Now you're veering away from what the Bible says and talking nonsense. Adam was a sinful spirit who became a man??? That can't be true because he was not sinful until he ate of the forbidden fruit.
Please consider these hints, not proofs, of sin in the garden pre-eating:
1. Verse
Gen 1:31 refers to everything...including the serpent who inveigled Eve which must also then include all the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol,
2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
It seems to me that this everything somehow, tho unlikely, includes these evil angels as very good,
OR everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation. Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil fallen angels are not included.
Also, It is not proven that
very good refers to a state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church by teaching them to be righteous,
Hebrews 12:5-11, then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of creation and even part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.
2. The words of
Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today:
The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD, verse
1:31? Does it not imply that GOD created something as
not good?
How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone? Something is fishy here...
Did GOD make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD is holy and cannot create evil?
3. And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them:
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper
suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...
So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor for example, maybe.
4. Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question:
"Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you!?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Only a bit of miscommunication?
Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and faithful, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden?
5. Was this why he and Eve were characterized as
`RM, erm, that is,
naked, the exact same word also used in the very next verse of the serpent to describe his being
cunning in evil?
If
`rm does mean
cunning in evil for Adam and Eve before they ate, then this cannot have been their creation because they had had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is,
`rm.
6. If they were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is a euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness?? !
Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco ...another blasphemy altogether...) so they interpreted
`rm as
naked, not
cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis blinkered by preconceptions can be fun, eh?
7. I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before fits with
Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law was NOT given to the righteous to steer their decision but to the sinful to convict them of their sin.
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. which suggests that the command to not eat was given to Adam and Eve as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.
To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil.
4. When their eyes were opened to their sin by eating, they saw their nakedness, not their eating, as their sin which caused them to hide and since being naked is not a sin it must represent sinfulness which they were blind to as in
Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
5. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
6. Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.
The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body,
Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden was the first to bring evil into world.
