Shilo and Lee on God

[Turbo]

Just to throw a new twist to this discussion, how could Adam & Eve have been reasonably expected to either rebel or not-rebel given that they did not know the differance in good and evil at the time they "chose" evil? Does this suggest at least a minor flaw in either the creation or the expectations of the creator? :think:

This reminds me of when the Sadducees disingenuously questioned Jesus about the resurrection. (see Matthew 22:23-28)

 

[shilohproject]

This reminds me of when the Sadducees disingenuously questioned Jesus about the resurrection. (see Matthew 22:23-28)

The question is legitimate and points to a moving revelation of God's willingness to apply grace in His dealings with mankind. All this garbage that has been introduced to cloud the issue is unfortunate. But the question remains, since they did not know right from wrong, good from evil, what does that tell us about the situation in the garden and the expectaions of the Creator?

 

[Nineveh]

Even though that means God created imbeciles that couldn't understand spoken language or follow directions :Nineveh:

 

[Turbo]

The question is legitimate and points to a moving revelation of God's willingness to apply grace in His dealings with mankind. All this garbage that has been introduced to cloud the issue is unfortunate. But the question remains, since they did not know right from wrong, good from evil, what does that tell us about the situation in the garden and the expectaions of the Creator?

The Sadducees' question was based on a false premise, and so is yours.

The Law is the knowledge of good and evil, and by eating from that tree, Adam and Eve chose the Law over grace. Adam was warned of the consequences of eating from that tree (Genesis 2:17).

As for what the situation tells us about the expectations of the Creator, it tells us that He wants a truly loving relationship with us. Real love is volitional. A man who loves a woman does not make her live in a house with no doors or windows with him. Likewise God gave man the option to end the relationship, but thankfully He also provided a way to be reconciled.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Does God ever think someone is going to sin? Is he completely surprised, any time a sin is done?

Nineveh: If you want to trot off over into left field, feel free. But pardon if I don't follow.

I think you are the first one in the outfield, though! For your view is that God did not even think that the Israelites would sin in the way they did.

So now I am needing to know how far this extends, does God not think people could murder another? If it's second degree murder? Trip them up, steal a paperweight off their desk? How far does this lack of insight extend, that is what I am asking.

Lee: To know the meaning of Greek words, we have to consult, primarily, the Greek dictionary, and it says one word for sin is "to miss the mark." So then does God ever miss the mark?

Nineveh: Why you seem insistant applying even a definition of sin to God Himself, I can not fathom.

Well, again, you are not seeing the form of the argument I am using. The conclusion is supposed to be incorrect, and I don't believe God sins. So then either the premise or the logic must be incorrect, and I will ask therefore, is it your view that God had a good purpose, beyond the time of creation, with regard to mankind? That he did not accomplish?

Lee: If he had a good purpose that he did not fulfill (which I don't believe happened), he missed the mark, and that is what one of the primary words for sin means.

Nineveh: Ok, when did He fail?

If the interpretation is to be that God "regretted that he had made man." He regretted what he had done, not just what others had done, in that case. I do not, of course, agree that this is the correct interpretation, because of these various difficulties.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nineveh]

I think you are the first one in the outfield, though! For your view is that God did not even think that the Israelites would sin in the way they did.

Here you go again.

Do you really even need me to reply? It seems you will decide what I do and do not believe.

Well, again, you are not seeing the form of the argument I am using. The conclusion is supposed to be incorrect,

Well, you certainly don't need me for that, either.

If the interpretation is to be that God "regretted that he had made man." He regretted what he had done, not just what others had done, in that case. I do not, of course, agree that this is the correct interpretation, because of these various difficulties.

Well, lee, perhaps you should quit looking for "wrong conclusions" to come to and read what God actually recorded on the matter. It says, very plainly, God "grieved" He had created man.

The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Why was He so grieved He had made us?

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

 

[shilohproject]

Even though that means God created imbeciles that couldn't understand spoken language or follow directions :Nineveh:

Sounds like most people today. Add to that the fact that they didn't know the difference between right and wrong and you have an exceptional situation.

Let me ask you this, since you seem to discount any significant change in Adam and Eve after the Tree of Knowledge: What was differant about them after eating of the fruit?

 

[shilohproject]

The Sadducees' question was based on a false premise, and so is yours.

And what premise is that exactly? That they did not know the difference between right and wrong before eating of the Tree?

The Law is the knowledge of good and evil...

The Law did not exist for Adam and Eve.

... and by eating from that tree, Adam and Eve chose the Law over grace.

No, they had no idea of what they were doing until it was done, because they didn't know right from wrong. So to say that they "chose" anything is a huge stretch.

Adam was warned of the consequences of eating from that tree (Genesis 2:17).

He would not have known that those consequences were evil/bad, because he didn't know the difference. Plus, as you will note, those consequences did not occur.

As for what the situation tells us about the expectations of the Creator, it tells us that He wants a truly loving relationship with us.

What one expects (my word) and what one wants (your word) are not the same thing. I'm asking not about what God wants, but rather expects.

Real love is volitional. A man who loves a woman does not make her live in a house with no doors or windows with him. Likewise God gave man the option to end the relationship, but thankfully He also provided a way to be reconciled.

Totally true. But not the question at hand.

 

[CiY127]

Adam and Eve were created with a conscience. God told them what was right and what was wrong and told them the consequences.

They chose to believe the serpents lie over God's truth.

God said they would die on that day. They did.

 

[Nineveh]

Sounds like most people today. Add to that the fact that they didn't know the difference between right and wrong and you have an exceptional situation.

Neither does a 2 year old, but they can still discern what "no" means, even when they put their will above their parents.

Let me ask you this, ...

To be honest shilo, noticing you have a propensity to stare obviousness in the face and reject it, I'd rather not, but thanks for the offer :Nineveh:

 

[shilohproject]

Neither does a 2 year old, but they can still discern what "no" means, even when they put their will above their parents.

Maybe. In any event, they may not understand the implications of an action, particularly if it's a first time scenario, like the Tree would have been. And I doubt you'd support the father killing them.

To be honest shilo, noticing you have a propensity to stare obviousness in the face and reject it, I'd rather not, but thanks for the offer :Nineveh:

Lame dodge! The real issue, from where I stand, is not my inability to recognize obviousness, but rather the unwillingness of some to look at subtlies.


FACT: They did not die. Why not? Is that something you'd address?

 

[shilohproject]

God said they would die on that day. They did.

No, they didn't. Or else God would not have had to seperate them from the Tree of Life, by which they'd have gained eternal life (see 3.22). You guys just keep repeating the stuff they told you in VBS when you were kids, I guess. But it doesn't fit scripture, and it is illogical to boot. Sorry, but it's right there. They did not die.

 

[Turbo]

They did not die physically. That is, they were not separated from their bodies.

They died spiritually. That is, they were separated from God.

 

[Turbo]

And what premise is that exactly? That they did not know the difference between right and wrong before eating of the Tree?

That they didn't know that they were not to eat from the tree of death, and that they were unaware of the consequences.

The Law did not exist for Adam and Eve.

They were given one law, and they violated it.

No, they had no idea of what they were doing until it was done, because they didn't know right from wrong.

Eve had no trouble explaining it to the serpent. And they could have gone to God with any questions they had.

So to say that they "chose" anything is a huge stretch.

Are you a Calvinist or what? Do you think God made them sin?

He would not have known that those consequences were evil/bad, because he didn't know the difference.

Baloney. Eve knew that death was something to be feared. She told the serpent that God said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."


Lest means for fear that. (Why would she fear death if she had no idea that death was bad?)

Plus, as you will note, those consequences did not occur.

The serpent assured Eve, "You will not surely die." And you side with the serpent. :doh:

What one expects (my word) and what one wants (your word) are not the same thing. I'm asking not about what God wants, but rather expects.

He expected them (and us) to choose life or death.

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20​

 

[shilohproject]

They did not die physically. That is, they were not separated from their bodies.

They died spiritually. That is, they were separated from God.

The threatened consequences were not "to die spiritually." And, they clearly continued to have contact with God.

This explaination you offer is one I'm of course familiar with, but when examined it fails. No such spin is required if we accept that God simply chose to extend grace rather than justice. This would fit the facts as relayed in the story and fit the characteristics we know of God.

 

[shilohproject]

The serpent assured Eve, "You will not surely die." And you side with the serpent. :doh:

No, I side with the Bible, which clearly shows them as not dying. The consequence instead was expulsion from the garden. Read it. It's in black and white.

 

[shilohproject]

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20​

This occurred long after mankind knew the difference in right and wrong. It has no real bearing on the pre-Tree episode.

 

[shilohproject]

That they didn't know that they were not to eat from the tree of death, and that they were unaware of the consequences.
They were given one law, and they violated it.
Eve had no trouble explaining it to the serpent. And they could have gone to God with any questions they had.

It was not untill after eating of the Tree that they could have truly understood these things. (see 3.22)

Are you a Calvinist or what? Do you think God made them sin?

Nope. Nope.

Baloney. Eve knew that death was something to be feared. She told the serpent that God said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."

She knew nothing of fear or evil. That's the point.

 

[Nineveh]

Lame dodge! The real issue, from where I stand, is not my inability to recognize obviousness, but rather the unwillingness of some to look at subtlies.

Don't stare the obvious in the face and will to remain ignorant:

You: You think they did based on what? Then what was the point of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Doesn't your Bible go on to say something like "Now they know the differance between right and wrong?"

Me: It boils down to if they could understand the words "Do Not". God seemed to think they could handle it. That's right where satan went to decieve them, "Did God really say...?"

You: The only place the serpent contested what God said was in the area of consequences, i.e. "in that day you shall surely die." (BTW, he was right; they didn't die.)

Me: Perhaps you should start at the beginning of chapter 3.

Verse 1: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

You: First of all, it's nice that you pick the NIV for this quote, since it's the only translation I can find that puts this particular spin on the passage. Second of all, to ask a question is not necessarily to confront. And, most importantly, it's not the issue at all. The issue is that Eve did not have the ability to know right and wrong. It is her action, and Adam's afterward, that illustrate their condition at the time of the incident.

Me: Strike 2:

KJV: VERSE 1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

NKJV: VERSE 1: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

NASB: VERSE 1: Now (A)the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

How many more versions do you want, shilo?

Anyway, Eve understood what God had commanded, that's why satan started with trying to undermine Eve's understanding with "did God really say....?" But since we are back to square one with what I originally said, thanks for helping me prove it further.

You: None of these examples has the ring of the NIV, the spin I was refering to in your post. KJV, NRSV don't read that way to me, and the NASB changes too often to be reliable,I'm afraid.

But, as I said, in any event it has nothing to do with whether or not Eve could have known right from wrong.



And back to square one, again.

At this point, shilo, there is no point in trying to dialog with you. You refuse to even accept that's where satan started his temptation of Eve, at her understanding of what God said. If she didn't understand what God said, satan's attempt would have went over her head, too. satan, who you claim tells the Truth, started by undermining God's command. That's hard to do if you don't grasp it to begin with.

When you decide the Truth is more important than your mere desire to be right in the face of the obvious, let me know.

 

[shilohproject]

When you decide the Truth is more important than your mere desire to be right in the face of the obvious, let me know.

When you become capable of staying on the issue and answering a simple question without a lame dodge, let me know.