|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 11, 2010 23:40:40 GMT -5
Jesse,
You may have explained this previously but I'm not familiar with your view on this. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit what changed in them? Scripture says that their eyes were opened and they now knew good and evil. What does that mean to you? What was the difference, if any, between the internal state of Adam and Eve before the fall and their internal state after?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 12, 2010 0:22:04 GMT -5
When they decided to disobey, their moral character became wicked.
But the fall not only affected their personal moral character, their fall also affected our own human nature. Now mankind has the knowledge of good and evil, which gives us many more opportunities to sin than we would have had. Also, Adam's sin resulted in his removal from the Garden where the tree of life was. My understanding is that mankind was created mortal but would live forever if he ate from the tree. The tree was necessary to sustain life, which is why it was there to begin with. Therefore when Adam was removed from the tree, we all physically die as a consequence.
His fall also resulted in a change of envioment. Whereas mankind use to dwell in the Garden with the manifest presence of God, now we have been removed from that presence. We are born into an envioment without God's manifest presence, and because of the abounding of iniquity, we are born into a sinful world.
There were also affects of the fall, such as the cursing of the ground, the pains of pregnancy, etc.
But what the effects of the fall of Adam were not would be the removal of free will, a sinful nature, or the condemnation of our entire race. Mankind remained their free willa fter the fall, our nature has been designed by God with a conscience so we have a natural tendency to obey the law, and we are damned for our own sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 12, 2010 20:33:00 GMT -5
Jesse, I thought I remember you saying once that you thought God might have allowed Adam to eat of the knowledge tree eventually. Am I remembering right? Could you share your thoughts on that?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 12, 2010 22:20:07 GMT -5
When they decided to disobey, their moral character became wicked. One sin can not make moral character wicked. A character becomes wicked over a period time from continually ignoring God. Adam & Eve's character did not suddenly become wicked when they ate of that forbidden Tree. Caine's character became wicked after continually hardening His heart to God. Adam & Eve's disobedience did not give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. All mankind receives the knowledge of good and evil after their own personal choice to sin. Amen. To say that Adam & Eve was immortal with out the Tree of Life makes the Tree to be only a mere symbol. It is more than just a “symbol” it had a real purpose. The purpose makes the symbolism. Since the purpose of the Tree of Life is to keep the temporal/mortal flesh alive, it symbolizes Jesus, Who keeps us spiritually alive.
|
|
|
Post by Jessicker on Jan 17, 2010 15:06:15 GMT -5
Adam & Eve's disobedience did not give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. All mankind receives the knowledge of good and evil after their own personal choice to sin. Could you provide some Biblical support? I've never heard this position and I don't buy it. Can you show me where in the Bible you got this idea from so I can further evaluate this idea? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Jan 17, 2010 17:35:06 GMT -5
Adam & Eve's disobedience did not give all mankind the knowledge of good and evil. All mankind receives the knowledge of good and evil after their own personal choice to sin. Could you provide some Biblical support? I've never heard this position and I don't buy it. Can you show me where in the Bible you got this idea from so I can further evaluate this idea? Thanks. It is logical to understand that I can not give any kind of knowledge to my offspring before they are born from any acton of my own. My actions can not give any kind of knowledge to my unborn childeren; this is a fact of reality; knowledge is not hereditary. Same goes for Adam & Eve, their knowledge is not inheritable. Since Adam & Eve gained the knowledge of good & evil from their own personal action (disobedience of a known command from God), so we also gain knowledge of good & evil from our own personal action of the same. Their condemnation &/or guilt wasn't from the actual fruit of the Tree its self; furthermore, that's not what gave them such knowledge either, but such knowledge came from their action of disobedience to the command, "do not eat...". It was their first willful disobedience of a known command from God Himself which gave them such knowledge & which they became guilty & the guilt condemned them. It isn't the knowledge which condemned them, but the actual sin. Same for all mankind, our own first willful disobedience of a known command from God Himsel gives us knowledge of good & evil. Our first own personal willful disobedience of a known command from God Himself makes us guilty, & that is what condemns us.
|
|
|
Post by Jessicker on Jan 17, 2010 18:00:09 GMT -5
It is logical to understand that I can not give any kind of knowledge to my offspring before they are born from any acton of my own. My actions can not give any kind of knowledge to my unborn childeren; this is a fact of reality; knowledge is not hereditary. Same goes for Adam & Eve, their knowledge is not inheritable. Since Adam & Eve gained the knowledge of good & evil from their own personal action (disobedience of a known command from God), so we also gain knowledge of good & evil from our own personal action of the same. I follow what you're saying so far. Both Adam and Eve had that knowledge, though, it was pretty much inevitable that it would be passed on to their children. I don't see a way they could've withheld that knowledge from their children because that knowledge would now govern everything they do, so in a sense, knowledge like that may not be genetically inheritable, but it's pretty inevitable that it will be passed on. Their condemnation &/or guilt wasn't from the actual fruit of the Tree its self; furthermore, that's not what gave them such knowledge either, but such knowledge came from their action of disobedience to the command, "do not eat...". It was their first willful disobedience of a known command from God Himself which gave them such knowledge & which they became guilty & the guilt condemned them. Okay. I kinda agree with you, but not completely. I think that the actual fruit did have something to do with the knowledge and not just the act of disobedience itself. If the fruit of the tree itself didn't give them any knowledge and it was purely the act of disobedience that gave them knowledge of good and evil, then how'd they know they were naked? They knew that before they were chastised by God and it's a concept unrelated to disobeying a direct order from God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 17, 2010 23:16:14 GMT -5
I wonder if Adam and Eve had to experience some kind of maturing process unique to them. Neither of them had a childhood. Could that have something to do with the tree of knowledge? God knows good and evil and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe God gave them the command because they weren't ready for that increased knowledge yet. They had enough knowledge to be guilty for sinning of course. Maybe they were knowledgeable enough to be accountable but not knowledgeable enough to understand nakedness.
|
|