What did Adam know / figure out?

[redleghunter]

(Theological brain teaser time

Maybe seems like an odd question?

Yet considering Scripture passages like "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." And Abraham says to Issac "God will provide Himself a sacrifice." Indicate some inkling of knowledge of a redemption plan.

Also that the invisible things of God are seen in the creation.

As well as Scripture telling us those predestine unto redemption are predestine from the foundations of the world.

AND Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

Have you ever wondered what God told Adam before the fall?

Obviously Adam had the warning "The day that you eat of this tree you shall surely die." Yet did he know; had he figured out; or was he told; that there was also a redemption plan? Obviously too, Adam had received this news in the parabolic symbol of the Tree of Life. And was the "be fruitful and multiply" command (which only becomes necessary in the face of death) a foreshadowing of what was to come?

Now consequently we know that the first few words out of Adam's mouth post fall, were to blame God for it, by giving him Eve. So I'm not inclined to say that Adam's reason to disobey was of some "conviction" to bring about a greater good. Sin's motive is never a noble one. LOL.

Had Adam figured out that there was a redemption plan prior to the fall though?
He was certainly intelligent enough to have figured it out.

And putting all these puzzle pieces together; could Adam have "predicted" his own fall?

Passages, pondering, opinions (and even a good joke) accepted.

And just for the sake of raising more questions; is there any indication that Adam's visitations from God were ever in the form of theophanies?

I think Adam figured out the serpent in tempting Eve reversed the order God's Creation order.

God made Adam, from Adam God made Eve and put both of them over God’s creation.

The serpent a creation, tempted Eve, Eve offered the forbidden fruit to Adam.

A complete reversal.

 

[Kaon]

Why not; is because that would not have served God's eternal purposes to show forth His essence being rooted in love.

What I am saying is that if, like Christ, Adam rejected the temptation to sin - even if it was to save his wife - the Most High God would not have left Eve as a stumbling block for him. He would have removed her one way or another.

Legally all should be condemned to destruction for one single sin. Would you wish yourself to be shut out of the possibility of redemption; because in essence that's what creating another wife for Adam would have done.

One person condemned all of us because that one person had dominion over the entire human race - and was the father of the human race. When Adam sinned, our coding went from sons of God to at best carnal entities. We all have a curse on us because Adam chose to disobey the Most High God. It doesn't matter the sentiments when it comes to [breaking the] Law of the Most High God.

Christ did not have to break any of His Laws in order to redeem us.

Additionally too; are you a polygamist? Because that's the other "social" outcome of such an idea.

When Eve consorted with the serpent, she broke her vows to Adam, and married herself to another entity. It wouldn't be polygamy; in the Most High God's eyes that is a misnomer anyway. You marry/consort with someone through sex - that seals the union; having sex with another entity is disconnecting yourself from the original union, and joining yourself to another one. Sex is very serious business to the Most High God.

He could have made another wife for Adam, and there would have been no problems on the Universal scale.

So.... another Eve is created, and another one, and another one..... Why?

Not if the Eve that is created is correct, there is no need to keep making Eve. Besides, the Most High God is dynamic; Adam could have had a short school year by passing the test of temptation - despite the charm of Eve as his wife. Then, there would have been another lesson to learn. The Most High God is literally raising sons and daughters, so if some of them get it quicker, they can move on to the next lesson in His time.

Instead, Adam chose to sin with Eve - so we will never know what the Most High God would have done if Adam resisted.

So do you believe if you were Adam you would not have transgressed?

The fact that you are a sinner proves that idea to be wrong. (Unless of course you don't believe you are a sinner; and if that's the case, then you are deceived.)

I already said I am speaking from incredible hindsight; I don't know what decision I would have made with my perfection in tact, for example.

True that we don't know the depth of Adam's knowledge but we do know it was deep enough deem him accountable.

Right. The Father told Him He would die if he ate; he has to know what death is up to a measurable degree in order for him to be accountable.

Now, given the fact that Adam was fresh off of perfection, he was likely light-years smarter and wiser than our most extolled academics. He was not a "babe"; babies don't hold the fate of the world on their shoulders.

 

[The Righterzpen]

What I am saying is that if, like Christ, Adam rejected the temptation to sin - even if it was to save his wife - the Most High God would not have left Eve as a stumbling block for him. He would have removed her one way or another.

If Adam had been like Christ and willing to sacrifice his own life to save hers; there'd be no reason to destroy Eve.

Adam would be dead. Eve would have bore Christ. He would have (some how) atoned for her sin and that would have been the end of it!

Pretty anti-climatic - don't you think? LOL

One person condemned all of us because that one person had dominion over the entire human race - and was the father of the human race.

And because Eve had come from Adam; God would not "give Adam a new Eve" because there was nothing amiss about Eve's creation that was not also inherently amiss about Adam.

Christ did not have to break any of His Laws in order to redeem us.

Jesus was the joining of two natures (i.e. the entire image of God) as one entity. This is how he condemned sin in the flesh. And because Eve had come out of Adam, is why Jesus didn't need a wife in the flesh.

When Eve consorted with the serpent, she broke her vows to Adam, and married herself to another entity. It wouldn't be polygamy; in the Most High God's eyes that is a misnomer anyway. You marry/consort with someone through sex - that seals the union; having sex with another entity is disconnecting yourself from the original union, and joining yourself to another one. Sex is very serious business to the Most High God.

Eve didn't have sex with the serpent. That is a perverse idea out of the minds of sinners.

He could have made another wife for Adam, and there would have been no problems on the Universal scale.

Yet again any subsequent Eves would have born the same potential to fall because that was inherent in Adam being the image of God as opposed to being God incarnate. Adam was limited by his mortality.

Not if the Eve that is created is correct, there is no need to keep making Eve.

And what makes you suppose the first Eve God created wasn't "correct"? That smacks of the same accusation Adam leveled against God: "The woman YOU gave me...."

Instead, Adam chose to sin with Eve - so we will never know what the Most High God would have done if Adam resisted.

Although it's true and we know now Adam and Eve's sin is a "done deal"; we can reasonably hypothesize based on what we know of the redemption plan, as to what the next course of action God would have likely taken.

I already said I am speaking from incredible hindsight; I don't know what decision I would have made with my perfection in tact, for example.

Ahh, and here is your theological error. Adam was not "perfect" as in being unable to be corrupted.

When God was finished creating; He called His creation "good". "Good" there means "pleasant". God was pleased with what He'd made. That word "good" does not mean unable to be corrupted.

Right. The Father told Him He would die if he ate; he has to know what death is up to a measurable degree in order for him to be accountable.

Agreed.

Now, given the fact that Adam was fresh off of perfection, he was likely light-years smarter and wiser than our most extolled academics. He was not a "babe"; babies don't hold the fate of the world on their shoulders.

I agree that Adam's intellectual capacity was likely beyond anything that we know today and in that also that the fate of the world was entrusted to someone who was less than capable. If Adam had redemptive wisdom though; he would not have transgressed (and neither would have Eve).

Their temporal nature as created entities is what made the fall possible in the first place. Where did evil come from now? Well that's a different question. I did pose a theory regarding this in a previous thread.

If you want to read the theory; here is the thread.

Theory on the origin of evil

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think Adam figured out the serpent in tempting Eve reversed the order God's Creation order.

God made Adam, from Adam God made Eve and put both of them over God’s creation.

The serpent a creation, tempted Eve, Eve offered the forbidden fruit to Adam.

A complete reversal.

Good observation about the reversal of things.

I've heard that, although have never pondered it much; yet it makes good contextual application to this thread.

And obviously going "up the chain of command" God being by nature what He is; isn't going to "fall victim" to the knowledge of good and evil because He already possess that!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Adam and Eve weren't born of human parents.

There is every indication that Adam and Eve were born of human parents. In fact there is a lot of inbreeding with the "Jewish" people so there are a lot of genetic diseases. As a result they have done an extensive amount of research on their DNA.

Haplogroup J-M304, also known as J, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is believed to have evolved in Western Asia. The clade spread from there during the Neolithic, primarily into North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Socotra, the Caucasus, Southern Europe, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. (Wiki)

 

[joshua 1 9]

 

[joshua 1 9]

Adam would be dead.

Every indication is that Adam and Eve are in Heaven today. That they were redeemed. So when we go there we can talk to them and ask them any questions that we may have. All of the genealogy indicates that Jesus is descended from them and that the whole blood line (scarlet thread) is saved and redeemed. Because of the sacrifice that Jesus made for them and for us also. Even though they would be considered a friend and not the actual Bride of Christ.

 

[The Righterzpen]

There is every indication that Adam and Eve were born of human parents. In fact there is a lot of inbreeding with the "Jewish" people so there are a lot of genetic diseases. As a result they have done an extensive amount of research on their DNA.

Haplogroup J-M304, also known as J, is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is believed to have evolved in Western Asia. The clade spread from there during the Neolithic, primarily into North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Socotra, the Caucasus, Southern Europe, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. (Wiki)

Not according to Scripture. Scripture pretty clearly states Adam and Eve were the first humans.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I agree that Adam's intellectual capacity was likely beyond anything that we know today

In general "Jewish" people have an IQ of 5 points higher then the gentiles. We can not even begin to talk about all that began with Adam and Eve 5990 years ago. Civilization along with agriculture began in the Middle East with them. This includes all of the domesticated plants and animals that we read about in our Bible. The ones that Noah saved on his ark (built according to the plans God gave him).

 

[Kaon]

If Adam had been like Christ and willing to sacrifice his own life to save hers; there'd be no reason to destroy Eve.

Adam would be dead. Eve would have bore Christ. He would have (some how) atoned for her sin and that would have been the end of it!

Pretty anti-climatic - don't you think? LOL



And because Eve had come from Adam; God would not "give Adam a new Eve" because there was nothing amiss about Eve's creation that was not also inherently amiss about Adam.



Jesus was the joining of two natures (i.e. the entire image of God) as one entity. This is how he condemned sin in the flesh. And because Eve had come out of Adam, is why Jesus didn't need a wife in the flesh.



Eve didn't have sex with the serpent. That is a perverse idea out of the minds of sinners.



Yet again any subsequent Eves would have born the same potential to fall because that was inherent in Adam being the image of God as opposed to being God incarnate. Adam was limited by his mortality.



And what makes you suppose the first Eve God created wasn't "correct"? That smacks of the same accusation Adam leveled against God: "The woman YOU gave me...."



Although it's true and we know now Adam and Eve's sin is a "done deal"; we can reasonably hypothesize based on what we know of the redemption plan, as to what the next course of action God would have likely taken.



Ahh, and here is your theological error. Adam was not "perfect" as in being unable to be corrupted.

When God was finished creating; He called His creation "good". "Good" there means "pleasant". God was pleased with what He'd made. That word "good" does not mean unable to be corrupted.



Agreed.



I agree that Adam's intellectual capacity was likely beyond anything that we know today and in that also that the fate of the world was entrusted to someone who was less than capable. If Adam had redemptive wisdom though; he would not have transgressed (and neither would have Eve).

Their temporal nature as created entities is what made the fall possible in the first place. Where did evil come from now? Well that's a different question. I did pose a theory regarding this in a previous thread.

If you want to read the theory; here is the thread.

Theory on the origin of evil

I think we will agree to disagree on the other things.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not according to Scripture. Scripture pretty clearly states Adam and Eve were the first humans.

Like I said, they were the first of many, many, many firsts. We can not even begin to talk about all that began with Adam and Eve. Before Adam and Eve we had food gathers, after Adam and Eve we had food producers. I have studied all of this for over 50 years now. History, Science & the Bible.

 

[The Righterzpen]

In general "Jewish" people have an IQ of 5 points higher then the gentiles.

This is another misnomer. The vast majority of "Jews" today aren't even Semitic; they are genetically Indo-European. So to say their IQ's are 5 points higher than gentiles isn't even historically sound; nor is it statistically accurate.

According to IQ test world statistics: The population who holds the record of per capita of highest IQ's are Eastern Asians. They on average range 10 to 15 IQ points higher than European Caucasians, who on average range 10 to 15 IQ points higher than Africans.

Averages:
Eastern Asians = 105-115
European Caucasians = 95-105
Africans = 85-95

Eastern Asians have heavier denser brains with more neurons than any group.
Africans have lighter less dense brains with fewer neurons than any other group.

Yet when accounting reactions times in task performance;
Eastern Asians have the slowest reaction times.
Africans have the fastest reaction times.

An African child raised by Asian parents will have equivalent IQ as Asian children. So IQ is heavily environmentally factored.

The only biological difference between Africans and Eastern Asians is that Africans have a more efficient nervous system. So consequently (on account of better reaction times) people of African ethnicity tend to do better in sports requiring speed and agility than Eastern Asians. Europeans tend to do better in sports requiring brute strength and ability to tolerate the cold. Just look at who wins olympic metals for what sports.

Like I said, they were the first of many, many, many firsts.

Not according to Scripture. And I will stick with Scripture.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think we will agree to disagree on the other things.

Fair enough!

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is another misnomer. The vast majority of "Jews" today aren't even Semitic; they are genetically Indo-European.

They are the least of all people, the Bible tells us there will be 144,000 of them. 12,000 from each tribe. God always does things from the beginning, man wants to go to the end and try to trace it back to the beginning and it does not work that way. God is only concerned with the remnant that He uses to repopulate the earth.

Averages:
Eastern Asians = 105-115
European Caucasians = 95-105
Africans = 85-95

Korea and Japan maybe higher. They are genetic related.

Different studies have found different results, but most have found well above-average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with slightly below-average spatial intelligence, producing an average IQ score in the range of roughly 107 to 115, well above the general mean of 100. (wiki)

 

[Pavel Mosko]

To answer the OP question literally the thing Adam figured out according to Jewish rabbinic tradition was that he needed a mate. God putting the animals before him was so he would notice that he was alone and would desire a mate, and I believe even ask for one according to Jewish tradition. This was important because God foreknew the Fall and things would be worse if God foisted a mate upon Adam (Like God made the Fall happen) rather than him actually desiring one in the first place.


PS- The appearances of God in the Garden actually have been interpreted as theophanies by the various Church fathers etc.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not according to Scripture. And I will stick with Scripture.

We have history, science and we have the Bible. We need to look at the evidence. For example around 40,000 years ago in northern Africa we find the discovery of fishing hooks, sowing needles & fishing nets. This had a LOT to do with man coming up out of African into the Tigris Euphrates river valley. Clearly they stayed close to the water. The Bible does talk about clothing, we are told about the Fig Tree. We do know that they use to make clothing out of the fibers of the fig tree. Only this was more paper and decoration. God showed them how to make clothing out of Animal skins. We can read about that in the Bible. There is a lot of room for speculation, that is why we need to study the artifacts and work with what we have to work with. God has a reason why He preserved all of that for us to examine and study today. Of course when we get to Heaven this will all be a lot easier for people to understand. Some of us want a good start on what we will be learning then.

One of the Hebrew letters actually represents a fish hook: Tsade

There are people that say Adam and Eve sowed leaves together. If we study archeology and the artifacts then we get a much better understanding of what we are reading in the story of Adam and Eve. Because we have the opportunity to look at the physical evidence that God provides for us to examine and study. To draw the logical reasonable conclusions based on what we are given to work with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God putting the animals before him was so he would notice that he was alone and would desire a mate

Very few animals have mates. There are some that do mate for life though. We can do a study on the Prairie Voles and see the hormones that are involved in this. Animal husbandry is still a term used in the Universities today. Adam and his son were breeding the animals. We even see a story about this in the Bible where Jacob mated his animals but he did not mate his father in laws animals. " he set his own stock apart and did not put them with Laban’s animals" (Genesis 30 40) There is a difference between natural selection and selective breeding of animals. With plants they call this Botnay. The professors at the university of Jerusalem are experts on the domestication of the wild plants that we find in the Middle East. Also Science has put a lot of research into how farming moved from it's beginning in the Middle East to Europe today.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not according to Scripture. Scripture pretty clearly states Adam and Eve were the first humans.

That is as good of a word as any. Only human is a word used by science, not the Bible. In Hebrew this has to do with the breath of life. neshamah Strong's Hebrew: 5397. נְשָׁמָה (neshamah) -- breath

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7 We know that it took God 12.9 Billion years to create man. But we know that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden 5990 years ago. Science tells us a lot about how God created the "dust of the ground" that He used to make Adam and then Eve.

Notice there are two words here: dust and ground. The Hebrew word for ground is Adamah (Strongs 127) Theistic Evolution can help us to understand how God formed Adam from the dust of the ground.

 

[The Righterzpen]

They are the least of all people, the Bible tells us there will be 144,000 of them. 12,000 from each tribe. God always does things from the beginning, man wants to go to the end and try to trace it back to the beginning and it does not work that way. God is only concerned with the remnant that He uses to repopulate the earth.

.....According to dispensational eschatology; which started in the middle of the 19th century; does not have any historic corroborating documentation; and I do not find as Scripturally sound.

Details; but anyways:

God starting in the beginning means you would see consistency to the end. The fact of the matter remains that most "Jews" are not genetically Semitic. The ones that have Semitic DNA; half the people in the Middle-East share those same Semitic markers. Which raises the question of where those genetic markers originated from?

Now if 90% of the people living on the Arabian peninsula share that same genetic marker; good chance is that the "Jews" who also have that particular marker are actually Arabs.

Now if "Jews" share a different particular Semitic genetic marker with 75% of the people in Jordan and Iraq; good chance is that those "Jews" are actually Edomites.

Now to top that off; the maximum amount of Semitic DNA that a Semitic Jew may actually have is only like 5 to 10%. And they would be the "throw backs" from the Babylonian captivity who never went back to Jerusalem; yet never left the Middle East. They only account for maybe 3% of "Jews". And for that group; the vast majority of the rest of their genetic make up originates with the Greeks and Persians.

The next largest group of "Jews" who is most likely to have Semitic DNA (which is primarily consistent with Arab DNA); are ethnically mostly African. They account for about 9 to 12% of "Jews".

The largest group. (Ashkenazi) doesn't even have Semitic DNA. They account for about 85% of "Jews" today. Now the interesting thing about Ashkenazi DNA is that the majority of (especially Eastern) Europeans have some. Which means that as Eastern Europeans immigrated to the US in mass numbers at the turn of the 20th century; large swaths of Americans now have Ashkenazi DNA too.

So, who are the "real Jews" and where are they today?

One of two things happened to Jews in Judea by the end of the 1st Century. They either converted to Christianity and left the area; or they were destroyed by the Roman army. The Samaritans who were "half breeds"; looked down upon by the Judean "Jews"; were destroyed by the Byzantine empire in about 450 AD.

Now the grand irony about the "1st Century Jew" was that most of them were actually of Edomite and Greek lineage. The only tribe that survived with some semblance of "in tact" was the tribe of Benjamin. And of Judah, the only lines that survived were pretty much those that produced Christ. So even by the 1st Century; "the Jew" wasn't even really Judean any longer. After the siege of Jerusalem; the Romans renamed the area "Palestine" after the Greek inhabitants who'd become the predominate population of the area.

So, what exactly is "a Jew" today. What ever that definition is; it can not be delineated by Semitic genetics.

 

[The Righterzpen]

To answer the OP question literally the thing Adam figured out according to Jewish rabbinic tradition was that he needed a mate. God putting the animals before him was so he would notice that he was alone and would desire a mate, and I believe even ask for one according to Jewish tradition. This was important because God foreknew the Fall and things would be worse if God foisted a mate upon Adam (Like God made the Fall happen) rather than him actually desiring one in the first place.


PS- The appearances of God in the Garden actually have been interpreted as theophanies by the various Church fathers etc.

Interesting perspective!

Even if Rabbinic Jewish tradition never pointed it out; I'd recon that it was still pretty obvious to Adam that he had no mate. And God had "concurred" that it wasn't good for Adam to be alone.

Now did God refrain from the making of Eve until Adam recognized this? That's an interesting question. Thus giving credence to your perspective here, that Adam probably did ask for a mate!

Also, good insight on the giving of a mate potentially being perceived as "God's fault" for giving something Adam didn't really want that "causes" the fall. Coming from the presupposition of Adam asking and the subsequent command to "be fruitful and multiply"; it makes the creation of Eve make more contextual sense!

As for the theophanies?

I've scratched my head about that one for a while. Looking in the Hebrew; I haven't found anything that states specifically that "Adam saw...." Yet given the other anthropomorphic language; the presence of a form does make sense. It would also be consistent with the rest of Scripture. Although much of what Moses experienced wasn't technically theophanies. Which.... maybe there was a specific reason for Moses's lack of seeing theophanic figures? I don't know.

On the flip side of this, if Adam did see theophanies prior to the fall? I would imagine to see a clothed one, would not have made a whole lot of sense to Adam. (Granted, assuming to us, that clothing only serves the purpose of attempts to cover sin. Obviously not of necessity for God.) Post fall though, both "theophanies", angels and saints all wear "clothing".

So thanks @Pavel Mosko. You always have thought provoking insights.