First Evil

[TedT]

If knowledge of something necessitates that it exist then Gods knowledge of evil had to eternally exist, which means it was at least always in his mind, but also maybe outside himself, in the form of not God.

If you don’t agree then you have to say Gods knowledge of evil is not eternal, which either means it came into existence without God knowing or he learned that evil is eternal.

What do you think I’m missing here?

I think that the definition of omniscience we inherited from the pagan Greeks that GOD knows all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future must be rectified from its anti-biblical nature, no matter how holy the church Fathers thought it to be.

It contends that GOD knew who would end in hell before HE created them and though HE takes no pleasure in their death, Ezekiel 33:11, (HE only does that which pleases HIM), and does not desire the death of any but that all should live, 2 Peter 3:9, why would HE create anyone knowing they would end in hell?

ALL HE HAD TO DO TO KEEP HELL EMPTY WAS TO NOT CREATE THEM!

This definition blasphemes not only HIS good Name but scripture!

Therefore I contend that before their creation and before they chose by their free will to sin the unforgivable sin, HE did NOT know what they would choose to do!

This means that the possibility of evil existed (which HE probably knew fully) but that this possibility did not create any reality of evil as HIS creation could only be good, both morally and as able to fulfill HIS plan and purpose for HIS creation to be HIS Bride in the heavenly marriage, the culmination of the whole story of HIS relationship with us.

Evil came into existence when some of HIS creation chose by their free will to rebuke HIS claims to be our creator GOD and that salvation from sin could only be found in HIM, as lies and scorn HIM as a false god driven by an evil psychotic megalomania.

 

[TedT]

He made them innocent vs cunning.

HINT: why call them `RM then provide naked as a much used metaphor for sinfulness, especially in that sin blinds us to the nature of our sinfulness and we need our eyes to be opened to see our sinfulness?
Revelation 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.…
Not only did the writer not use the perfectly logical word for being unclothed used of Noah in Gen 9:21 (Strong's H1540 - galah, not `rm) but there is no sin in being nude as GOD created you!

The only problem is that when their eye were opened to their sin, they saw the nakedness they had before they ate, not the sin of their eating. IF it was not sinful to be unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you then naked must be read as its alternative meaning, cunning in evil, which they saw/realized when their eyes were opened to the sin they had before they ate!

 

[TedT]

dbl post...again, sigh.

 

[timothyu]

Where do you find your narrative in Scripture?

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Matthew 22:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

HINT: why call them `RM then provide naked as a much used metaphor for sinfulness, especially in that sin blinds us to the nature of our sinfulness and we need our eyes to be opened to see our sinfulness?
Revelation 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.…
Not only did the writer not use the perfectly logical word for being unclothed used of Noah in Gen 9:21 (Strong's H1540 - galah, not `rm) but there is no sin in being nude as GOD created you!

The only problem is that when their eye were opened to their sin, they saw the nakedness they had before they ate, not the sin of their eating. IF it was not sinful to be unclothed in your own garden as GOD made you then naked must be read as its alternative meaning, cunning in evil, which they saw/realized when their eyes were opened to the sin they had before they ate!

What is RM?

 

[TedT]

What is RM?

`rm is the Hebrew root for both words naked and cunning in evil: the vowels that differentiate the words as naked or cunning were added into scripture ç600AD.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

`rm is the Hebrew root for both words naked and cunning in evil: the vowels that differentiate the words as naked or cunning were added into scripture ç600AD.

Ok but, they were innocent until they were decieved. They had every opportunity to reject temptation. That being said the flesh was weak then as it is now.

 

[Chriliman]

I think that the definition of omniscience we inherited from the pagan Greeks that GOD knows all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future must be rectified from its anti-biblical nature, no matter how holy the church Fathers thought it to be.

It contends that GOD knew who would end in hell before HE created them and though HE takes no pleasure in their death, Ezekiel 33:11, (HE only does that which pleases HIM), and does not desire the death of any but that all should live, 2 Peter 3:9, why would HE create anyone knowing they would end in hell?

ALL HE HAD TO DO TO KEEP HELL EMPTY WAS TO NOT CREATE THEM!

This definition blasphemes not only HIS good Name but scripture!

Therefore I contend that before their creation and before they chose by their free will to sin the unforgivable sin, HE did NOT know what they would choose to do!

This means that the possibility of evil existed (which HE probably knew fully) but that this possibility did not create any reality of evil as HIS creation could only be good, both morally and as able to fulfill HIS plan and purpose for HIS creation to be HIS Bride in the heavenly marriage, the culmination of the whole story of HIS relationship with us.

Evil came into existence when some of HIS creation chose by their free will to rebuke HIS claims to be our creator GOD and that salvation from sin could only be found in HIM, as lies and scorn HIM as a false god driven by an evil psychotic megalomania.

I wouldn’t say the idea of gods eternal knowledge is anti-biblical given these examples:

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has also set eternity in their heart, without the possibility that mankind will find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Romans 1:20:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

But I do agree, it’s these kinds of contradictions that make me question the entire idea of a logically consistent eternal god who didn’t knowingly create beings for hell, unless hell is temporary for corrective purposes or maybe eternal hell is necessary to do what god wants to do.

 

[TedT]

Ok but, they were innocent until they were decieved. They had every opportunity to reject temptation. That being said the flesh was weak then as it is now.

Sooner or later you have to deal with the fact that they were `rm before their eating and that eating opened their eyes to their `rm-ness causing them to be ashamed. People are not ashamed of things that carry no shame but only for being convicted of doing something shameful, ie, being a sinner...in this case, before they ate.

In the context of receiving the command not to eat we can apply the purpose of giving such commands:
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness / conviction of sin.

1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made NOT for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc.

The law is not given to the innocent because they have no sin to be convicted of doing!

 

[TedT]

I wouldn’t say the idea of gods eternal knowledge is anti-biblical given these examples:

Ahhh, to be precise, I was not challenging HIS knowledge as being eternal but against the content of what HE knows to be covering ALL things.

Please consider the Biblical definition of what HE knows: Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. implying HIS omniscience is limited to 'all HIS works' from 'the beginning of the world.'

All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions when HE created us with a free will so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

Hmmm, interesting...I just realized that if this interpretation is true then so is the ancient pagan definition that HE knows all that can be known is also true though it too is restricted by HIS NOT creating the results of our free will decisions so those results come under what are not and could not be known.

 

[Mark Quayle]

timothyu said: ↑
Which is why we must reverse what Eve and Adam did. We must see what we call good is actually evil. We must understand how our 'self' oriented nature produces all sin simply because we take rather than give. God's will and His second commandment was to do the opposite.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Matthew 22:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Can you see how this does not demonstrate your narrative?
Your narrative is your 'moral of the story' —not what these verses say. I'm not saying the sentiments you call for there aren't good, even if they are a bit vague (for example, "reverse what Eve and Adam did" —where do you find that terminology in Scripture? It will not be reversed during this temporal existence.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think that the definition of omniscience we inherited from the pagan Greeks that GOD knows all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future must be rectified from its anti-biblical nature, no matter how holy the church Fathers thought it to be.

It contends that GOD knew who would end in hell before HE created them and though HE takes no pleasure in their death, Ezekiel 33:11, (HE only does that which pleases HIM), and does not desire the death of any but that all should live, 2 Peter 3:9, why would HE create anyone knowing they would end in hell?

ALL HE HAD TO DO TO KEEP HELL EMPTY WAS TO NOT CREATE THEM!

This definition blasphemes not only HIS good Name but scripture!

Therefore I contend that before their creation and before they chose by their free will to sin the unforgivable sin, HE did NOT know what they would choose to do!

This means that the possibility of evil existed (which HE probably knew fully) but that this possibility did not create any reality of evil as HIS creation could only be good, both morally and as able to fulfill HIS plan and purpose for HIS creation to be HIS Bride in the heavenly marriage, the culmination of the whole story of HIS relationship with us.

Evil came into existence when some of HIS creation chose by their free will to rebuke HIS claims to be our creator GOD and that salvation from sin could only be found in HIM, as lies and scorn HIM as a false god driven by an evil psychotic megalomania.

Therefore I contend that before their creation and before they chose by their free will to sin the unforgivable sin, HE did NOT know what they would choose to do!

I wonder how much scripture you sacrifice on the altar of freewill. You probably should tread lightly with accusations about blasphemy, when coming up with and expressing your 'logical' conclusions. Do you think his good name depends on our definition of, for example, "love"? And you can't even admit you might be reading Ezekiel 33:11, 2 Peter 3:9 et al, according to your bias? We all do that! —myself included, I'm not trying to accuse you of something unusual, but suggesting you recognize it. You seem to me to be basing not just your narrative, but your very interpretation of Scripture on your notions of what would support "HIS good Name" to the sacrifice, at this point, of the very Omniscience and Omnipotence of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you need to see Omniscience and Omnipotence from Scripture? Can you show how they mean something besides plain raw meaning? Are you going to go with one group that claims God cannot KNOW the future because it hasn't happened yet, as though he must guess?

 

[Ligurian]

Can you see how this does not demonstrate your narrative?
Your narrative is your 'moral of the story' —not what these verses say.

In the eye of the beholder?

Example:
Chris Carter, in the X-Files calls the back-story the mythology. But that's obviously tongue-in-cheek, because it's the creature-feature cases that are the real mythology. The truth is out there... It's this: there are no alien abductions, there are only government kidnappings.

 

[Ligurian]

I think that the definition of omniscience we inherited from the pagan Greeks that GOD knows all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future must be rectified from its anti-biblical nature, no matter how holy the church Fathers thought it to be.

I think most people would be surprised to learn that the Greeks (1) didn't write the books they took over with the lands they conquested, (2) the people who DID write those Cretan/Minoan/Pelasgian Legends were not pagans, and (3) that people have been borrowing from these people's Legends since time out of mind. In fact, this is probably at least part of the reason the Library at Alexandria was torched.

 

[Chriliman]

Ahhh, to be precise, I was not challenging HIS knowledge as being eternal but against the content of what HE knows to be covering ALL things.

Please consider the Biblical definition of what HE knows: Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. implying HIS omniscience is limited to 'all HIS works' from 'the beginning of the world.'

All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees.

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions when HE created us with a free will so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves.

Hmmm, interesting...I just realized that if this interpretation is true then so is the ancient pagan definition that HE knows all that can be known is also true though it too is restricted by HIS NOT creating the results of our free will decisions so those results come under what are not and could not be known.

So you’re saying we can know things that God does not yet know?

 

[TedT]

So you’re saying we can know things that God does not yet know?

We decide things that GOD had not decided but had given to us to decide.

HE knows our decision as we come to know it ourselves, being perfectly intimate with our thoughts.