How much did Adam know?

[payattention]

There is no question that Adam had a much higher level of intelligence than his descendants, but we certainly understand the universe more than he did. He had great potential to learn but he only lay the foundation for the knowledge base we have built over the years. The problem comes when we consider his understanding of the Creator. Since the creation reflects the creator, it is obvious that Adam could not have had a greater understanding of the Creator than he had of the creation. The purpose of those walks with God in the cool of the day was so he could get to understand the Creator, and his fall is an indication of the paucity of his understanding.

After the fall man's understanding of the Creator was corrupted under the influence of the new ruler of the earth. It is this misinformation that God has had to overcome. The effort began with the prophets and receive full voice in the life of Jesus Christ. By the time Jesus came not only did man have little understanding of the nature and character of the Creator, he also held a lot of false information that was very difficult to eradicate. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the disciples who frustrated Jesus, if we can use that word, in their inability to come to grips with who He was. In a very real sense, the early church began further back than Adam because of the false information they had to get rid of while learning about the Creator.

Why then do so many Christians tend to believe that anything the Apostles say about the Creator, especially about the process of the gospel must be a reflection of the mind of God? It is as if they believe that He did with Paul and the rest with their diseased minds what He did not find necessary to do with Adam with is unaffected mind.

 

[tall73]

There is no question that Adam had a much higher level of intelligence than his descendants, but we certainly understand the universe more than he did. ... The purpose of those walks with God in the cool of the day was so he could get to understand the Creator, and his fall is an indication of the paucity of his understanding.

Define the logic underlying that statement.

a. Adam had access to an unsullied creation, which we don't.
b. Adam had direct access to the creator. Which we don't.
c We are limited to experimentation, Adam could just ask.
d. If Adam fell once, how does it follow that we, who sin all the time, know more than him?
e. Do we have any clue what it was that they knew back then? You seem to suggest they knew less. On what basis? The fall? Then again, why do we fall?
f. you then go on to say that the disciples were worse off then Adam. Perhaps so for a time. But then through the Holy Spirit they too had access to the creator, who revealed what He chose to. Perhaps not as much as to Adam, but we don't really know that.
g. Given all of these statements, how is it that WE are in a better position than either Adam or the disciples? If you think that scientific advances have made us better able to understand than the one who had direct access to the unfallen creation, AND the creator Himself, then I simply say I can't agree with that at all.

Why then do so many Christians tend to believe that anything the Apostles say about the Creator, especially about the process of the gospel must be a reflection of the mind of God? It is as if they believe that He did with Paul and the rest with their diseased minds what He did not find necessary to do with Adam with is unaffected mind.

I think we say it because Jesus said He would not leave them as orphas but would come to them. You make much of the disciples confusion BEFORE Jesus' death, but little of the blessings of God on them after. Were they perfect? No. Paul's rebuke to Peter was a sign of that. As was Paul's fight with Barnabus. But certainly Jesus was true to His word and was with them.

 

[payattention]

Define the logic underlying that statement.

I could not tell which statement you were referring to. Please clarify. I will address the several errors you have included below.

a. Adam had access to an unsullied creation, which we don't.

I don't see how that makes a difference. The issue is the mind of the scientist not the raw materials with which he had to work. Your raw materials define what you can do with them, that is all.

b. Adam had direct access to the creator. Which we don't.

That is not true. Our problem is not access, but the quality of the access. Prayer is access. The difference between our access and Adam's may be the difference between digital and analog but access is not a problem. Direct access does not mean you make the best use of it.

c We are limited to experimentation, Adam could just ask.

Another misconception. God wanted Adam to experiment. This is why he was told to keep the garden. God did not tell him how to keep the garden. Experimentation is a divinely given method of divining the truth. We have already determined that we can also ask.

d. If Adam fell once, how does it follow that we, who sin all the time, know more than him?

Because we have learned from the experience of all those who went before us. It is the same reason why we know more than any who came before us. Adam had potential.

e. Do we have any clue what it was that they knew back then? You seem to suggest they knew less. On what basis? The fall? Then again, why do we fall?

My basis is the fact that discovery and learning are the hallmarks of being human. If man knew everything there was to know he would be God nor would not need the brain he was given. God placed Adam on a journey of discovery and we have been building on that ever since.

f. you then go on to say that the disciples were worse off then Adam. Perhaps so for a time. But then through the Holy Spirit they too had access to the creator, who revealed what He chose to. Perhaps not as much as to Adam, but we don't really know that.

The disciples repeatedly mucked up what Jesus taught them on a personal level. Read Mark 10 for insight there. Apart from the fact that the Holy Spirit's ministry is not as direct as the personal ministry of Jesus, the Holy Spirit teaches; He does not make you understand. That is the responsibility of the human instrument. You do not become smarter by going to a better school with better teachers. You have to study.

g. Given all of these statements, how is it that WE are in a better position than either Adam or the disciples? If you think that scientific advances have made us better able to understand than the one who had direct access to the unfallen creation, AND the creator Himself, then I simply say I can't agree with that at all.

It is not scientific advances that make us better able to understand. We have made scientific advances because we have a better understanding.

 

[tall73]

a. Adam had access to an unsullied creation, which we don't.

I don't see how that makes a difference. The issue is the mind of the scientist not the raw materials with which he had to work. Your raw materials define what you can do with them, that is all.

If it is the creation itself that reveals God, as you have said many times, and we learn more of Him by studying it, then yes, the raw materials matter very MUCH. They are the revelation. Not just your mind. Your mind is what comprehends what God made. But if you see is not what God made, but a messed up version of it, then you will often not be making real judgements about God because you are not seeing His real creation.


b. Adam had direct access to the creator. Which we don't.

That is not true. Our problem is not access, but the quality of the access. Prayer is access. The difference between our access and Adam's may be the difference between digital and analog but access is not a problem. Direct access does not mean you make the best use of it.

Yes quite true, but then you are making the source of inspiration revelation, which you seem quite loathe to do in the case of Paul, etc. If you can have direct access to God, why not Paul? You seem to be arguing against your own case here. How were the disciples who had direct access to Jesus, and to God through prayer less informed than Adam?


c We are limited to experimentation, Adam could just ask.

Another misconception. God wanted Adam to experiment. This is why he was told to keep the garden. God did not tell him how to keep the garden. Experimentation is a divinely given method of divining the truth. We have already determined that we can also ask.

Where does it say that:

a. God told him to keep the garden for the mere sake of experimenting? If I recall He told him to rule over the whole place.

b. God did not explain anything further to him? This is an argument from silence on both counts. We don't know that He did , and we don't know that He didnt. What we do know is that Adam COULD ask. Which is what my statement was.



d. If Adam fell once, how does it follow that we, who sin all the time, know more than him?

Because we have learned from the experience of all those who went before us. It is the same reason why we know more than any who came before us. Adam had potential.

According to Romans, again that troublesome Paul guy you are not big on, the people of the earth were darkened in their understanding by ages of sin. Our mental faculties also would be reduced over time, because we are also part of God's decaying creation. which you freely admit. And learning from their mistakes is again learning from inspiration since it is there that they are recorded. But you don't seem to want to accept revelation.

Moreover, your argument was that

a. Adam was not well informed
b. the disciples were worse informed than seemingly anyone
c. we are very well informed.

how is it that the disciples having many of the examples we did would not be MORE informed than Adam, as you claim we are? Your whole argument is woefully inconsistent. You seem to have an agenda to belittle the disciples. Why? I can only assume because you don't want to listen to the inspiration they claim to have. This is a consistent theme.


e. Do we have any clue what it was that they knew back then? You seem to suggest they knew less. On what basis? The fall? Then again, why do we fall?

My basis is the fact that discovery and learning are the hallmarks of being human. If man knew everything there was to know he would be God nor would not need the brain he was given. God placed Adam on a journey of discovery and we have been building on that ever since.

Again, you give no credit to the disciples who were further along, but only to yourself. Sometimes we don't learn lessons from seeing mistakes. Sometimes we just plow on. And when we get rid of the very inspiration meant to teach us those lessons, how do we then learn from them?

It is clear that you want to

a. establish that Adam was not knowledgeable enough to be accountable. Which is a statement the Bible never makes.

b. establish that the disciples were dumber than rocks so they need not be listened to.

c. establish that even modern day secular scientists are smarter about God than either of the above...in fact your argument should be that secular scientists are smarter than you about God because they study the creation more and have a better understanding.

This is not learning from the past, this is belittling the past to make ourselves look better.

f. you then go on to say that the disciples were worse off then Adam. Perhaps so for a time. But then through the Holy Spirit they too had access to the creator, who revealed what He chose to. Perhaps not as much as to Adam, but we don't really know that.

The disciples repeatedly mucked up what Jesus taught them on a personal level. Read Mark 10 for insight there. Apart from the fact that the Holy Spirit's ministry is not as direct as the personal ministry of Jesus, the Holy Spirit teaches; He does not make you understand. That is the responsibility of the human instrument. You do not become smarter by going to a better school with better teachers. You have to study.
It is not scientific advances that make us better able to understand. We have made scientific advances because we have a better understanding.

So the statement that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, that wasn't inspired either was it? For that matter, being around the direct revelation of God in human form was not better than just looking at some rocks? I don't think this is at all consistent.

And again your better understanding comes from one of two sources:

a. Their mistakes, and revelation, which you seem to dismiss because they were all confused. So sorry, that one doesn't work for you.

b. better understanding of the created order. The very understanding of which the majority of scientists interpret to do away with God. Obviously it has not increased their understanding much.

I really can't see that we would be any better informed than Adam about God, with one exception. We know good from evil. And that knowledge was far too expensive.

And I can't really see that we are much better off than the apostles, except that we have the record of what they left us, in addition to whatever else we have learned about God. But since you seem intent on downplaying what they left us, what do you have?

 

[payattention]

a. Adam had access to an unsullied creation, which we don't.


If it is the creation itself that reveals God, as you have said many times, and we learn more of Him by studying it, then yes, the raw materials matter very MUCH. They are the revelation. Not just your mind. Your mind is what comprehends what God made. But if you see is not what God made, but a messed up version of it, then you will often not be making real judgements about God because you are not seeing His real creation.

Not so. Even scientists who do not accept the creative power of God are aware of mutations when they see them. Remember that evil is only defined by a deviation from what is normative. Sin did not destroy God's creation. It did not change the laws of physics, or chemistry, or biology, or psychology. It did not change the raw material.

b. Adam had direct access to the creator. Which we don't.

Yes quite true, but then you are making the source of inspiration revelation, which you seem quite loathe to do in the case of Paul, etc. If you can have direct access to God, why not Paul? You seem to be arguing against your own case here. How were the disciples who had direct access to Jesus, and to God through prayer less informed than Adam?

I will say this again, because I have said it repeatedly. Knowledge has to be internalized and our upbringing affects our understanding. We don't become wise by living in a library. We have to read and understand what is in those books. Jesus himself expressed His frustration at the inability of the disciples to break away from the cultural moorings. I don't know how clearer I can make this.

c We are limited to experimentation, Adam could just ask.

Where does it say that:

a. God told him to keep the garden for the mere sake of experimenting? If I recall He told him to rule over the whole place.

How does ruling negate experimentation? Please make the case.

b. God did not explain anything further to him? This is an argument from silence on both counts. We don't know that He did , and we don't know that He didnt. What we do know is that Adam COULD ask. Which is what my statement was.

We can also ask. In fact, we are encouraged to act. In fact, we have greater reason to ask than Adam did. Adam had really sharp tools; we don't.

d. If Adam fell once, how does it follow that we, who sin all the time, know more than him?

According to Romans, again that troublesome Paul guy you are not big on, the people of the earth were darkened in their understanding by ages of sin. Our mental faculties also would be reduced over time, because we are also part of God's decaying creation. which you freely admit. And learning from their mistakes is again learning from inspiration since it is there that they are recorded. But you don't seem to want to accept revelation.

A lie oft repeated may be believed but it never becomes truth. I have never refused to accept revelation and your insistence on repeating that untruth troubles me. You cite Paul and in the same breath deny what he says. Christ came to cast light on man's darkened understanding but even God cannot make you understand and believe. That happens to be the way he created the human brain.

Moreover, your argument was that

a. Adam was not well informed
b. the disciples were worse informed than seemingly anyone
c. we are very well informed.

how is it that the disciples having many of the examples we did would not be MORE informed than Adam, as you claim we are? Your whole argument is woefully inconsistent. You seem to have an agenda to belittle the disciples. Why? I can only assume because you don't want to listen to the inspiration they claim to have. This is a consistent theme.

Don't take my word for it. You only have to read the Gospels. It is all there. You just cited Paul who said that man's understanding was darkened but wish to claim that the disciples' understanding was not darkened. Whether we are more informed than the disciples depends on how we use the examples we have. We do have the potential to be closer to the mind of God than they were because God can still come in our time; He will never come in theirs. For those who don't get the connection, Jesus declared in [BIBLE]John 17:3[/BIBLE]

e. Do we have any clue what it was that they knew back then? You seem to suggest they knew less. On what basis? The fall? Then again, why do we fall?

Again, you give no credit to the disciples who were further along, but only to yourself. Sometimes we don't learn lessons from seeing mistakes. Sometimes we just plow on. And when we get rid of the very inspiration meant to teach us those lessons, how do we then learn from them?

One day you will be sufficiently charitable to yourself to cease repeating what you must know is not true. How many times do I need to say that inspiration is available to all men because it is the avenue by which the divine communicates with the human?

It is clear that you want to

a. establish that Adam was not knowledgeable enough to be accountable. Which is a statement the Bible never makes.

Another untruth. Eve's fall implicated Adam. They both were one.

b. establish that the disciples were dumber than rocks so they need not be listened to.

I have never intimated that, but my saying it seems to be necessary for you to have an argument. This is really getting tired, if you can't tell from my comments.

c. establish that even modern day secular scientists are smarter about God than either of the above...in fact your argument should be that secular scientists are smarter than you about God because they study the creation more and have a better understanding.

This is not learning from the past, this is belittling the past to make ourselves look better.

If you don't understand it is best to ask that throw such misrepresentations abroad.

f. you then go on to say that the disciples were worse off then Adam. Perhaps so for a time. But then through the Holy Spirit they too had access to the creator, who revealed what He chose to. Perhaps not as much as to Adam, but we don't really know that.


So the statement that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, that wasn't inspired either was it? For that matter, being around the direct revelation of God in human form was not better than just looking at some rocks? I don't think this is at all consistent.

It is not what you study that matters but the posture you take before the evidence. Scientists don't always correctly interpret the evidence they study. You seem to be laboring under some difficulty that I cannot fathom.

And again your better understanding comes from one of two sources:

a. Their mistakes, and revelation, which you seem to dismiss because they were all confused. So sorry, that one doesn't work for you.

b. better understanding of the created order. The very understanding of which the majority of scientists interpret to do away with God. Obviously it has not increased their understanding much.

I really can't see that we would be any better informed than Adam about God, with one exception. We know good from evil. And that knowledge was far too expensive.

And I can't really see that we are much better off than the apostles, except that we have the record of what they left us, in addition to whatever else we have learned about God. But since you seem intent on downplaying what they left us, what do you have?

I don't understand how you reason. I have struggled with this enough to be thorough. Please stop the misrepresentation. For a while I thought you were doing better but you have resorted to the old habits. I can understand that, because old habits die hard, but when you do it just after you are corrected it begins look like it is deliberate.

 

[tall73]

Please stop the misrepresentation. For a while I thought you were doing better but you have resorted to the old habits. I can understand that, because old habits die hard, but when you do it just after you are corrected it begins look like it is deliberate.

And you too seem to have habits that die hard. I do not feel I was misrepresenting you. But I do feel that every time you seem to have trouble convincing someone to believe the way you do you start accusing of misrepresentation.

I am addressing the very things you said. If you don't like my arguments, refute them, fine. But saying I misrepresent you is just a way to dodge the question.

I am not angry, though I freely admit I was before. You say you want free discussion. I am giving it to you. But you can't limit free discussion to only your conclusions.

You keep saying you accept revelation. Then why do you continue to say that Paul should not be taken into account because he did not see clearly? Then you mysteriously use Paul for evidence when it suits you. I can't see any way to interpret this BUT that it is an inconsistency on your part.

And you say that it is the posture to the evidence. Why do you look at the disciples only BEFORE pentecost. Does it not interest you that the Holy Spirit, the direct inspiration you praised on your Ephesians post came to them only AFTER this? Do you not see some marked difference in them? So attempts to limit their understanding to the time before that is not fair to them.

Moreover, the very fact that you give credit to Paul in Ephesians, or that you cite him keeping the feasts, are more examples that you accept Paul when you want to, and don't when you want to. Is this not inconsistent?

Yes, our minds were darkened by sin. And what I am consistently pointing out is that you seem to apply this to everyone BUT you and those in your time. How can that effect happen to the disciples but not you? To Paul but not you? How can all be inspired, but you don't accept the inspiration of Paul? These are all inconsistencies.

Don't accuse me of malice because I discuss something. The whole forum is for discussing things. At least I am willing to hear out your ideas, even if I don't agree with them. But to ask you to explain what seems to be an inconsistency is not malice or misrepresentation.

 

[payattention]

And you too seem to have habits that die hard. I do not feel I was misrepresenting you. But I do feel that every time you seem to have trouble convincing someone to believe the way you do you start accusing of misrepresentation.

I am addressing the very things you said. If you don't like my arguments, refute them, fine. But saying I misrepresent you is just a way to dodge the question.

I am not angry, though I freely admit I was before. You say you want free discussion. I am giving it to you. But you can't limit free discussion to only your conclusions.

You keep saying you accept revelation. Then why do you continue to say that Paul should not be taken into account because he did not see clearly? Then you mysteriously use Paul for evidence when it suits you. I can't see any way to interpret this BUT that it is an inconsistency on your part.

Let's deal with this. We both agree that God revealed Himself to His creation. He is a personal God; not hidden. That is His part. That revelation means nothing until we internalize it. If we misunderstand it then we will convey to others not the original revelation our misunderstanding of the revelation. Paul's writings are his interpretation of the revelation he tapped into. He did not understand all of it. In some areas he misunderstood it. None of that affects the revelation because the Spirit communicates with all. That is why we can check his work. And this is the beauty of the scientific method. It does not bind us to what any authority has to say. Scientist have been known to be wrong. Not because the evidence/revelation was wrong but because they were biased or the misinterpreted the evidence. The only reason we discover those errors is because others decided to compare that scientist's conclusions with reality. I do the same with Paul. Where his conclusions do not match reality I will reject them, being careful to say why I do so. I agree with his assertion that wives should be submissive to their own husband, but I don't think even you agree with him when he says that women should be quiet in church. Should I accuse you of being inconsistent? The fact is that you selectively do the same thing I do.

 

[payattention]

And you say that it is the posture to the evidence. Why do you look at the disciples only BEFORE pentecost. Does it not interest you that the Holy Spirit, the direct inspiration you praised on your Ephesians post came to them only AFTER this? Do you not see some marked difference in them? So attempts to limit their understanding to the time before that is not fair to them.

Moreover, the very fact that you give credit to Paul in Ephesians, or that you cite him keeping the feasts, are more examples that you accept Paul when you want to, and don't when you want to. Is this not inconsistent?

Yes, our minds were darkened by sin. And what I am consistently pointing out is that you seem to apply this to everyone BUT you and those in your time. How can that effect happen to the disciples but not you? To Paul but not you? How can all be inspired, but you don't accept the inspiration of Paul? These are all inconsistencies.

Don't accuse me of malice because I discuss something. The whole forum is for discussing things. At least I am willing to hear out your ideas, even if I don't agree with them. But to ask you to explain what seems to be an inconsistency is not malice or misrepresentation.

I am referring to those instances when you accuse me of not accepting revelation which I have repeately refuted. Let's keep the facts straight. Even here you seek to leave the impression that I reject the ideas of these men out of hand. This is not the case. The Holy Spirit did not provide anything that the presence of Jesus did not, so I don't understand why you think that his presence changed the thinking of the disciples. I don't accept something just because "Paul said it." Nor do you. So why be upset that I bring it out to the fore?

 

[tall73]

So then why anytime someone else brings up Paul do you quickly rush to discount him? Or the disciples? Why do you quickly rush to get rid of clear statements about our default condition? And how do you test those since there is nothing in the revealed creation to test it against.

I am not saying you are claiming to not accept them. I am saying by your statements the effect is that you don't accept them in the majority of cases. From what I can tell you selectively take them, as they agree with you.

And the statement about wives being submissive, yes I agree with. THe statement about women being silent has to be taken, (as does his one about submission) with all of his other statements. In the same book he speaks of a woman prophesying with her head uncovered. And his problem is not with the prophesying but the covering. Moreover, the issue in both cases, the head covering, and the silence, was a sign of authority over a man. The silence case was to learn in submission, and not hold authority over a man. That is not quite the same as saying nothing. ANd we see that in fact there were women prophets, women teachers (priscilla etc.) so we have to be consistent with Paul's whole thought. That in no way shows him to be less inspired.

His statement on submission is likewise tempered with his instructions to men on how they should treat their wives.

 

[smooze]

Adam was naive to sin. I don't think he had any more wisdom than you and me. The Devil opened up Adam and Eve's eyes to sin. I say as human we are all equal. To put any body above the 1 true intellect Jesus Christ then i say blashphemy. NO NO i didn't read all those long posts Boooring! LOL

 

[reddogs]

Just the fact that Adam walked and talked with God is amazing, as there are infinite issues and understanding that God could have given him, oh to be a flie on the leaf wall and hear the conversation........

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You would think that such a high intellect as some assume Adam to have been would have had the intelligence to write down the information from his talks with God. Or maybe even to have spent some time asking God why there is one tree he must not eat of. But alas it was not writyen down and not even passed down orally.
At least in the account written after the exodus from Egypt we don't find any indication of such things. Probably this omissions should give one the conception that the story was not meant to reflect history as much as to address the issue of the world as we know it and the special status of the nation of Israel. For the new nation obedience without question was the requirement, which may have been very important for the founding of a nation but not terrible important for the functioning of a religion and the knowledge of God and man. Which is why the religion changed so much through it's history. The whys of things becoming so much more important then just doing what they were told, which is something that nobody was every really good at doing anyway. It is why religion is progressive, it is why we all built upon the knowledge of those before us.

In the story of Genesis Adam knew precious little but we ascribe to him immense knowledge because the story does not fit our picture so we create a speculative picture of the story and call it true and work from the speculation as though it is truth. Not really a good method however, but it has become our tradition and many are satisfied with tradition.