What are your thoughts on Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit?

[isleof]

No doubt.

Death aint ever been the answer.

 

[LegacyJB]

So in other words Adam didn't know that eating the fruit was a non good thing? Adam knew it was wrong to eat of the fruit without eating of the fruit which means he knew that good was to NOT eat it. I will say that he probably wasn't knowledgeable that evil WAS eating it.

No, he didn't. You cannot have one without the other. It's impossible. How does one thing exist without its opposite?

You are the one that suggests that sinning is a good thing and have made the supposition that Adam and Eve were unable to procreate until they sin all of which is just plain speculation and logically falls contrary to God's character. God can create, I don't see a stretch of him making Adam and Eve to be able to procreate from the start. It is possible that God made sure by intervention that Eve didn't get have a child before the serpent tempted her. It is also possible that Adam and Eve knew enough about their bodies to not have sex when she could conceive. Adam wasn't in idiot his mind wasn't clouded by sin from the start I believe he was pretty smart and had an excellent memory and cognizant skills.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I don't believe sin is a good thing. I simply do not believe what Adam and Eve did was a sin. I have already stated why: sin cannot exist where there is no good and evil. Good cannot exist on the earth if there is no evil and vice-versa. They transgressed, not sinned. I explained the difference.

What memory could Adam have had if knowledge of good and evil was non-existent before the fall?

 

[drstevej]

Wait, you mean that's not in the Bible? It doesn't say one way or the other what would have happened? I thought you and others believe it has everything there.

We wouldn't be born. If God made some other way for us to be here we'd never return to God.

Pure speculation, not revelation.

 

[Phantasman]

I'm guessing if Adam and Eve didn't eat... they would have had children sooner or later someone would have eaten and sooner or later those who knew evil would tempt those who did not to sin also so nobody would be sinless.

So, no sense in blaming Eve for the inevitable then, right?

 

[LegacyJB]

Pure speculation, not revelation.

Solely revelation. I don't see anyone else knowing what would have happened.

 

[Phantasman]

There were angels before man was created. They knew good from evil. Even the ones who left their first estate.

Someone got some 'splainin to do.

Do angels make decisions? Or are they created by another to follow them?

 

[Sophrosyne]

No, he didn't. You cannot have one without the other. It's impossible. How does one thing exist without its opposite?

So you are saying Evil existed before anyone sinned or that Good didn't exist until Evil did? This is rubbish logic.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I don't believe sin is a good thing. I simply do not believe what Adam and Eve did was a sin. I have already stated why: sin cannot exist where there is no good and evil. Good cannot exist on the earth if there is no evil and vice-versa. They transgressed, not sinned. I explained the difference.

Then you don't believe the Bible when it says that they sinned. This here is the big problem as you can totally ignore the words of the Bible and even say that it doesn't say things because it is more important to you to believe what your church says at the cost of the Bible being false than it is for the Bible to be true and your church's doctrine to be in contradiction to it. I believe you said that Adam and Eve coudn't procreate till they sinned which means to you and your church either their procreation isn't a good thing or you just plain are being deceptive here (lying).

What memory could Adam have had if knowledge of good and evil was non-existent before the fall?

Adam remembered it being "good" before the fall, he remembered how good it was in the Garden walking with God... essentially he had knowledge of good and it was never as "good" as it was in the Garden after the fall. I would say Adam's memories of good and God from then probably haunted him the rest of his life as he toiled the soil.

 

[drstevej]

Solely revelation. I don't see anyone else knowing what would have happened.

Cite Scripture for the statements. Or are you saying this is private revelation to you?

Just because no one knows does not validate speculation as fact.

 

[LegacyJB]

Then you don't believe the Bible when it says that they sinned. This here is the big problem as you can totally ignore the words of the Bible and even say that it doesn't say things because it is more important to you to believe what your church says at the cost of the Bible being false than it is for the Bible to be true and your church's doctrine to be in contradiction to it.

I certainly believe the Bible but I also know the translators weren't perfect. The Bible contains God's words but it isn't inerrant. Does an evil spirit come from God? Will God lead us into temptation? Will God harden someone's heart? Can we become perfect by going away from the doctrine of Christ? I believe in what the Bible teaches, I just don't rely on every little black word on the white pages because I know the history of how the Bible was translated.

I'm more or less surprised with how little the Christian world knows about the Bible and especially with their limited knowledge of God. I'm grateful the truth has been restored to the earth.

 

[drstevej]

I believe in what the Bible teaches, I just don't rely on every little black word on the white pages because I know the history of how the Bible was translated.

Want to start a thread and let me examine your knowledge of the transmission of the text? Do you know either Greek or Hebrew?

 

[LegacyJB]

Want to start a thread and let me examine your knowledge of the transmission of the text? Do you know either Greek or Hebrew?

Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek isn't even required to know it has been mistranslated. Italicized words are proof enough.

 

[drstevej]

Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek isn't even required to know it has been mistranslated. Italicized words are proof enough.

Explain how this is the case. Knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can avoid some mis-conjectures.

 

[Phantasman]

Duplicate post

 

[Phantasman]

They had no clue how to procreate.

Nothing in the Bible indicates they still would have had children.

You're mistaken about something, we don't believe Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the fruit. This was physically and spiritually impossible. It was a transgression. Sin and transgression aren't the same. A transgression can be compared to breaking the speed limit while sin can be compared to murder. Breaking the speed limit isn't a crime, it's merely a violation of civil law and is handled in civil court. Murder is a crime and handled in criminal court.
Eating of the fruit caused Adam and Eve to gain knowledge of good and evil. Because this is true, it is also true that a knowledge of good and evil did not exist prior to eating the fruit. Good and evil not existing means sin didn't exist. Even when they ate the fruit they still didn't know what was good and what wasn't, all they knew was God said don't eat it.
The effect we have from the fall is physically being out of God's presence the moment we're born. Being cut off spiritually, however, does not come until one sins.

Now, your turn. I can support what I say as I have just shown.

I don't know if I follow it that far. The key here is "knowledge". Adam didn't have knowledge at creation. The battle is over ignorance and knowledge. Christ brought knowledge.

And he (Adam) knew that he was disobedient to him (the chief archon) due to light of the Epinoia which is in him, which made him more correct in his thinking than the chief archon.-Secret John

In fact, he who is really free, through knowledge, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of knowledge. Knowledge makes them capable of becoming free.-Philip


"Become earnest about the word! For as to the word, its first part is faith; the second, love; the third, works; for from these comes life. For the word is like a grain of wheat; when someone had sown it, he had faith in it; and when it had sprouted, he loved it, because he had seen many grains in place of one. And when he had worked, he was saved, because he had prepared it for food, (and) again he left (some) to sow. So also can you yourselves receive the kingdom of heaven; unless you receive this through knowledge, you will not be able to find it." --Secret James

Luke 11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." -Thomas

2 Thessalonians
6 By pureness, by knowledge, by long suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,

OT?
1 Samuel
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Knowledge goes beyond the Bible. The picture is bigger than most see.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I certainly believe the Bible but I also know the translators weren't perfect. The Bible contains God's words but it isn't inerrant. Does an evil spirit come from God? Will God lead us into temptation? Will God harden someone's heart? Can we become perfect by going away from the doctrine of Christ? I believe in what the Bible teaches, I just don't rely on every little black word on the white pages because I know the history of how the Bible was translated.

I'm more or less surprised with how little the Christian world knows about the Bible and especially with their limited knowledge of God. I'm grateful the truth has been restored to the earth.

Nonsense..... when I see the statement "translator's weren't perfect" you use this as an excuse to reject the Bible even if it is proven by the original Greek and Hebrew to be an accurate translation. The Bible is enough inerrant that one who put the effort into studying it can easily ascertain simple truths and know for sure that bizarre revelations such as "Adam and Eve needed to sin so they could procreate" just don't line up with the Bible at all in any fashion and are inexcusable as truth based upon the assertion that some translator goofed up somewhere. They would have had to leave out scriptures that directly state such nonsense which can be absolutely proven these "lost scriptures" simply do NOT exist in the Bible.. never did.

 

[Phantasman]

Knowledge of Hebrew and Greek isn't even required to know it has been mistranslated. Italicized words are proof enough.

Yep. Words don't have to be exact, except for worldly skeptics, which will always argue.

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. -Philip

People can argue whether one word is correct over another. One spelling over another. One translation over another. But the Holy Spirit works with the image one receives and clarifies it into truth. To depend on the physical world for truth, one will find as many paths as words. To rely more on spiritual truth, shows faith in spirit, and reaps greater rewards in knowledge.

 

[LegacyJB]

Explain how this is the case. Knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can avoid some mis-conjectures.

This one goes back to a very basic and common knowledge of how the Bible was translated or at least the King James Version. Within it are many words that are in italics. Translations from one language to another will not always be perfect. Sometimes you won't find any word in language B that has the same definition as what's in language A. Sometimes it is related to the differences in the rules of the respective languages. Another reason is a word, let's say in Greek, could have 3 pages of meanings and many of them be very different definitions and it can be difficult for translators to understand the context the word is used in.

The translators of the KJV were well aware of this. The italicized words are not translations by any means. These words were inserted by the translators themselves. They were "best guesses" because they seemed to be what made sense to the translators.

One example, outside of the italicized words, of a mistranslation is found in Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live." Not only do Bible scholars agree this is a mistranslation, they also agree it was done on purpose. Why would it be done on purpose? So people of England could try and justify their killing of people they deemed as witches.

Copyists also have something to do with it. When the scriptures were written and then copied by men onto other parchments sometimes words and even entire phrases would be added to or removed from what was said in the original text. This goes back to the scenario of "If I tell the guy in the front of a line that's 100 people long something and have this repeated until it gets to the end of the line, what I said is going to be turned into something entirely different."

 

[drstevej]

Until 1947 the Old Testament was considered to be no more reliable than other books of antiquity. There was no scholarly basis to believe that the documents were essentially the same as those which were originally written - until the spring of 1947, when a young shepherd boy named Mohammed was out looking for a lost goat just on the west bank of the Dead Sea about eight miles south of Jericho. He came to a crevice in the rock and took a large stone and threw it into the crevice. He heard the sound of shattering pottery. He climbed down into the crevice and discovered what is considered to be the most significant and remarkable find of antiquity. Down there were a number of huge clay pots which had been sealed perfectly.

In those pots were thousands - 40,000 fragments of literature from antiquity. One of them, the most complete, was a manuscript of the book of Isaiah. It was on a leather scroll that was 24 feet long and 10 inches high. The materials were sold to a Jewish scholar from the Hebrew University there in Jerusalem. With great interest it was shared with the literary world. The previously oldest manuscript of the book of Isaiah which existed prior to these scrolls, which have now been called the Dead Sea Scrolls, was from 900 A.D. Paleographers have dated the Dead Sea Scrolls at between 100 B.C. and 200 B.C. The scroll for Isaiah was dated at 125 B.C.

This forms a wonderful opportunity to compare textural corruption over what amounts to 1,025 years. Scholars immediately went to work to compare these two books to see what differences there might be between them. Take one chapter for an example - Isaiah 53. This chapter has 166 words. Comparing the two manuscripts, 1,025 years apart, there are 17
letters that are different. Ten of the letters are spelling, simply because over time, words change their spelling. Four of the letters are stylistic - punctuation and things of this kind. Three of the letters create the word "light," which was added in verse 11. So what you essentially have is that, over a period of more than a millennium, the addition of one word, "light" in verse 11, makes no change in the meaning of the verse whatsoever.

Source: my teaching notes

 

[LegacyJB]

Nonsense..... when I see the statement "translator's weren't perfect" you use this as an excuse to reject the Bible even if it is proven by the original Greek and Hebrew to be an accurate translation. The Bible is enough inerrant that one who put the effort into studying it can easily ascertain simple truths and know for sure that bizarre revelations such as "Adam and Eve needed to sin so they could procreate" just don't line up with the Bible at all in any fashion and are inexcusable as truth based upon the assertion that some translator goofed up somewhere. They would have had to leave out scriptures that directly state such nonsense which can be absolutely proven these "lost scriptures" simply do NOT exist in the Bible.. never did.

The first flaw I'd like to point out is there are lost scriptures. Even the Bible acknowledges.
The translators did make errors. Sorry but this sort of thing is easy for anyone to see. The Bible is true but not inerrant. (tablets aren't the best for typing)
Do we have the original texts to compare the Bible to? The ones that were written on by the prophets themselves? No. We have copies of copies of copies of you get the idea.
How many ways do I need to spell this one out? I know Adam and Eve transgressed, not sinned, when they ate the fruit. We could not be here if they didn't fall but the fall in and of itself isn't why we're here. How does the Christian world not know something so basic? Why have so many very basic and simple truths been so hard for people to grasp?

 

[Sophrosyne]

The first flaw I'd like to point out is there are lost scriptures. Even the Bible acknowledges.
The translators did make errors. Sorry but this sort of thing is easy for anyone to see. The Bible is true but inerrant.
Do we have the original texts to compare the Bible to? The ones that were written on by the prophets themselves? No. We have copies of copies of copies of you get the idea.
How many ways do I need to spell this one out? I know Adam and Eve transgressed, not sinned, when they ate the fruit. We could not be here if they didn't fall but the fall in and of itself isn't why we're here. How does the Christian world not know something so basic? Why have so many very basic and simple truths been so hard for people to grasp?

Lost scriptures are lost... until they are found they aren't of use to prove or disprove anything to equate them is nothing but a diversion and excuse. The Bible you quoted as being so full of errors is the KJV which most scholars know of the errors and most translations that come after it have fixed many if not all of the errors. The fact is even with errors something that isn't there.... is still not there when the error is fixed which proves your argument for errors is invalid and useless to explain something that isn't there to begin with. If you don't have the original golden plates that Joseph Smith was given then basically you are calling the pot black here about copying. As for Adam and Eve transgressing vs sinning.... they sinned the Bible says so transgression almost always equates to sin, it is only not sin when jurisdiction puts what was commanded out of bounds for those involved. I would say your comment about simple truths shows your hypocrisy in that what you are equating with Adam and Eve simply doesn't ring true to begin with. You are now jumping through hoops to support something that should be simple by first saying the bible is wrong, then saying scripture is missing.