Skywatch89
New member
??
Honest struggles on God’s omniscience.
- Thread starter Skywatch89
- Start date
Saying you don't know why God brought the animals to Adam, when that is easily checked, comes across as being dishonest. I also realized you have no idea what the Bible says. That is just an observation, and common not knowing what the Bible says.
Skywatch89
New member
Ok. I hope you have a wonderful night. Peace and love to you. Take care.
way 2 go
Well-known member
(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
God has stated infallibly "And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."
future event that will happen
he knows their choice , he didn't make it for them, they freely sinned , freely blaspheme God
God's infallible knowledge of the future doesn't make their choices.
they are no less free because God knows "they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."
Repeating your position as though it hasn't already been addressed is not a rebuttal.
The argument was not that God’s knowledge causes their choice.
The argument was that if their choice was infallibly known beforehand, then their choice was necessary; and if it was necessary, they could not do otherwise.
Your response is just:
“God knew it, but they were still free.”
That is the very claim under dispute.
You have to answer the argument, not simply restate the position the argument is challenging.
ttruscott
Well-known member
That's readily apparent if your theology doesn't get in the way...:
Gen 2:18 The LORD God also said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.”
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The 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.
Verse 18 says straight out that HE brought the animals to Adam to fix a part of HIS creation, to make a lo tov (not good) become a meod tov (very good)... So in Gen 1:31 when HE declared all to be very good, it had already been repaired...
And the badness HE had to fix was that Adam needed a suitable helper... So, if GOD does not create that which is not perfect then there must have been a fall into not goodness and that must have been because Adam became a sinner, rebellious to GOD's will, before coming into the garden. [This is not proof Adam was sinful when placed into the garden but it can be seen as a hint* described at the end of this letter.]
Please consider Adam's actions to see just how good he was doing in the garden before Eve tempted him:
Genesis 2:18 also says straight out that Adam was alone in the omnipresent GOD's garden but how could he be alone if he was innnocent and with his God?
Of course, this is not irrefutable proof Adam was a sinner in the garden because it is possible to interpret alone so that it means “unable to produce children,” rather than “separated in spirit from GOD like after a big fall.”
Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD had to make an “help meet”, (NIV - suitable helper), to fix Adam's bad (lo tov) situation, but this is not irrefutable proof either because it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means “reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion.”
And “suitable” is not irrefutable proof of his sinfulness either, because it too can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else whom he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn about his spiritual marriage to HIM”.
First of all, it is possible for Adam to be in only one of the three moral states. He could only be:
1. in conformity with GOD's will (good, faithful, righteous); or
2. innocent (not good - not bad, morally untested - hence, undecided); or,
3. in opposition to GOD's will (faithless, bad, unrighteous)].
Now it stands to reason that if we can eliminate two of these, Adam would have to be in the third one [moral state] right?
This being the case, let's look at
Genesis 2:15,16 And the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man, saying..."
In regard to the possibility of Adam still being innocent, in 2:16 we receive witness to the effect that Adam had already accepted YHWH as his GOD (for he accepted the command to not eat the fruit of a certain tree as GOD's command) which means that he was no longer innocent.
[Aside: Innocent as used in the Bible from Strong's Concordance: naqiy:
1) clean, free from, exempt, clear, innocent
a) free from guilt, clean, innocent
b) free from punishment
c) free or exempt from obligations
2) innocent also includes the English implications of: simple, naive, unsophisticated, artless and lack of guile as an inexperienced person,]
So then, even if Adam was still innocent when he arrived in the garden, he did not stay innocent for very long for he quickly had to make choices regarding whether he would accept YHWH as his GOD, whether he would dress and keep the garden, and whether he'd stay away from the forbidden fruit. So Adam was either righteous or unrighteous right after GOD commanded him.
Now, in regard to the possibility of Adam being righteous, if Adam was righteous he would be faithfully following GOD's will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?
Well, it seems that, in addition to dressing and keeping the garden, etc, GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly conscious) sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first and they had all been shown to be unsuitable:
Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted?
Moreover, just whose idea was it that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have been GOD's, could it?
Well now, it seems that we are at the point where we must either admit that Adam was off course (unwilling to do GOD's will - unrighteous) in a very weird sort of way (to wit: already looking among the animals for a wife and not very willing to listen to what GOD had to say about it) or,
admit that GOD was taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS helpmeet and suggesting an animal instead, when HE would tell him about getting married to Eve. Either way, it would seem that God was convinced that Adam was reluctant (unwilling) to fulfil HIS will for him, to the point that certain steps had to be taken before (so that) he would become willing.
Since this was the situation, how can we believe that Adam was righteous, preferring to comply with GOD's will above all else? How can Adam be this reluctant/rebellious to doing this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to fulfil HIS purpose for him?
So this episode shows us that Adam could not have been innocent (for sure upon the first command in Eden) and it also shows us that he could not have been faithful about getting married to Eve in the near future.
In my Christian opinion, there is only one possible moral state remaining for Adam. Adam had to be unrighteous, that is, in rebellion to the leading of the Holy Spirit, for sure at the time when GOD brought him the animals and quite possibly even before that time. In other words, Adam needed to repent, and be converted to GOD's purpose for him in the matter regarding his marriage to HIS helpmeet, and perhaps in other areas too.
Along with the few other hints* that all was not meod tov ie, there was sin in the garden before they ate the forbidden fruit, I suggest that the time spent scrutinizing pre-conception existence (PCE) doctrines may be surprisingly fruitful.
*Theological HINTS in scripture: about there being no PROOF verses such as a stick in your eye type of proof for PCE. Even Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...is explained away by the orthodox folk who have had 4000 years to puzzle out alternative meanings for these HINTS to the doctrine of PCE which doctrine may be the one that is to be hidden till the end times.
Right Divider
Body part
1. "Not Good" as Incompleteness, Not Sin
The phrase "not good" in Genesis 2:18 does not require a moral failing or a "repaired" creation. In the context of the creation narrative, "good" often refers to purpose and order. When God says it is "not good" for man to be alone, He is identifying that the creation of humanity is not yet complete.A building without a roof is "not good" for shelter, but that does not mean the building is sinful or corrupt; it is simply unfinished. Genesis 2 provides the chronological details of how God finished the work that Genesis 1:31 describes as "very good."
2. Innocence and the Reception of Commands
The original text argues that Adam lost his innocence the moment he accepted a command from God. However, biblical innocence is the absence of guilt, not the absence of responsibility.- Righteousness through Obedience: You remain innocent as long as you obey. Adam’s work in the garden and his naming of the animals are acts of obedience.
- Definition of Sin: 1 John 3:4 defines sin as "the transgression of the law." Therefore, Adam remained in a state of innocence until he actually ate the forbidden fruit. Receiving a instruction to "keep" the garden is a grant of authority, not an indictment of character.
3. The Purpose of Naming Animals
The claim that Adam was "looking among the animals for a wife" is an inference not found in the KJV PCE.God brought the animals to Adam to establish man's dominion and headship over creation. This exercise served a pedagogical purpose. It allowed Adam to realize his own unique nature and his need for a "help meet" that the animal kingdom could not provide. There is no evidence of "reluctance" or "rebellion" in Adam’s actions here; he simply performed the task God gave him.
4. The Biblical Entry of Sin
The most direct rebuttal comes from the Apostle Paul’s writings regarding the origin of sin.If Adam had already fallen or was "unrighteous" before the events of the garden, sin would have already entered the world. Paul’s doctrine relies on the fact that sin began with a specific act of disobedience in Eden. Claiming Adam was a sinner before the garden contradicts the scriptural timeline that death and sin entered through that single, specific transgression.
5. Summary of Contrasting Views
| Point of Contention | Original Text's View | Rebuttal View |
| "Not Good" | Implies a moral defect or "badness" to fix. | Implies a functional lack of completion. |
| Naming Animals | Shows Adam’s reluctance to follow God. | Shows Adam exercising his given dominion. |
| Moral State | Adam was unrighteous/rebellious. | Adam was innocent until he transgressed. |
| Genesis 1:31 | Creation was "repaired" before this point. | Creation was "finished" at this point. |
You didn't put the answer in bold. You put bold on your red herring. God brought the animals to see what Adam would call them. I notice the lack of answering such a simple cut and dried question. That shows me dishonesty in the heart.
Like ttruscott, you didn't answer such a simple question. I asked what was answered in the text, so you can see what God says of himself in the Bible.
Skywatch89
New member
Thank you. All the best.
You refuse to see what God says of himself? Here is another mentioned in essay form a few posts above.
35 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Skywatch89
New member
Thank you. I hope you’ve had a great day.
ttruscott
Well-known member
Wow, you attack me over a misinterpretation of why I highlighted my repeat of the question?? Seriously, that's your best shot? I suggest you try theology instead...
NO, HE did not - that is the true red herring the church has followed since the earliest rabbis.
HE clearly said
1. it was not good for Adam to be alone (which should be a tip off that something strange is going on right there because God does not make mistakes) because he NEEDED a suitable helper to become good (a saviour or a saviour hint) for a sinner and
2. when it was decided that none of the animals were the suitable helper he needed, GOD cut his search short and sedated him to take a rib.
The actual red herring (a metaphor for a false trail) was the byplay of Adam naming the animals which was a meaningless endeavour but as it was purposed it has allowed the hint for our pre-earth existence to be in the true word but hidden just like the Son of GOD, the Saviour would be born a man, the most serious doctrine in all Christendom, was hidden in the scripture since the earliest rabbis also.
Totally ignoring the issue of his needing a suitable helper and then Eve being given to him when no animal was found to be a suitable helper because of a full focus only upon his naming the animals is pretty par for the course for some with a theological stance to protect.
Why ignore Adam being called lo tov at his creation?
Why ignore the whole issue of Adam's need for a suitable helper in this story?
I could have made that prediction. Predicting the actions of groups isn't hard even for us fallible human beings. It's child's play for God.
Also, stating that it is a "future event that will happen" is overstating it. It is a future event that will almost certainly happen. People that God didn't expect to repent have surprised Him before. It isn't impossible that it could happen again. Although I do grant that this is very unlikely. The point, however, is that prophesy is not prewritten history.
Again, predicting the activity of groups isn't difficult, especially for God.
Not when you are talking about a group it doesn't, no. If God were to make the same sort of prediction about a particular individual then that's a different issue.
Scripturally, everything that is predestined has to do with groups of people, not particular individuals. The Body of Christ, as a group, is predestined to salvation and glorification but no particular person is predestined to be a member of that group. Israel is predestined to inherit the New Earth but no particular individual is predestined to be a believing member of that group.
If American Airlines determines in advance that a particular aircraft will travel to Dallas, TX and arrive there on Thursday of next week. You could say that the plane has been "predestined" to arrive in Dallas on Thursday. Anyone who boards that flight is thereby likewise predestined. American Airlines doesn't have to know anything about who or how many will board the plane in order to know in advance that the plane will go to Dallas on Thursday. See?
Last edited:
way 2 go
Well-known member
they will not do otherwise
they will sin ,God will pour out judgements , they will not repent
(Revelation of John 9:20-21) [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
(Revelation of John 16:9-11) [9] And men were burned with great heat. And they blasphemed the name of God, He having authority over these plagues. And they did not repent in order to give Him glory. [10] And the fifth angel poured out his vial on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom became darkened. And they gnawed their tongues from the pain. [11] And they blasphemed the God of Heaven because of their pains and their sores. And they did not repent of their deeds.
what's your claim ?
they don't have freewill or
they will repent
“They will not do otherwise” is not the same thing as “they cannot do otherwise.”
That distinction matters.
Reposting the same Revelation passages does not strengthen your argument.
You have shown that Revelation says they did not repent.
No one denies that.
What you have not shown is that Revelation is prewritten history, or that their non-repentance was eternally fixed before they existed.
Revelation says they did not repent. I accept that.
But it does not say they were incapable of repenting. It does not say they had no genuine alternative. It does not say the future was exhaustively settled.
Neither.
My claim is that they have free will, and they will not repent.
A will is the ability to choose.
So on my view, they could repent, but they will not, because they stubbornly refuse.
That places the blame for their sin and rebellion squarely on them.
On your view, if their refusal was infallibly fixed beforehand, then they could not repent. Their non-repentance was necessary before they ever acted.
That removes responsibility from man, even if you do not explicitly place that responsibility on God.
So the question is not whether Revelation says they repent.
It says they do not.
The question is whether they could have repented.
If they could have repented, then the future was open, and their refusal is their own fault.
If they could not have repented, then they were not free in any meaningful sense, and blaming them for what they could not avoid is unjust.
way 2 go
Well-known member
no it doesn't sound like he changed his mind
he built the earth with enough water in the fountains of the great deep to flood the earth
and had a plan of redemption before he made the earth
(Revelation of John 13:8) And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.
way 2 go
Well-known member
so you read that as God didn't know
something knowable
way 2 go
Well-known member
God wanted us to know Adam named the animals