokhal
(Source:Hebrew OT - Transliteration - Holy Name KJV Bereshit / Genesis 3 )
The words in the scripture above are defined if you mouse over each of them. Hebrew is divided in parts, with the grammatical application included. iMä, is "with".

Click to expand...

Do you know the source of your transliteration?


I used the Masoretic Text in my earlier post:

3:6 'ishshah ra'ah `ets towb ma'akal huw' ta'avah `ayin `ets chamad sakal laqach pĕriy 'akal nathan gam 'iysh 'akal


'ishshah = and when the woman

ra'ah = saw

`ets = that the tree

towb = was good

ma'akal = for food

huw' = and that it

ta'avah = was pleasant

`ayin = to the eyes

`ets = and a tree

chamad = to be desired

sakal = to make one wise

laqach = she took

pĕriy = of the fruit

'akal = and did eat

nathan = and gave

gam = also

'iysh = unto her husband

'akal = with her and he did eat

Whispered said:

You cannot conflate the great commission with the dynamics of Genesis 3. Well, you can, as you obviously do, but that doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

Please discontinue your personal attacks. It does nothing to add to the discussion. If you cannot stop yourself from personally attacking other believers, perhaps it is best if you just give it a rest for a while. Come back to the discussion after you are able to converse in a Christ-like manner.

Whispered said:

She didn't change God's command. She paraphrased to the serpent what she'd been told by Adam, since God didn't directly command Eve not to eat.

Click to expand...

Well Eve removed a word [freely]

Eve added words [neither shall ye touch it]

Eve changed words [from thou shalt surely die to lest ye die]

When we remove words, add words, change words, that is more than "paraphrase". Eve had no foundation upon which to stand in order to resist satan because she did not stand firm on God's Word when "she paraphrased to the serpent".

Whispered said:

When Adam was with her he should not have followed Eve's leading, but should have held to God's words that were a command spoken directly to Adam. Even if we go with what you guess to be true, though there is no scripture that sustains it, and Eve went and found Adam , or vice versa, and then gave him to eat, Adam should have held to God's command and not eaten of it.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I do not believe Adam was with Eve when satan deceived her.

You see that Adam should have done something and you presume he just didn't stand up to satan.

I see that Adam was not there to stand up to satan and help Eve withstand the attack of the adversary.

Whispered said:

And we cannot say, proceeding with the interpolation that Eve sought out Adam after eating of the fruit, or vice versa, that Adam was naive and did not know he was eating of the forbidden tree. Because when God asked Adam what he had done, he cast the blame on Eve for having eaten. So he knew he had eaten of the forbidden fruit.
How would he know that if he had not been there when Eve was tempted to do so by the serpent? Are we guessing that Eve sought out Adam after, or vice versa, and didn't tell Adam from whence it came? (Verse 12)

Click to expand...

Of course Adam knew what he was doing. Adam ate of the tree precisely because Eve had already eaten. She had already fallen and he knew it. Adam joined Eve in her fallen state.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam left his Father and cleaved to his wife and became one flesh with her.

Whispered said:

It was enmity between Eve and the serpent.
It is odd though don't you think?
The seed of a serpent? Having any relevance or corollary to the seed of a woman?

Click to expand...

It is interesting. I know the seed of the woman is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Whispered said:

And Adam did eat of the fruit of the tree because he was with Eve (verse 6, even in Hebrew) as she gave him of what she had eaten from that tree.

Click to expand...

A quote from your link (bold/underline mine):

Whispered said:

Discussing scripture isn't accusation. Implying a negative intention in my discussions and perspective concerning scripture is accusation.

Click to expand...

I was speaking of your accusation when you inferred that someone who disagrees with you does so because he or she "Choose to ignore Genesis in part or in full" – your Post #380.

You accuse of a "double standard that's entered this thread" … that "people make wide assumptions when there is no scripture to support it" – your Post #397.

There is no need to bring in these accusations. People are discussing Scripture and we may or may not agree. Instead of becoming accusatory of some sort of malfeasance on the part of those with whom we disagree, why don't we just thank God that we are able to discuss Scripture and also thank God that someone actually wants to know what is in Scripture …

or, maybe we have a case of suggesting God has said something He has not said.

here are the first four times 'cursed' is in the scripture; which are the first three times God says He curses something, and the first record of a man saying the word.


i failed to find anywhere in scripture that says all mankind is cursed. there are curses on particular people, groups, and to 'anyone' who meets or fails to meet some qualification.
man isn't his flesh; that's only the vehicle in which the spirit of man resides until it returns to the One who gave it - if 'the ground' refers to physical creation, that's not the whole man, but the dust that forms his tent and then returns to dust. you quoted a portion of Romans 8 - doesn't the rest of that chapter, and the few preceding it, have much to say about a profound distinction between the spirit and the flesh of a man? who is it that groans - the brain or the mind inhabiting it?

i never read God say 'cursed be man' -- if you want to use a different vocabulary than God's, that's fine, but you'll understand if i choose to use His that i will continue to say, God never cursed mankind, nor Adam nor Eve nee Woman. He cursed the ground for Adam's sake, and the Serpent because of what he did. He clothed the man and the woman, protected them from eating of the tree of life, and promised Salvation to them. that's not a curse; that's a gracious blessing, IMO

Not in this case. Since I'm the writer. "The" saint directed toward posthuman was direct and also for the purpose of reiterating the preposition in Genesis 3:6.
That is what I wanted to make clear. You don't appear to appreciate what I said, you claim we don't have the capacity to make people believe, a paraphrase of your words in your posts to date in this thread and directed to me, and yet you dedicate yourself to that very thing here. Again.
It is a wonder that you think you're going to cast aspersions upon me, while you wilfuly ignore the posters in this thread, and not the only stage where they exhibit their animus, that resort to attack language in order to get people to either believe as they do, or stop contending against what the attacker believes should be questioned by anyone.
How many saints on this forum have posted they're going to leave due to that harassment? More than 3. And here you have arrived as you think you're going to teach me how to speak to people. I would suggest you entertain a worthy project.
Address those who disobey the scripture as pertains to how we are to comport ourselves as those who put on Christ.
And lastly.
accusation
[ ak-yoo-zey-shuh n ]

SEE SYNONYMS FOR accusation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a charge of wrongdoing; imputation of guilt or blame.
the specific offense charged: The accusation is murder.
the act of accusing or state of being accused