An honest look at "free-will" #1: Gen.3:4-6

[canadyjd]

Then you can't speak of a 'fall'. They knew before; or God's warning to them before was empty talk. They knew because they understood God. To know sin doesn't require one must be a sinner.

To understand a commandment (don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) does not require an understanding of good and evil.

For example, I tell my 4 year old, "don't touch that stove because it is hot and will burn your hand." My 4 year old does not have to understand what "hot" or "burn" means to understand what "do not touch" means.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

she acquired a direful experience of "good and evil"--

Is it your claim that the GOOD she was doing first hand while obeying God could not REALLY be experienced until she did evil?

I am repeating what scripture clearly says, and what your quoted source has affirmed to be true. The understanding of both good and evil came after they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened".

Is it your argument that "to sin is to experience good"??

I doubt your understanding of my position would allow you to really believe I am making such an argument.

But just in case I am wrong about you, the answer is no; My argument is not that "to sin is to experience good".

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
she acquired a direful experience of "good and evil"--

Is it your claim that the GOOD she was doing first hand while obeying God could not REALLY be experienced until she did evil?

The text argues that Eve and Adam "were GOOD" for God saw "That it was GOOD" when He had finish His creative act of Day 6. You seem to ignore that. They were doing GOOD in obeying God until the moment they rebelled against God.

Surely all can see that clearly. SIN is not a form of "knowing good" as much as that might come as a surprise to some.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
she acquired a direful experience of "good and evil"--

Is it your claim that the GOOD she was doing first hand while obeying God could not REALLY be experienced until she did evil?

That is the point your quoted source made. Didn't you read Mr. Jamieson before you posted his quote?

I am certain they obeyed God, and enjoyed their relationship with Him and with each other. I am certain their experience was one of great happiness and contentment.

It is clear from the text, however, that Adam and Eve did not understand (know) "good" or "evil" until they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

The text argues that Eve and Adam "were GOOD" for God saw "That it was GOOD" when He had finish His creative act of Day 6. You seem to ignore that. They were doing GOOD in obeying God until the moment they rebelled against God.

That all of God's creative activity was "good" speaks volumes about the nature of God primarily. I agree that Adam and Eve were "good" from that standpoint. The text does not say they understood they were "doing good in obeying God"; but, in fact, states clearly they did not understand either "good" or "evil" until they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened".

You have argued that Adam and Eve were evil, that they sinned, prior to transgressing the commandment by eating from the tree. Are you arguing that God didn't make them "good"?

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

The text does not say "they did not know that God was good. They did not know that it was good to obey God. They did not know that rebellion was a bad thing". Satan claims they would know good AND EVIL like God if they listened to him.

You seem to agree with him on that point.

I have met very few others who would claim that Adam did not know God was good or that his life of perfect obedience was good.

Maybe you think he made no choices in being good he just found himself innexplicable obey God everyday until the day that he sinned - innexplicably and then God innexplicably and arbitrarily decided to condemn him for something he did not know was wrong.

I have always said that Calvinism paints an odd picture of God and of man both in his unfallen and fallen state. Certainly your words seem to show that in triplicate.

You have argued that Adam and Eve were evil, that they sinned, prior to transgressing the commandment by eating from the tree. Are you arguing that God didn't make them "good"?

peace to youraying:

GE likes to argue that point - he even claims that on the very day they were created they instantly sinned. I never go down that blind alley.

At then end of Day 6 God looked and saw all that was done and said it was all good. That kills GE's argument for instant sin and rebellion and it kills your argument that they did not have the intelligence of even a small child to know what good was.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

The text does not say "they did not know that God was good. They did not know that it was good to obey God. They did not know that rebellion was a bad thing". Satan claims they would know good AND EVIL like God if they listened to him...You seem to agree with him on that point.

The text does most certainly say they did not know good or evil until they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened". Why do you refuse to believe the very plain words of scripture?

Maybe you think he made no choices in being good he just found himself innexplicable obey God everyday until the day that he sinned -

Adam and Eve did not make any "choices" between "good and evil" prior to the fall, because they did not know good or evil until after they ate of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened". That is why scripture tells us "Eve was deceived".

Which brings us back to the fundamental lie of Satan in his deception of Eve, that mankind could use its own human will to discern good and evil "like God", implying there is no need for God's assistance to choose the good over the evil. It was a lie then, and it is a lie today.

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

The text says that they did not know good AND evil -- they knew one but not both.

you have twisted that just a bit to the point of "The text does most certainly say they did not know good OR evil " to make the spurious illogical argument that they knew NEITHER.

Clearly they KNEW good while DOING good and then they added to that knowing EVIL when they DID evil. The word to KNOW means to "experience".

But you are desperate to avoid the obvious - turn the text to saying "good OR evil" and ignore the illogical case that makes AS WELL as the contradiction it makes when God says "IT WAS ALL GOOD" when looking about the finished work of Day 6.

That brings up the next questions - why are you going to such lengths to contradict scripture on this point? What do you gain by doing it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To understand a commandment (don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) does not require an understanding of good and evil.

For example, I tell my 4 year old, "don't touch that stove because it is hot and will burn your hand." My 4 year old does not have to understand what "hot" or "burn" means to understand what "do not touch" means.

peace to youraying:

GE:

If your 4 year old did not understand what "hot" or "burn" means, or what "do not touch" means, you would be waste your breath warning him, and if he touched, he would be not disobedient, but misinformed. You as a parent would not thus have spoken to your 4 months old baby, would you?

 

[canadyjd]

The text says that they did not know good AND evil -- they knew one but not both.

If I understand your point, you are saying that eating of the tree gave them the knowledge of evil, but they already had the knowledge of good.

I can only point you back to the text which says the tree was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". If it were the "tree of the knowledge of evil", then God would have named it so. If you don't like what God named His tree, go complain to Him about it.

The word to KNOW means to "experience".

First of all, the context of the word determines meaning. The word here is "knowledge" not "know" in "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It is "daath" (daleth, ayin, thav: Hebrew word #1847) and it means "knowledge" in that context, as evidenced by the phrase "their eyes were opened".

The word in Gen. 4, which you keep referring to is "knew" in "Adam knew his wife". It is "yada": (yod, daleth, ayin: Hebrew word #3045) and it means "to know". It can mean to know by experience, but it doesn't have to mean that.

Although "daath" is formed from "yada", it doesn't have the same meaning as "yada'. That is called a "root fallacy" in exegesis.

You are trying to force the words "knowledge" and "knew" to be the same word (which they are not) and you are trying to force a definition on the word "knowledge" which is contrary to the context.

That brings up the next questions - why are you going to such lengths to contradict scripture on this point? What do you gain by doing it?

I have contradicted nothing but your attempts to ignore the plain meaning of God's words.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

GE:

If your 4 year old did not understand what "hot" or "burn" means, or what "do not touch" means, you would be waste your breath warning him, and if he touched, he would be not disobedient, but misinformed. You as a parent would not thus have spoken to your 4 months old baby, would you?

Again, here is what I said:

canadyjd-To understand a commandment (don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) does not require an understanding of good and evil.

For example, I tell my 4 year old, "don't touch that stove because it is hot and will burn your hand." My 4 year old does not have to understand what "hot" or "burn" means to understand what "do not touch" means.

Please read it again.

peace to youraying:

 

[BobRyan]

If I understand your point, you are saying that eating of the tree gave them the knowledge of evil, but they already had the knowledge of good.

That is true - they did not know BOTH good AND evil -- rather they knew ONLY Good by experience.

By contrast you claim they "did not know Good OR evil" something we do not find in all of scripture.

Obviously they DID know God - and God IS good.

Obviously God said of THEIR creation on day 6 "God saw that it was GOOD".

Those who claim they "did not know GOOD OR evil" are not paying attention to the text of scripture sir.

I can only point you back to the text which says the tree was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". If it were the "tree of the knowledge of evil", then God would have named it so.

Here is your second unbiblical argument. You are essentially arguing that one must SIN to "know good".

But the tree is the knowledge of good AND EVIL for those who at the time only knew GOOD.

Eating from tree was ONLY REBELLION -- it was NOT also OBEDIENCE!

This is incredibly obvious and all readers can get it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

That is true - they did not know BOTH good AND evil -- rather they knew ONLY Good by experience.

That is an obvious misreading of the text.

By contrast you claim they "did not know Good OR evil" something we do not find in all of scripture.

That is exactly what the text means when scripture says the tree was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and that after they ate "their eyes were opened".

Here is your second unbiblical argument. You are essentially arguing that one must SIN to "know good".

You are mis-stating my position, sir. It is not that "one" must SIN to "know good". It is that these two people, Adam and Eve, acquired the knowledge of both good and evil when they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened". That is what scripture says. Mr. Jamieson, your own quoted source, makes that very argument.

If the position is "unbiblical", why did you quote Mr. Jamieson? Was it because you looked through the commentary for the word "experience" and found Mr. Jamieson used it, and therefore thought he supported your position? Didn't you read what he said? They experienced both "good and evil" after they ate from the tree. That is what he says.

I have shown you how you have mis-understood the words "knowledge" and "know", trying to make them the same word (experience), when they are obviously different words. Apparently, when shown your errors, you simply ignore the facts and keep making the same assertions you were making before the errors was pointed out.

The context makes no difference to you. The meaning of the words makes no difference to you. Your own quoted source makes no difference with you.

I don't think I can make a difference with you. We are arguing in circles. I have made the same points a dozen times, always pointing you back to the text.

Thanks for the debate. Let's just end it here.

peace to youraying:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Canadyjd:

"You have argued that Adam and Eve were evil, that they sinned, prior to transgressing the commandment by eating from the tree. Are you arguing that God didn't make them "good"?"

GE:

God created them sinless and "very good", i.e., "in His own image". YET, their looking and their questioning and their finding, it "was good to eat", already were their sinning before they plucked and ate.

There is NO indication whatsoever their 'happy' state lasted any time at all; they SOON fell, ere nightfall, because they would "not stay one night" in their created state. The WHOLE Bible covers the story of FALLEN man; it covers no moment but for his creation, of his innosence.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"It is not that "one" must SIN to "know good". It is that these two people, Adam and Eve, acquired the knowledge of both good and evil when they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened"."

GE:

It is not that "one" must SIN to "know good", true. Yet these two people, Adam and Eve, acquired the knowledge of both good and evil BEFORE they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened". They obtained knowledge from the True Source of knowledge, God having spoken to them in unambiguous terms of what would be sin and what would be obedience. They chose to not believe God; that was their very first sin. It already spelled their death-sentence. From here on their path was inevitable: Because they disbelieved, they had to take and they had to eat -- the law of the bondage of the will, irrevocably and irresistably taking its toll.

 

[canadyjd]

God created them sinless and "very good", i.e., "in His own image". YET, their looking and their questioning and their finding, it "was good to eat", already were their sinning before they plucked and ate.

You are incorrect. According to scripture, sin entered by the transgression of the commandment not to eat of the tree. God gave no commandment not to look at the fruit, nor of recognizing it was "good to eat"; if fact, scripture tells us that God Himself made all the trees in the garden "pleasing to the eye and good for food" (Gen.2:9).

Scripture simply repeats what has already been stated in Gen. 2:9 when in Gen.3:6 it says "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes.....".

Eve added the words "the tree was desirable to make one wise". That is the deception of Satan. Receiving "knowledge of good and evil" didn't make them "wise" to discern good and evil and choose the good over the evil.

In fact, when they sinned, they became enslaved to sin. Their "eyes were opened" to their new condition. They had the knowledge of good and evil, and realized they were evil for disobeying God. Thus, they sought to hide themselves from Him.

The ability of human beings to freely choose good over evil without the assistance of God is a lie from Satan, even from the beginning.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

It is not that "one" must SIN to "know good", true. Yet these two people, Adam and Eve, acquired the knowledge of both good and evil BEFORE they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened". They obtained knowledge from the True Source of knowledge, God having spoken to them in unambiguous terms of what would be sin and what would be obedience. They chose to not believe God; that was their very first sin. It already spelled their death-sentence. From here on their path was inevitable: Because they disbelieved, they had to take and they had to eat -- the law of the bondage of the will, irrevocably and irresistably taking its toll.

To say they acquired the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "their eyes were opened" is clearly contrary to the plain meaning of the words of scripture.

peace to youraying:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: God created them sinless and "very good", i.e., "in His own image". YET, their looking and their questioning and their finding, it "was good to eat", already were their sinning before they plucked and ate.

HP: You raise an interesting idea. It is true that the sinning takes place prior to the doing, but it is not true that the mere recognition of the allurements of temptation is sin. Mere temptation, and the formed idea of selfish gratification, is not sin. Jesus was tempted in ALL points as we are, yet without sin.

Antecedent to the actual doing, the will makes a choice of an end and chooses the means by which to engage in that end. At the point of forming the intent to partake of the forbidden fruit, choosing disobedience as a chosen end, there was indeed sin registered to their account.

The willing is tied to the doing by necessity. One can only do as one wills. Once the will has formed and chosen its end by the formation of an intent and means by which to carry it out, it of necessity will carry it out provided no coercive influence physically stops them from carrying out their intentions. Even if they are coercively stopped from carrying out their intent, sin is still predicated of their intents and as such have sinned and become guilty before God. One does not have to ever carry out ones formed intents to be guilty of sin, as Scripture clearly indicates in the issues of adultery and murder. As a man thinking in his heart, so is he.

Adam and Eve indeed sinned antecedent to eating the forbidden fruit as you claim, but no sin occurred until they formed an intent to do so, and devised the means by which to carry out that chosen intent. The mere fact of seeing the fruit as good for food or pleasant to the eyes was not sin, but rather mere temptation to sin. The sin did not occur until the will chose to form a selfish intent (or end) and to choose the necessary means by which to obtain and eat the fruit. Just the same, sin occurred antecedent to the actual partaking, just as you stated.

 

[DQuixote]

It is amazing how confused this discussion has become. Using the same words, the same scriptures, devotees to one POV or another continue to mercilessly challenge each other. Wow. The utter confusion over predestination, free will, covenant theology, reformed theology, Calvinism, Arminianism, by any name, rages on. Always the bride's maid, never the bride.

Light Switch, anyone?

Holy Bible. <------ Light Switch.

 

[BobRyan]

It is actually very simple --

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
That is true - they did not know BOTH good AND evil -- rather they knew ONLY Good by experience.

[qute] canadyjd said -- That is an obvious misreading of the text.[/quote]


If you can bring yourself to believe that Adam was created GOOD and KNEW God was GOOD but did not know GOOD -- then you can see canadyjd's argument perfectly.

I simply think it is a wild leap off a very lonely limb of a tree.

Bob said
Quote:
By contrast you claim they "did not know Good OR evil" something we do not find in all of scripture.

canadyjd said -

That is exactly what the text means

So that is it in a nutshell... if you can INSERT "did not know GOOD OR EVIL" where the bible actually says "did not know BOTH good AND evil" (as in the obvious case of only knowing good but not both good and evil before sinning) -- then again - you should be able to quickly take Canadyjd's POV here.

I for one - can not take such liberties with scripture.

It is basically as simple as that.

And as for my question still not answered ... "WHY must you contradict scripture by inserting the idea DID NOT KNOW GOOD OR EVIL... where does it get you? What is to be gained by that?"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[canadyjd]

If you can bring yourself to believe that Adam was created GOOD and KNEW God was GOOD but did not know GOOD -- then you can see canadyjd's argument perfectly.

Ok, BobRyan, Show me the words "Adam knew that God was good" in the text? Oh, they are not there! You must be adding them to the text.

Ok BobRyan, show me the words "Adam knew good because God made everything good, but did not know evil?" Oh, those words aren't there either! You must be adding them to the text.

Ok, BobRyan, show me the words "Adam knew good by experience?" Oh, those words aren't there either! You must be adding them to the text.

Ok BobRyan, since I have given you the very Hebrew words for "experience" and "knew", and identified them by number, and have demonstrated plainly they are different words; and have demonstrated by context that the word "knowledge" in the text, does in fact mean "knowledge" (their eyes were opened) and not "experience", why do you keep insisting the word means something it does not?

So that is it in a nutshell... if you can INSERT "did not know GOOD OR EVIL" where the bible actually says "did not know BOTH good AND evil" (as in the obvious case of only knowing good but not both good and evil before sinning) -- then again - you should be able to quickly take Canadyjd's POV here...I for one - can not take such liberties with scripture.

So, here in a nutshell is BobRyan's argument. Canadyjd takes liberties with the text which he (BobRyan) would never do, since canadyjd said (and BobRyan's own quoted source, Mr. Jamieson affirms) the text means they didn't know good or evil until they ate of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"; when in fact the text says (BobRyan is quoting scripture here: "did not know BOTH good AND evil")

But wait...BobRyan...where in the text does it say "did not know BOTH good AND evil". I can't find it. Do you want to guess why I can't find it, BobRyan? Because that is not what the text says!

Are you taking liberties with the text, BobRyan, in the very breath you are claiming you could never do such a thing? It seems you have. How embarrassing for you.

And as for my question still not answered ... "WHY must you contradict scripture by inserting the idea DID NOT KNOW GOOD OR EVIL... where does it get you? What is to be gained by that?"

Your question is utter nonsense and not worthy of a response.

Against my better judgment, I decided to continue to debate you after you appeared willing to address the text. What is clear to me, now, is that when confronted with facts you will always resort to distortion and wild accusations.

Therefore, I will say again. Let's end it here.

peace to youraying: