I do agree - except I cannot agree that they were sinners in the garden because they were created that way - the old gnostic, Masonic, lie. They got that way by their own free will decision to disobey their GOD's command, probably the call for them to come out from among the Satanic fallen in their hearts so they would be safe from the judgement upon them...as per Matt 13:27-30.
Where Adam and Eve Sinners before the fall?
- Thread starter jeremiah1five
- Start date
But why the charade when GOD knew what HE had planned for him if Adam was being loyal and faithful to his GOD? IF Adam was faithful, not a sinner, then why did HE have to convince him with this meaningless ploy? You know he was a sinner...is not this a sign of his rebelliousness to Eve???
Both...but being unclothed is the privacy of your own garden is no sin...nor is the sex act which is sometimes presumed to be within their nakedness, since they were told to have sex. So again, this points out their sinfulness BEFORE they ate which you already accept.
And again you seem to be arguing as if you do NOT believe they were indeed sinful in the garden...as if you had no idea of how sinners act in front of GOD almighty before their regeneration!
Perhaps he was the serpent...?
What does Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, then?
ALL the angels were NOT locked up; all the angels that sinned with Satan, who followed him into his sin, were locked up!!! Some were elect sinners and some were reprobate sinners but all who were flung into the earth were sinners, Rev 12:4-9!
The elect angels sinned for him against HIS call for the judgment of their friends, but they would not fight for him so the Dragon flung them into the earth just before his greatest battle when he needed them the most, Rev 12:4.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Hair is given as a covering thus their genitals had hair and was 'covered.' Everything that didn't have hair as a covering was 'naked' and for both the man and woman their exposed skin was their nakedness. There was no need to sew fig leaves together to cover what was already covered (genitals.) So, it is reasonable to conclude that their KNOWING they were naked was the awareness of not being covered entirely.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.
By adding to God's Word of "neither shall ye touch it" proves they were sinners BEFORE their other sin of disobeying God not to eat from the forbidden tree.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Neither the man nor the woman was faith-ful.
Sin comes from sinner. Sin does not come from that which is holy. The last Adam proves this.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
There was no "regeneration" in or outside the Garden.
All there was for these two sinners was temporary 'covering' of their sin (Gen. 3:21.)
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Have a God-centered belief system.
ONLY GOD is Holy. Therefore, anything and everything created - whether something out of nothing, or something out of something - falls short of God's own glory. There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE.
13 (For until the law (or command) sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom. 5:13.
The Law shows us we are sinners. God's command of "thou shalt not [eat of it]" shows the man and woman as sinners BEFORE the act of sin (disobedience.) Let's not forget they added to God's Word by saying "neither shall ye touch it" and showed themselves as "liars" by adding to God's Word:
6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.
Lying is a sin, is it not?
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Peter said (as does Jude):
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pete 2:3–4.
Surely this does not include the angels that did not sin, does it?
Alive
Member
I don't believe Adam and Eve were sinners before they ate from the tree that God commanded them not to eat from.
That would mean one or two things. Either they were created as sinners or they found another way to sin besides eating from the tree. Had that been the case I'm sure God would have brought it to their attention and to ours by including it in the Bible. At any rate has the old saying goes the rest is history.
That would mean one or two things. Either they were created as sinners or they found another way to sin besides eating from the tree. Had that been the case I'm sure God would have brought it to their attention and to ours by including it in the Bible. At any rate has the old saying goes the rest is history.
MatthewG
Active member
Adam and Eve died spiritually that day, their connection was severed with God. They hid away in shame, when before they walked openly with God. What is interesting, Adam blames God as though it was his fault because he gave Adam a woman. Eve tells God it was the snakes fault! Adam and Eve do not take responsibility for their own actions and instead put the blame on others. Amazing, how quickly a connection became severed, and then they were sent on outside of the Garden of Eden.
Alive
Member
Yep, They were evicted from paradise.
GOD does NOT create sinners by any means, even by the fall of Adam extending to his progeny, a blasphemy I abhor.
There for I believe we had an existence in the heavenly realms pre-earth, before our conception on earth into this world, and before GOD sowed Adam into this world on HIS breath or Spirit. During this time all sinners chose to rebel against GOD by their own free will, the onyl way anyone has ever accrued sinfulness upon themselves.
ALL sinfulness is created in the sinner BY the sinner. Perod!
How to keep this mysterious?
4. WHY DO ELEPHANTS WRITE SCRIPTURES ON THEIR TOE NAILS?[1] [Footnotes like this follow at the end of the essay.]
In John 16:12, Jesus said: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. hence, Jesus knew some truth that He was unable to disclose to us, and He also knew that this truth would someday be disclosed to the Church. In other words, Jesus knew that the Church was going to receive a new revelation in the future.
So now, this being the case, I ask: would not GOD bear witness in Their Word to a revelation that They intended to give in the future?
Well, I think They would (because They've done it this way before) and if so, then wouldn't a person like Paul (who had gone to heaven and learned the whole truth, 2 Cor 12:2) most likely be under some leading from the Holy Spirit to bear witness in his writings to these hidden heavenly truths so that, when it was time for their public disclosure later on, there would be some scriptural attestation to them?
Like, what if you had a secret that was not going to be told to the Church until the far distant future, and you knew that those persons who would receive that disclosure were going to have a hard time with it, as GOD's people have always had with every new revelation, fighting against the weight of orthodoxy and long held traditions as proof, and you knew that those people would revere your writings, wouldn't you put in something which would support the revelation when it would be made known?
Probably you would, and if you would, probably Paul would too right but, at the same time, both you and Paul would not put it in, in such a way as would disclose the secret ahead of time would you? No, the testimony would have to be hidden somehow so that it remained a secret until the right time.
Therefore, you would hide the testimony in your writings, knowing that, until the time of the revelation, your readers would not really understand what you had written, and that would they make up interpretations which would not be entirely true.[2]
Now, if this be a reasonable way of looking at this secret heavenly theology of Paul, we must also realise that many of the other writers of Scriptures were probably in the same position, that being, knowing the same theology which they also were not able to disclose, that is, knowing the same secrets which had to remain secret for a long time, but at the same time, under leading to give a testimony in their writings to the truth of the new revelation for the sake of the recipients of the revelation in the days to come.
Now, truly this would be a hard thing to accomplish, but not impossible by any means, for by the Spirit of GOD, we can do all things. Philippians 4:13. I simply can not over emphasise the importance of realising this duress that most of the writers of the Scripture were under. It is very important to realise that they knew about our pre-conception existence but were forbidden to testify to it in such a way as would disclose the general knowledge of it before GOD's time.
Your experience in reading the Bible should also bear witness to this idea of some hidden theology in the Scriptures, for whenever you read them, don't you always feel that the writers knew a lot more about things than you do, yet doesn't it often seem that they are keeping things back? Don't you often feel that they were not making things half as clear as they could have, if they'd have wanted to? Doesn't it seem that they did not want you to understand fully,[3] and doesn't this seem to be true of every Scripture writer, not just a couple?[4] It must, if you're studying them at all!
So, for those who would like to take the time necessary to do the work of searching the Scriptures regarding this doctrine, I present the verses I do which witness to our pre-conception existence, along with some others which I feel make a lot more sense when they're interpreted in light of this doctrine.
Now, being that hardly anyone has searched the Scriptures in light of the pre-conception view, these Scriptures have rarely been interpreted this way before. Therefore, it stands to reason that such an exegesis[5] of these Scriptures will be new and that it will be fairly unique, that is, that almost all the other interpretations of the same Scriptures will be different.
In other words, any verse that conveys the idea of pre-earth existence has rarely been interpreted this way before because almost every exegete[6] automatically looks for a different interpretation when they read such a Scripture. This being the case, a mere list of Scriptures will not constitute proof of scriptural support for this doctrine but, to provide such proof, such a list will have to be accompanied by an in-depth exegesis of the said Scriptures. Providing such a list without the accompanying new exegesis would only tend to prove to its searchers that this doctrine had no scriptural support, simply because they would tend to interpret the Scriptures that supply proof of our pre-conception existence, in much the same way that everybody used to interpret the Scriptures regarding the Christ King.[7]
Now then, most people are going to find some of these verses difficult.[8] Therefore, I suggest that people not enter into them lightly,[9] but that you prepare yourself to spend some time in some hard thinking and searching of the Scriptures.[10] Without this preparation and commitment, I doubt that you will be able to understand what I am trying to say, and if you can not understand what I am saying, how can you possibly inherit the blessings that only accompany such understanding?[11]
Notes For: 4. Why Do Elephants...?
1 - So that they can hide in the Bible and nobody sees them.
This is somewhat similar to the worldly version; they paint their toenails red so they can hide in the strawberry patch. It would seem that those of the world can not see any better then we do, in spite of their proclamations to the contrary.
2 - It stands to reason that these false interpretations would endure unopposed by the truth until the time of the general disclosure, at which time the new proper interpretation would be known as well as the new revelation.
In other words, at the time of the revelation, most of the commentators would probably be in fair agreement that the best of the false interpretations was the truth of GOD and only some would change their mind. From the historical precedent regarding the incarnation of GOD you should realise that it is very easy for everyone to miss or pass over something that they are not looking for, and that this is the case for every orthodox commentator when it comes to pre-conception existence, for not very many have ever looked at the Scriptures to see if they bear witness to pre-conceptionexistence, and if any ever have it would seem that they did not see any.
3 - I think that pre-conception existence theology explains this unwillingness of knowledgeable people to openly disclose the things that they knew much better than any other theology.
Just what reason do you have for GOD hiding the Messiah's deity from the Jews?
(See Luke 10:21 - I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight.)
As for the fact that the NT writers knew of pre-conception existence theology, I will show further on just how strongly the Scriptures show that they all knew. You are going to be quite surprised. It is a little like: Paul and the apostles saw my day, and were glad, but they could not tell you about it until now, so they slipped it in between the lines.
4 - For example, have you ever wondered why some of the disciples never wrote any OT commentaries? They must have known how little the Church would understand the law and the prophets. If they knew the correct interpretations, why didn't they open them up to the Church too?
And compare this methodology to the libraries of the saints and “reformers”. How do you account for the difference in their manner of propagating the truth?
Like, if you knew as much as Matthew, would that Gospel be your final answer? Is that all you'd have to say after three years of watching the Christ and having learned the mysteries of the kingdom? I doubt it!
5 - Exegesis: the exposition or interpretation of any literary production, but more particularly, the exposition or interpretation of Scripture; sometimes applied to the science which lays down the principles of the art of sacred interpretation, more properly called exegetics or hermeneutics. (Webster's #10).
6 - Exegete: one supposedly skilled in exegesis.
7 - In other words, not according to the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but according to their own errant, unilluminated, theological presuppositions. Of course, you wouldn't continue to do such a thing, would you?
8 - Oh that nasty word!! Why, it doesn't tickle at all! For those of you whose question is, why do we have to learn such hard stuff, please refer to Proverbs 8:11, 34-36; Isaiah 43:27,28; Hosea 4:6; John 4:23; and 1 Timothy 4:16.
Proverbs 8:11 - For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Proverbs 8:34-36 - Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
Isaiah 43:27,28 - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against ME. Therefore I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and have given Jacob to the curse, and Israel to reproaches.
Hosea 4:6 - MY people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to ME: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy GOD, I will also forget thy children.
John 4:23 - But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.
1 Timothy 4:16 - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
9 - Although a sense of humour will be of great benefit.
10 - I think it would be rather incredible if a person got a full grasp of it in the first reading, or even in the second, third, fourth..
11 - Church history shows that the doctrinal growth of the Church has usually been the result of an error being propagated and then the Church struggling to combat the error with the truth, which we first had to figure out ourselves.
At those times, things often got a little confused and many were seduced from the best foundation simply because the faith did not have an immediate reply, that is, a reasonable, theological refutation for the errors, but it always took time to work it out (to learn the “new” truth) so that our faith remained on the solidest foundation.
Of all the errors that have or may be foisted on the Church, the greatest (strongest, most reasonable, hardest to refute, most seductive) of all will be those of the anti-Christ.
Now, in those days, there will not be time to counteract his errors afterward. In other words, if one is seduced away from the faith then, there will not be an opportunity to return later on after the Church has worked out the truth and shown the error of his ways.
This being the case, it should not be too hard to see that Jesus will change His modus operandi for those times and give us the sure foundation we need to refute his errors before we are confronted with those errors.
Blessed is the person whose house is built on the most solid rock around before the seductive flood of temptations takes place. On the other hand, we could go the easy way.
Alive
Member
Now that's what I call a post! Very deep subject matter explained quite well!
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:6.
You say it but don't understand it. Yes, Adam and the woman were created sinful (Greek: hamartia meaning "missing the mark" translated as "sin") for there is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE.
So, let's look at what the text says: adding to God's words is a sin (Proverbs 30:6.)
Adam and the woman were sinners before ethe act of disobedience in eating from the tree.
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. 3:3.
They added to God's word and proved they were liars/sinners before they disobeyed and ate from the tree.
Sin comes from sinners.
Sin does not come from holy.
Sin does not come from sinless.
Amen?
This is only logical on the surface... it ignores the idea of, the state of, innocence. Innocence is the state of not yet having made a moral choice that separates you as good against evil or as evil against good. Your stance concludes that Satan must have been created already holy but rebuked that state to fall but then HIS EVIL DOES COME FROM HOLINESS, his own holiness.
If GOD cannot create evil since HE is holy then Satan cannot have been created evil but holy. Then how does a holy Satan come to created his own evil ? which again has holiness creating evil ????
ImCo, Satan, like everyone else, was created innocent and chose their self defining morality by their free will.
I contend that all people created in the image of GOD to be HIS Bride, were created in innocence with a free will and an equal ability and opportunity to choose to put their faith in YHWH as their GOD and Saviour becoming morally good and chosen to be HIS family,
OR
to chose to put their faith in HIS claims to be our GOD and Saviour as lies, thinking HIM to be a false god thus becoming morally eternally evil and being passed over for salvation as eternally unfit to fulfill HIS purpose for them to be HIS Bride, condemned to the outer darkness on the spot.
jeremiah1five
Well-known member
Innocence is not the same as sinless.
Innocence merely means that they were innocent of an act of sin which was first committed by them when they added to God's Word and showed themselves LIARS for adding to God's Word. Lying is a sin and they were already sinners before the second recorded act of sin in eating from the forbidden tree.
6 Add thou not unto his words,
Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Prov. 30:6.
When they added to God's Word "neither shall ye touch it" they sinned. They were liars. And liars have committed sin even before their disobedience in eating from the tree. They sinned and ate from the tree because sin comes from sinners.
Do you not understand or receive as the truth of God from Isaiah who said, "there is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory (of which sinlessness is His glory) to NO ONE"?
This means ONLY God is sinless. The angels that sinned were created sinful just like Adam and the woman. were. And no, sin does not come from holiness. The last Adam proved this.
13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sam. 24:13.
Maybe this is an ancient proverb come all the way from the garden. The Jews would know. Moses wrote about things that were witnessed by no man. Maybe there was oral tradition, word of mouth. But this proverb is attributed to a time called 'ancient,' After all, Enoch was alive when Adam still walked the earth. I wonder what conversations they may have had.
WRONG.
Everything in existence is the result of God. Even darkness and evil.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else,
There is no God beside me:
I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
That there is none beside me.
I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:5–7.
God confessed. "I the LORD, do ALL these things."
They were created "sinful." This is WHY they sinned.
The Scripture refutes your erroneous beliefs.
First, Israel is betrothed to God and therefore His Bride.
Second, free will is an illusion for there is only ONE will that is Sovereign in eternity and creation and that is the will of God. Free will in man is an illusion.
Third, the word "good" in Genesis account of creation does not contain any 'moral' aspect. There is another word that does but it is not here. I think you have to go to the Psalms before that word appears in the Scripture. The word "good" in Genesis merely means "good [enough], or "to specification." In other words God deemed His creation good or to His specification. It is similar to when we cook a meal and in mixing all pertinent ingredients to come up with any particular dish, we say it [came out] good or "good enough" [to be eaten.]
Fourth, no man had faith, at least all men did not have saving faith because all men are born in bondage to sin and possess a sin nature. Saul likens it to slavery and a man will have only ONE master. He will love the one and hate the other. Or he will hate the one and love the other, Jesus taught. Besides this by our not having any faith by which God honored, nor was there anything - including faith - in us that was worthy of God's honor, we are not saved/born-again because we possessed or exhibited 'faith,' but the faith that God DID honor was the faith of His Son placed righteously in the Father throughout His earthly life.
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal. 2:16.
Only the perfect faith of the Son applied to us in our conversion by which we or anyone is saved. You are wrong here, too. Besides this, what does Scripture say further?
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Gal. 3:23.
The faith that came or was afterwards revealed is the Holy Spirit. And keep in mind Saul is writing to Jewish Christians. THEY were "kept under the Law," not Gentiles. The "we" were kept in this verse identifies the Jews. THEY were kept under the Law UNTIL the Holy Spirit appeared.
I think you should stay away from Gentile commentaries and study further the things of God because in that one short comment you made above you are wrong five times.
As I said above no man had any saving faith. The faith by which anyone is saved is the perfect Faith of Jesus Christ. He trusted His Father implicitly. And as our substitute it was His Faith God the Father honored. THAT is the faith God expects from us after we are born-again.
We are all like Lazarus in the grave. We could do nothing towards our own salvation. We all lay in death in the grave and can make no moves towards God. It is when and IF God makes a move towards a person before any one is saved.
And again, Israel is betrothed to God. Israel is God's Bride, NOT Gentiles.
You need to get into some study. You're not being biblical. And I say this to help you.
