Did Adam sin?

[Theway]

Mine works just fine beforehand as long as I am considering what I am doing.

LOL... That's just it... Mine will usually only tell me that I should have considered what I was going to do first...

Oh well... I may have a late conscience, but at least I now have the Holy Spirit to take over the beforehand stuff.

 

[LoAmmi]

LOL... That's just it... Mine will usually only tell me that I should have considered what I was going to do first...

Oh well... I may have a late conscience, but at least I now have the Holy Spirit to take over the beforehand stuff.

It's late for a very important date?

 

[SkyWriting]

im asking this question because there are many who believe that Adam is a dirty dog. Here is my reasoning to why they are not and were following the plan of God. Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden. They were innocent of knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them and Eve partook of the fruit and gave it to Adam. I believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods law to not eat the fruit. God had told them not to eat of the fruit or they would die. Since there had not yet had death enter into the garden did they understand what the consequences of their choice? Since they did not know good and evil, could Adam and Eve understood what the law was and the consequences? They did disobey and as a result death came into the world. Sin also came into the world because of imperfection. I believe that to justice it does not matter if someone disobeys having full knowledge and understanding of the law broken or if someone is innocent of the law. It is still disobedience and there are consequences that must come as a result. The punishment is the same. Logic dictates that this was Gods plan all along because why would he allow satan to tempt them? Why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil for them to be tempted. I believe that God wanted Adam to eat the fruit so mortality would come to this earth as well so we could know good from evil. To experience the opposites of life so we could continue to progress. So to me Adam and Eve did not sin. They did transgress Gods law which had the same punishment.

God seems to favor free will. Even the angels had it. So we must decide if free will is good or not.
God could keep us mentally in a cage, by his side, like pets or he could let us choose to be with him.

People get mad because I walk my two dogs off-leash. Because I treat my dogs well, they have zero-hostility.
It's against the law....but I'm willing to break the law and let my dogs off leash. One rarely leaves my side.
The other is an annoying puppy and often I leash him around people. But he is learning to stay by my side
voluntarily. Keeping my dogs by my side voluntarily is much more fun for all of us. But it's dangerous.

God prefers that people be "off-leash." It means they will die, but it's better than being tied up.
In the Garden, God gave man the option to go "off leash" and return voluntarily.

 

[Niblo]

That's a problem... I find that it's hard to follow your conscience, because it always only kicks in after you've erred. I wish it would quite following me!

Give it time

 

[ChetSinger]

...Except that Yahweh was not the Father of Jesus. He was one of the Annunaki, too. He was the son of El and the brother of Baal.

http://www.bewaredeception.com/inde...he-sons-of-el-elyon&catid=1:articles&Itemid=3

Hello! This caught my eye.

How could the Israelites have considered YHWH to be one of the seventy sons of El if they didn't believe that they were one of the seventy nations?

Then again, this is getting off-topic. If you start a thread about it I'll participate.

 

[BukiRob]

Plainly, like Matthew 2 15? Which is neither a prophecy nor about Jesus. Or the phantom prophecy about being called the Nazarene which does not exist. We could go on. I challenge you to put your belief aside and find messiah based on the Tanakh alone. Then, you can come back and tell us what is or is not in our Scripture.

Plainly, like Matthew 2 15? Which is neither a prophecy nor about Jesus. Or the phantom prophecy about being called the Nazarene which does not exist. We could go on. I challenge you to put your belief aside and find messiah based on the Tanakh alone. Then, you can come back and tell us what is or is not in our Scripture.

You are willfully blind. Its the same tired excuse trotted out by Jewish people today.. a lame attempt to discredit the gospels... come up with a better act bud.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

here's over 300 of them... but I'm sure you whine about how they are "too vague" or whatever your excuse will be.

Better yet, how about not assigning things I never said....

Makes you look like a real tool...

 

[LoAmmi]

You are willfully blind. Its the same tired excuse trotted out by Jewish people today.. a lame attempt to discredit the gospels... come up with a better act bud.

Man, if we Jews are right imagine the egg that's going to be on your face.

Look, Christians love to point at us and say we're blind. But you are simply dismissing our reading of the text while accusing us of dismissing yours. The fact is that for most things I'm going to need to see a CLEAR prophecy in the text. Take the whole one about the serpent biting the heel and the man crushing the snake's head. You interpret it as Jesus even though taking the original text by itself, which is what Jews have, nobody could ever come to the conclusion that it meant what you guys say it means. That's the point. You're looking back with your answer already and trying to find places your answer fits. We're reading the text to come up with an answer and we don't find it in the places you point out.

 

[danny ski]

You are willfully blind. Its the same tired excuse trotted out by Jewish people today.. a lame attempt to discredit the gospels... come up with a better act bud.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

here's over 300 of them... but I'm sure you whine about how they are "too vague" or whatever your excuse will be.

Better yet, how about not assigning things I never said....

Makes you look like a real tool...

I scanned your list. Life's too short to go through it. Most of it is out of context rubbish, non prophecies, etc. Like the example I've given you from Matthew. It's not to discredit your text, it's to defend mine and the two thousand years old slur of Jewish blindness.

 

[LeoS]

Never mind HIS ten commandments that God gave to us later, right at the get go He gave us OUR one commandment... however this commandment was more like two in one. First it required that you not eat of that tree, and secondly it required that you BELIEVE Him or you should surely die if you ate of it. Not believing God was our first and original sin (not doing what that commandment required...and God did tell us the consequences of eating of it) followed immediately after eating of the fruit
In not believing God, we called God a liar. God does not lie. If so He would not be God. And we said ourselves that we could be like God or be our own gods.
So God gave us His 10 commandments to try and be like Him (or to show us how much we can't) and after we couldn't handle our one that He gave us. Many people try to save themselves by working these laws. They try to be their own messiah, Christ, savior, Jesus, God....
That first commandment states "Thou Shalt Not Have No Other Gods Before Me". That includes us. When one works those commandments in order to "practice righteousness" they do so by their own righteousness or "filthy rags". "Filthy rags in the original text = "filthy tampons".
God is not interested in your filthy tampons. You don't please Him by adding your filthy tampons to His finished and complete perfect work.
However He is interested in you believing in Him. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Practice believing.
We have all been redeemed, but some are still trying to serve the law. God wants everyone to give Him back that law of sin (you are always a sinner under it) and when you do you tell God , that He is God, you are not God, and you don't save yourself. You shed that self righteousness (or tampon robe that you've been planning on standing before him in on that day of judgment) you have no righteousness in yourself. The moment you take off that robe of tampons and give him back HIS commandments, He washes you clean of ALL your sin (from day you were born til the day you die) by His blood, and then He puts on you a fine White Lamb skin robe on you from the Lamb that He sacrificed just to make for you, and never mind that tampon thing you were wearing. He won't recognize you in those tampons. Do not try to hide you shame, mud and muck/sin and nakedness from your Daddy with tampons like Adam and Eve did with their fig leaves. God made them their clothes. He killed an animal to do it. I would not be shocked if He killed a lamb to make them their clothes.
"As He is so are we in this world." Jesus is not a sinner. And neither are you once you are in Him and He is in you. All things are lawful to do (not always beneficial not always edifying either so use your common sense) you are no longer under law but you are now under grace. Your sins and lawless deeds are remembered no more. (Now just so you all know that their is a difference between having the law and keeping the law. Even the Jews know that no one keeps the law. You can be a lawless criminal regardless of the laws you have in society.)
You are forgiven now go sin no more.
(God is not linear like us where he only consciously speaks and exists in the present moment. is from outside our time and space. He created our time and space and encompasses it all. When God speaks think about the scope of what he's saying.)
When God says you are forgiven now go sin no more... you just go sin no more because it is impossible for you to go sin anymore even if what you do is not beneficial or edifying. Only sinners go to Hell. Not believers and those who practice believing aka righteousness.

 

[smaneck]

First of all, thank you for reading my link. Yes, there is historicity but Genesis version is based on that Sumerian story. There were no such people as Adam and Eve. I will add the link about Enki and Enlil.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki07.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki07.htm

I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to argue that Enlil is Allah who tried to wipe away the knowledge of DNA coding has lost me right then and there. The Adam and Eve story as it stands has more credibility than that!

 

[Breckmin]

They chose the right way?

It's not quite this simple.

Adam made a deliberate choice to sin against God and eat of the fruit when Adam was NOT
deceived. Eve "was" deceived. 1 Tim 2:14.

The way I see it, the complication here is that God knew that without loyalty, love, knowledge
of consequences, etc. moral evil was an inevitable byproduct of free will for someone or
maybe even for many of God's children. God was not about to deal with 15 year old's
in heaven and watch multiple drop from heaven one by one because they were not
equipped with what WE will have in heaven... everything we will take from the temporary
creation. God's plan is absolutely perfect. No question. God's plan however is not
so monolithic as to make it one dimensional where God "wants" everything in this plan.
God clearly allows things to take place that are not optimal for individuals because of
free will. God takes no pleasure in the destruction and separation of the wicked and
God doesn't desire anyone to go to eternal hell BUT people WILL go to eternal "hell"
as part of God's plan. It is because of truth and justice and righteousness that they
will be separated from heaven NOT because of love (unless it is love for the believers
to demonstrate something necessary to believers).

I believe that God's perfect plan is inclusive of the morally imperfect actions of
individuals who sin against God. Freewill is a different type of causal system
than all other causal systems so we can have logical reasons for what is "morally"
illogical to do. In a similar way we can have universe which contains "moral"
imperfect and yet have it be perfectly what it is intended to be... a temporary
creation to deal with these moral imperfections AND glorify God.

The temporary creation prepares us for eternity... but that doesn't mean that
God "wanted" us to sin... even if it was part of His sovereign plan. Question everything.

 

[BukiRob]

Man, if we Jews are right imagine the egg that's going to be on your face.

Look, Christians love to point at us and say we're blind. But you are simply dismissing our reading of the text while accusing us of dismissing yours. The fact is that for most things I'm going to need to see a CLEAR prophecy in the text. Take the whole one about the serpent biting the heel and the man crushing the snake's head. You interpret it as Jesus even though taking the original text by itself, which is what Jews have, nobody could ever come to the conclusion that it meant what you guys say it means. That's the point. You're looking back with your answer already and trying to find places your answer fits. We're reading the text to come up with an answer and we don't find it in the places you point out.

You are blind. As I said AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED.... Isaiah 53 is about Mesiach.. yet you will try and tell us its about Israel... face it you are hostile, blind and rebellious.

I am MESSIANIC Jewish... stop throwing me in the gentile church pile pal

 

[BukiRob]

First of all, thank you for reading my link. Yes, there is historicity but Genesis version is based on that Sumerian story. There were no such people as Adam and Eve. I will add the link about Enki and Enlil.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/esp_sumer_annunaki07.htm



Grape, apple whatever. You know it is not possible to see the difference between good and evil by eating a fruit.



Except that Yahweh was not the Father of Jesus. He was one of the Annunaki, too. He was the son of El and the brother of Baal.

http://www.bewaredeception.com/inde...he-sons-of-el-elyon&catid=1:articles&Itemid=3

http://www.the-truth-seekers.org/yahweh.htm



How can a story be true if it never happened? The story does not prove that humans are sinners. That is not how the Sumerian story, upon which Genesis is based, is meant to be interpreted. It is about Enki helping humans to rebel against Enlil.

However, people are intrinsically evil. The Sumerian story explains that is because the Annuanki genetically modified our genes. That makes sense because God could not have created us with evil.

You should change your affiliation to PAGAN.....

Read scripture it will open your eyes. G-d created evil... man has both the inclination for good and evil. When man fell by virtue of his disobedience to Adonia Sin entered creation and both mankind and creation to this day suffer the consequences of said Fall.

 

[smaneck]

You are willfully blind.
Its the same tired excuse trotted out by Jewish people today.. a lame attempt to discredit the gospels... come up with a better act bud.

I think we've got a regular Pfefferkorn here.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

here's over 300 of them... but I'm sure you whine about how they are "too vague" or whatever your excuse will be.

Or maybe just wrong and out of context.

 

[smaneck]

You are blind. As I said AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED.... Isaiah 53 is about Mesiach.. yet you will try and tell us its about Israel...

And the consensus of academic biblical scholarship agrees with them.

face it you are hostile, blind and rebellious.

The only hostility I see is yours.

 

[Masihi]

First of all, thank you for reading my link. Yes, there is historicity but Genesis version is based on that Sumerian story. There were no such people as Adam and Eve. I will add the link about Enki and Enlil.

And you lived in that age to confirm this conclusion?
You noticed the Gilgamesh story is mythological, includes fanciful accounts of multiple gods fighting each other. Its not accurate to say the boat was built in 7 days, nor that it rained for 7 days; that the gods feared water and ran from it (are they cats?). A boat built in 7 days but built as a cube, 200ft each side? Its folklore im sure of it.
By contrast the Genesis account of flood seems more plausible in as much as the boat's seaworthiness, the time to build it, materials used.

 

[smaneck]

And you lived in that age to confirm this conclusion?
You noticed the Gilgamesh story is mythological, includes fanciful accounts of multiple gods fighting each other. Its not accurate to say the boat was built in 7 days, nor that it rained for 7 days; that the gods feared water and ran from it (are they cats?). A boat built in 7 days but built as a cube, 200ft each side? Its folklore im sure of it.
By contrast the Genesis account of flood seems more plausible in as much as the boat's seaworthiness, the time to build it, materials used.

a

Umm. Raining for seven is a lot more plausible than raining for thirty days. And how are multiple gods fighting anymore fanciful than the sons of God marrying the daughters of men?

 

[Claire Evans]

And you lived in that age to confirm this conclusion?
You noticed the Gilgamesh story is mythological, includes fanciful accounts of multiple gods fighting each other. Its not accurate to say the boat was built in 7 days, nor that it rained for 7 days; that the gods feared water and ran from it (are they cats?). A boat built in 7 days but built as a cube, 200ft each side? Its folklore im sure of it.
By contrast the Genesis account of flood seems more plausible in as much as the boat's seaworthiness, the time to build it, materials used.

Did you live in the age where Noah supposedly built the Ark? And old man building an Ark collecting all the animals including those from China and Australia, for example? Collecting fleas and ticks to put on the Ark? Come on. We aren't children anymore.

I do believe in extra terrestrials taking dominion of the earth and fighting one another. The Bible call them fallen angels. There is always a kernel of truth in myths. I'm not saying the Gilgamesh story should be taken at face value. What I am trying to say is Genesis is clearing an adaption of the Sumerian story.

 

[Claire Evans]

I'm sorry, but anyone who tries to argue that Enlil is Allah who tried to wipe away the knowledge of DNA coding has lost me right then and there. The Adam and Eve story as it stands has more credibility than that!

Yes, eating a fruit that makes one sees the difference between good and evil is far more plausible, right? A talking snake? What makes more sense? An alien being conversing with man being represented as a serpent god or a snake talking to Eve and she doesn't get freaked out by it?

It's natural to try and lean towards things we know. What I am saying is that we all grown up with the Adam and Eve story so it is going to seem more plausible.

 

[Claire Evans]

Hello! This caught my eye.

How could the Israelites have considered YHWH to be one of the seventy sons of El if they didn't believe that they were one of the seventy nations?

Then again, this is getting off-topic. If you start a thread about it I'll participate.

I don't understand. Jewish tradition said there were 70 nations after the flood. Can you give me the verse that supports your claim?

I'll like to correspond further but I'm way to new to have the privilege of starting to forum topic.