Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[cv5]

He Adam was not decieved by Satan to which means he willfully sold his soul to the devil

A sophomoric perspective gleaned from Hollywood.
But Adam did willfully dispossess himself of his former glory that is for sure.
He willfully HUMILIATED himself, and willfully DIED to be with his bride, sure of God's resurrection.

Does this scenario remind you of anything?

 

[Jordon]

A sophomoric perspective gleaned from Hollywood.
But Adam did willfully dispossess himself of his former glory that is for sure.
He willfully HUMILIATED himself, and willfully DIED to be with his bride, sure of God's resurrection.

Does this scenario remind you of anything?

it not in the same light as Jesus

Jesus willfully did it knowing he was defeating death.

Adam did it through and act of disobedience and as a result many will not see life.

 

[GWH]

it not in the same light as Jesus

Jesus willfully did it knowing he was defeating death.

Adam did it through and act of disobedience and as a result many will not see life.

I do not see GW discussing A&E's situation before they sinned but rather making the point that
humanity began sinning from the beginning and each human has sinned ever since, therefore
necessitating God's provision of the way to partake of the tree of life via faith in Messiah.

 

[cv5]

it not in the same light as Jesus

Jesus willfully did it knowing he was defeating death.

Adam did it through and act of disobedience and as a result many will not see life.

@Jordon buddy:
Adam is a TYPE of Christ.
Adam is WAITING for Christ (just like the rest of us).

ADAM IS NOT CHRIST.

Time to up your game. And time to expend 10-20 hours and hear those lectures that I posted.
Otherwise you will end up in the ditch in the weeds buddy. And maybe never escape.

 

[Jordon]

@Jordon buddy:
Adam is a TYPE of Christ.
Adam is WAITING for Christ (just like the rest of us).

ADAM IS NOT CHRIST.

Time to up your game. And time to expend 10-20 hours and hear those lectures that I posted.
Otherwise you will end up in the ditch in the weeds buddy. And maybe never escape.

hey buddy I've dug up loads of weeds

But there's one weed that keeps coming back it's called a dandy lion, my guess it's not a weed and it has a purpose lol, the sad truth is that weeds are actually plants,

Poor weeds lol, that all I can say but it's best not to smoke them buddy I know it can make you feel like a hero to do 50 bongs a night, but unfortunately your faith can end up turning to weedology.

Hey buddy glad you recognise Adam was not Christ tho.

 

[Jordon]

I do not see GW discussing A&E's situation before they sinned but rather making the point that
humanity began sinning from the beginning and each human has sinned ever since, therefore
necessitating God's provision of the way to partake of the tree of life via faith in Messiah.

good for you buddy

 

[Genez]

Being deceived means (willfully) believing a lie and the father of lies, murdering truth (John 8:42-44).

The lie was?

The same kind of lie Satan created for himself.

​

Eat this fruit, and you will be wise as God! Genesis 3:4​

ADAM knew better. He was not deceived.
He was there with the woman and knew what the serpent had said.

Interestingly, the Hebrew says, Adam munched the fruit down quite aggressively.

Why?

Adam reacted to the pressure of the lie when he sinned, because he saw the Lord as not being able to keep the confusion away.
In essence, Adam in his mind possibly joined the enemy, so the enemy would stop bothering him. So, he could then become his own God after the fruit made him able to be.

It is the same kind of sin that many of us face. In frustration, knowing better. We go ahead and do a wrong thing in reaction and anger!

I do not claim to have the answer to all this.
What I said is what I have learned from study over the years.

I believe Adam hated the pressure of having an enemy, and wanted it all to end. He refused to obey the Lord's command in
the pressure, and ended up with having from then on, the constant pressure of needing to discern good from evil to keep on living.

How many of us wish it would just end and be over with?
Welcome to the world of Adam.

grace and peace!

 

[posthuman]

She also gave some to her
husband, who was with her,

'who was' isn't in the text.
it says she gave also to her husband with her.

the 'with her' refers to the state of having the fruit, not to his having been present while she was being deceived, and context implies he could not have been, else he would have been first in sin by doing nothing to prevent her from being deceived and from reaching out and taking the fruit.

God does not tell him, 'because you let this happen' - - He tells him, because he listened to her voice.

 

[posthuman]

We have gone over this already, bro, just a little while ago. Adam may not have said a word. You cannot call that a conversation.
No such thing is recorded in Scripture and you should at the very least be able to acknowledge that verifiable fact.

There is no definite conversation. You have imagined such and I call it what it is: conjecture.

You could write a whole play about it and would still all be conjecture.

Maybe it would be an award winning play.

Still conjecture.

you can't sit there and tell me you've never had a one-sided conversation lol

point is, there is an intervening period of indefinite time between her eating and her giving some of the fruit to him, during which she says something to him.

during that time, Adam is not under any kind of deception. he knows exactly what she has done, what it means, and what the consequences of him either eating or not eating are. he doesn't pick the fruit himself. what she says to him is the deciding factor in the decision he makes, and what she says to him does not make him believe anything that isn't true, such as for example 'you will not surely die'

she knows she has been deceived.
he chooses sin and death knowing it is sin and death.

 

[Magenta]

the tree of knowledge didn't cause there death,

I don't think the natural chemistry of the fruit had anything to do with it, either. The fact of the matter is that
God could have drawn a line in the sand and said, do not cross this line, and their crossing it would have been
a sinful act of disobedience which would have likely had the same outcome. Adam knew it was wrong to eat
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he did so anyways, and in that act of disobedience, he
knew he had in fact crossed the line. I believe Adam was conscious of losing God's covering, and in coming
to full awareness of this, saw himself as evil, and sought to cover his shame. God fashioned better coverings
for them, and promised the coming of One Whose sacrificial covering via the shedding of His righteous blood
would overcome the wickedness Satan had aspired to wreak on God's handiwork.

 

[Magenta]

you can't sit there and tell me you've never had a one-sided conversation lol

point is, there is an intervening period of indefinite time between her eating and her giving some of the fruit to him, during which she says something to him.

during that time, Adam is not under any kind of deception. he knows exactly what she has done, what it means, and what the consequences of him either eating or not eating are. he doesn't pick the fruit himself. what she says to him is the deciding factor in the decision he makes.

We are getting way far away from the point that it is not a definite fact there was a two way conversation.

The text simply says he hearkened (listened to) to his wife. Adam may have said nothing.

And "with her" does not decidedly mean what you say either. He was there
with her physically. She could not have handed the fruit to him if he was not.

point is, there is an intervening period of indefinite time between her eating and her giving some of the fruit to him, during which she says something to him.

Could have been mere seconds, and here, have some. That's all it needed to be to satisfy what the text actually says...
there is no definite conversation having taken place between the two of them, meaning, Adam could have said zip.

 

[posthuman]

Did everyone do their homework lol?
The English translation is woefully inadequate here, as it commonly is when dealing with the Hebrew.

****************************************************************************************
PARSING TAG LEGEND: Hebrew Interlinear1. Part of SpeechTypeConj Conjunctionw 9999/waw ("and", "furthermore", "but"...)
2. Part of SpeechTypePrep Prepositionb 9996/be ("in")
k 9995/ke ("according to")
l 9997/le ("with regard to")
m 4480/min ("from")

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5973.htm

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/immah_5973.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrewparse.htm

View attachment 280442

no, they did not do their homework, which means we have to spend class time doing it for them.



Definition number 2 of the preposition = "specifically, equally with"

meaning now he also has some of the fruit in possession just like she has fruit in possession.
having fruit in possession is the immediate clause the preposition is joined to, not "speaking to the Serpent"

there is no indication in the text Adam was present when she was deceived. every contextual indication is that he was not.

 

[posthuman]

He was there
with her physically.

conjecture

 

[Magenta]

conjecture

I guess she had really long arms... like, reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy long..

But, no. The text says, 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.

 

[posthuman]

More conjecture. That says nothing of her apparent condition to Adam when he hearkened unto the voice of his wife.

i object to the state of being in sin and having been deceived being described as "fine"

 

[Magenta]

i object to the state of being in sin and having been deceived being described as "fine"

Yes, I understand. It was simply meant to convey, see? I am not dead. I did not die in eating the forbidden fruit.

 

[Jordon]

i object to the state of being in sin and having been deceived being described as "fine"

He was not decieved scriptures says so.

 

[posthuman]

I guess she had really long arms... like, reeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy long..

But, no. The text says, 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.

"who was" is not in the text.

the preposition "with" has many meanings, the majority of which are not indicative of physical presence over an extended period of time in the past.

it is clear there is some amount of time between her taking and eating and giving some to him during which she says someth6to him and he makes a decision.

grammatically the preposition is joined to taking some of the fruit, and it's primary definition is specifically that the two objects equally share an aspect. the most clear aspect according to the text is that they both become in possession of the fruit.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, I understand. It was simply meant to convey, see? I am not dead. I did not die in eating the forbidden fruit.

that makes God a liar when He said, in the day you eat, dying you shall die.

you also argue that the act of disobedience results in death - - why is there a time lag? is there a disobedience particle that travels slower than light, so that it takes quite a while for the act of sinning to catch up with a person's standing with God?

but Christ says even thinking of sinning in our heart is equal to doing it with our hands, so the effect is at least faster than the time it takes between a neuron firing and a nerve signal being sent to your finger - - all of which is much quicker than she can say a word, and she says at least one word before he makes a decision to take the fruit and to eat it.

 

[Magenta]

"who was" is not in the text.

the preposition "with" has many meanings, the majority of which are not indicative of physical presence over an extended period of time in the past.

it is clear there is some amount of time between her taking and eating and giving some to him during which she says someth6to him and he makes a decision.

grammatically the preposition is joined to taking some of the fruit, and it's primary definition is specifically that the two objects equally share an aspect. the most clear aspect according to the text is that they both become in possession of the fruit.

Some versions do say her husband with her (less than 50% of the main ones) ... but it does not mean
any more than mere seconds needed to have passed, and it does not mean he was not there with her.