Was all very good in the garden?

[ttruscott]

It has been suggested

But anyway, the garden was a place where they were with God and everything was well.

rather than Adam bringing sin with him ...

Hints about evil existing before they ate:
First:
Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be RESERVED unto judgement. yet everything is very good.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included.

Second:
It is not proven that very good refers to a moral state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen, sinful Church then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.

Let's consider Adam's actions to see just how good he was doing in the garden before Eve tempted him.

First, let's look at Genesis 2:18, which says straight out that Adam's situation in Eden was “not good� in GOD's sight. Of course, this is not irrefutable proof [Adam was a sinner], because it is possible to interpret “not good� so that it means something other than “Adam was in rebellion to GOD's will for him�. Genesis 2:18 also says straight out that Adam was “alone� in the omnipresent GOD's garden.

Of course, this is not irrefutable proof Adam was a sinner because it is possible to interpret “alone� so that it means “unable to produce children�, rather than “separated in spirit from GOD like after a big fall.�

Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD had to make an “help meet�, (NIV - suitable helper), to fix Adam's bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof Adam was a sinner either because it is possible to interpret “helper� so that it means “reproductive partner� rather than “someone who would be instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion.�

And “suitable� is not irrefutable proof Adam was a sinner either, because it too can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal� rather than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else whom he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn about his spiritual marriage to HIM�.

To answer:
First of all, it is possible for Adam to be in only one of the three moral states right?

He could only be:
in conformity with GOD's will (good, faithful, righteous); or
innocent (not good - not bad, morally untested - hence, undecided); or,
in opposition to GOD's will (faithless, bad, unrighteous)].

Now it stands to reason that if we can eliminate two of these, Adam would have to be in the third one [moral state] right? Well now, this being the case, let's look at

Genesis 2:15,16 And the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man, saying..."

Well now, in regard to the possibility of Adam still being innocent, in 2:16 we receive witness to the effect that Adam had already accepted YHWH as his GOD (for he accepted the command to not eat the fruit of a certain tree as GOD's command) which means that he was no longer innocent.

[Aside: Innocent as used in the Bible from Strong's Concordance: naqiy:
1) clean, free from, exempt, clear, innocent
a) free from guilt, clean, innocent
b) free from punishment
c) free or exempt from obligations
2) innocent
also includes the English implications of: simple, naive, unsophisticated, artless and lack of guile as an inexperienced person,]

So then, even if Adam was still innocent when he arrived in the garden, he did not stay innocent for very long for he quickly had to make choices regarding whether he would accept YHWH as his GOD, whether he would dress and keep the garden, and whether he'd stay away from the fruit. So then Adam was either righteous or unrighteous right after GOD commanded him.

Now, in regard to the possibility of Adam being righteous, if Adam was righteous he would be faithfully following GOD's will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?

Well, it seems that, in addition to dressing and keeping the garden, etc, GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly conscious) sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first and they had all been shown to be unsuitable:

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted?

Moreover, just whose idea was it that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have been GOD's, could it, since HE had Eve in mind all along?

Thus it seems that we are at the point where we must either admit that Adam was off course (unwilling to do GOD's will, unrighteous) in a very weird sort of way (to wit: already looking among the animals for a wife and not very willing to listen to what GOD had to say about it) or,

admit that GOD was taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS helpmeet and suggesting an animal instead, when HE would tell him about getting married to Eve. Either way, it would seem that God was convinced that Adam was reluctant (unwilling) to fulfil HIS will for him to the point that certain steps had to be taken before (so that) he would become willing.

Since this was the situation, how can we believe that Adam was righteous, preferring to comply with GOD's will above all else? How can Adam be this reluctant/rebellious to doing this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to fulfil HIS purpose for him? This shows us that Adam could not have been innocent (for sure upon the first command in Eden) and it also shows us that he could not have been faithful about getting married to the Eve to come.

To my way of seeing things, there is only one possible moral state remaining for Adam. Adam had to be unrighteous, that is, in rebellion to the leading of the Holy Spirit, for sure at the time when GOD brought him the animals and quite possibly even before that time. In other words, Adam needed to repent, and be converted to GOD's purpose for him, for sure in the matter regarding his marriage to HIS helpmeet, and perhaps in other areas too.

Now, having established that Adam had an unrighteous character on the sixth day, I suppose that the next thing to determine is when this unrighteous character had its beginning, for it is incompatible with the attributes of GOD that he be created in such fashion. In other words, was Adam given life in this fallen condition, or was he given life in a good condition and had fallen by the time of the animal parade?

When we look at the second account, we learn first, from 2:15, that GOD put Adam in Eden to fulfil a specific purpose. Next, in 2:16,17 we learn of God's provision for him and the command regarding the poison unto death. Next in 2:18 we receive the comment that GOD disliked Adam's aloneness. Next, in 2:20, we are told that Adam was still alone because he was in rebellion to GOD's purpose for him, to wit: his marriage to Eve.

Now if Adam was innocent when he was given life, should we not expect some direct witness to his choice that brought him out of his innocence? And if Adam's righteous condition changed, should we not also expect to receive some direct witness to his fall, that is, to his becoming rebellious? It would seem like such momentous events should receive more than a passing, indirect comment, should they not? If these very important events happened at that time, that is, between the time of his being given life and his rebellion regarding his marriage partner, how come we do not receive any witness about them?

In other words, doesn’t the fact that we receive no such witness at all lead one to believe that his moral condition had not changed from the time he was given life [meaning: on earth, not existence]?

So we definitely can say that it is not unreasonable to postulate that Adam's character might have been unrighteous right from the earthly start. And even though we have yet to prove that he was unrighteous from the earthly start, we have come far enough to realise that all previous theologies might be in error in regard to the beginnings of sin on Earth, and that, that being the case, the whole Adamic fall episode obviously needs to be looked at again, for it sure looks like the traditional view might be based on an inadequate interpretation of the Scriptures.

Debate Question: is it logical to read the garden story as supporting PCE contentions of Adam's fall before the creation of the physical universe?

[ttruscott]

♦ Were you not suggesting that God (reluctantly) brought animals to Adam for the purpose of demonstrating they were "unsuitable" for him to marry ?

I suggest that is a logical explanation of the story although I am not going to accept your insinuation of the word marry into the story when the word used was helpmeet: Strong's H5828: `ezer The KJV translates Strong's H5828 in the following manner: help (19x), help meet (2x) help, succour; one who helps

I deny that the marriage bond is what is being talked about here but that Adam who was not ashamed of his sinfulness, ie, he denied it, need someone to help him come to terms with the difference in attitude towards his sinfulness between himself and GOD.

Eve fulfilled that just fine as his partner in crime, so to speak. Adam needed to come to the realization he needed to be 'saved' from sin. How could he not know he was a sinner? Because he sinned for love, love for Eve who rebelled against the judgement of her now demonic friends. He did not want her to be with him in the garden and have to go through the process GOD had planned for them...very protective indeed. By watching her expose her idolatry of the serpent over her GOD, and experiencing again his lack of trust in GOD to have mercy on her so he followed her into her sin (ate of her fruit), idolizing her over his GOD, he could not deny that he was guilty any longer especially when Eve had her eyes opened to the betrayal by her friend in getting her to eat of the fruit of idolatry and also repented.

[Aside: Eve's sin is a type for those elect who chose to sin for love of a Satanic demon who by rebelling against the call for the judgement of the demons caused the postponement of the judgement day and the necessity for life on earth. Adam is the type for those elect who refused to come out from his now sinful elect friend as he did not trust her to GOD's mercy so followed her into her sin as a buddy support sinner, so to speak. As types they refer back to the happenings and choices we made before the creation of the physical universe but in their real lives as real people, not speculations. That is, what happened in Sheol, happened again in the garden.]

The word to know in Gen 3:22, is S3045. yada: to know, learn to know, to know good and evil (though a different word, 1S847. daath, is used in Genesis 2:17 for knowledge) which is the same word for know in the sense of to experience intimately in Gen 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife... This is supported by the word to eat which is used in spiritual terms to indicate an ingestion and digestion of doctrine: Revelation 10:10 I took the little scroll (small biblos or bible) from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. which may also add to the meaning of Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Thus it may indeed read:
- to eat, to understand the doctrinal usage of,
- the fruit, the consequences of,
- of the knowledge, the intimate experience,
of good and evil...
In other words they were not commanded not to know the abstract difference between good and evil which they had to know to choose between accepting YHWH as their GOD or the consequences of rejecting HIM, but it referred to the experience of being good then choosing to be bad, morally evil in HIS sight.

I suggest that it is logical to conclude that to gain the knowledge of good and evil (eat of the tree) was not a reference to an abstract knowing that such a dichotomy existed but referred to the experience of indulging in evil so the contrast was real within themselves as they became enslaved by its power...an enslavement not ended until GOD's grace opened their eyes to their sin when they experienced their failure to keep a simple command. The law is NOT given to the righteous but to the lawless.

♦ What was Gods stated purpose of marriage?

Immaterial, Adam needed a helper to open his eyes, not a wife with all that might mean.

♦ If not marriage, what are you suggesting God wanted the animals to be seen as unsuitable FOR ( that Eve was to be suitable for) ?

As I said...though how much Adam realized of their unsuitability is moot. It never said he decided that Eve was indeed preferable.

You still have not suggested why the point of no helper being found among the animals was stuck in between his naming the animals and his being put to sleep for Eve... All contrary suggestions to my contention have to answer this question, no? You keep repeating your questions while ignoring mine??

[JehovahsWitness]

... I am not going to accept your insinuation of the word marry into the story

[quote="

But didn't you yourself use the word "marry" when explaining the story?? You said ...

ttruscott"]
GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife ... Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? [/quote]

I deny that the marriage bond is what is being talked about here

So then why did you use the words "marry" and "wife"? When YOU said the word "marry" in explaining what God thought was unsuitable for Adam, what did you mean by the word?

Adam needed a helper to open his eyes, not a wife with all that might mean.

And yet when Eve was presented to Adam as his helper it was as a wife with all that that means (including being his sexual partner and the mother of his children).


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

You keep repeating your questions while ignoring mine

Because your arguments are bogus.

• i) You present a detailed post about Adam's so called loss of innocence but when I try and establish if this was a good or a bad thing to see if it is linked back to some kind of prehuman fall from grace, You suggest I'm building some kind of trap.
  
  ii) You claim God reluctantly offered animals to Adam for him to see they were unsuitable marriage (your own word) partners but when I take this argument to its logical conclusion, you suddenly say marriage has some different meaning that has nothing to do with sex and reproduction.
  
  iii) You admit there is no stated conversation where Adam rebelled against God's plan to put him to sleep and provide him a wife, but insist that he did.
  
  iv) You do not deny the actual words in the text were that for Adam there was no helper but insist on adding the expression "(found) amongst the animals" as if you can slip that in and not be accused of adding to scripture. When I point out that those words (amongst the animals) are not in the scripture you promptly ignore me and repeat them in pretty much every post thereafter.

What do you want me to write, there is nothing to push back on but conjecture, circular reasoning and axiom.


JW

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 29 by ttruscott]

Not at all; it just seemed to me you were attempting to use Adam's obedience to God to build some kind of rational to support his (Adam's) prehuman fall from grace. Perhaps I misunderstood all your talk of "innocence" and "righteousness" ... but if ut had nothing at all to do with an arguement that Adam had somehow lost his good standing with God ( by obeupying him) why did you bring all that section on loss of "innocence" up in the first place.

Just being thorough...
In trying to decide whether Adam was innocent, righteous or unrighteous, I concluded that he was not innocent, that is morally untested or undecided if he accepted YHWH as having the right to give him instruction about keeping the garden and indeed followed that instruction. And, yes , GOD liked that obedience as it reflected the good, elect part of Adam even though it was predetermined. The holy angels are not innocent either since they too made a decision not to sin which made them morally righteous. But he is not proven to be righteous nor unrighteous just because he is found to be not innocent, ie, without exposure to how things really are.

It was the cognitive dissonance about the naming the animals in conjunction with him not finding a helper among them that had me conclude (in part, there really is more) that he was not righteous. His obedience to GOD in his works, ie, deciding to work the garden, did not last the next test of his idolatry of Eve over his GOD.

[ttruscott]

... I am not going to accept your insinuation of the word marry into the story

[quote="

But didn't you yourself use the word "marry" when explaining the story?? You said ...

ttruscott"]
GOD wanted him to get married and that, to get his wife ... Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable?

[/quote]

At this point I was echoing your use of the word so that you would know I was following your thoughts but without a need (at that time) to fine cut the definitions....

But since you are perceptive and curious... Marriage is the end result of their redemption...marriage to GOD and each other and every other sanctified elect. On earth marriage is the unity of two. Even though the helpmeet was to bring Adam to consciousness of his sinfulness, this awareness and consequent repentance did in fact give them the ability to enjoy a marriage as their precursor to the heavenly marriage. But the marriage at this point in the garden was not yet in the picture, the helpmeet-ing was for a different purpose (to open his eyes to his sin) than marrying (the joining of two into a unity) though closely involved IF it worked.

To replace helpmeet with marriage is a mistake and that is why I claimed the helpmeet had nothing to do with marriage even though I will now expand to include the idea that the marriage was based upon a successful helpmeeting.

[ttruscott]

vWhen I point out that those words (amongst the animals) are not in the scripture you promptly ignore me and repeat them in pretty much every post thereafter.[/list]

Whichever post that was, I certainly did not understand that you were referring to the WORDS among them as not in the bible because it is obvious they are not but the meaning of those words is certainly within the meaning of the context as a whole.

[JehovahsWitness]

MARRIAGE

At this point I was echoing your use of the word ....

So whose use were you echoing in the OP when you said the followjng:

Adam was ....looking among the animals for a wife ...

Adam needed to repent, ... in the matter regarding his marriage to HIS helpmeet

You still haven't explained what type of marriage you were refering to that had nothing to do with sexual intercourse and reproduction.



JW

[myth-one.com]

It has been suggested

But anyway, the garden was a place where they were with God and everything was well.

rather than Adam bringing sin with him ...

Hints about evil existing before they ate:
First:
Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be RESERVED unto judgement. yet everything is very good.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This verse refers to everything created in the re-creation of a decimated earth which begins in Genesis 1:3:

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This re-creation dates to about 5965 years ago from the year 2018.

Verse one defines the original creation of everything:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The earth was originally created good at that original creation.

But it had to be recreated because it had become formless, void, and dark:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Adam was created originally on the sixth day of the re-creation of the earth begun in verse 3. And Adam could not sin until God gave him that first commandment to not eat of the tree of knowledge.

[ttruscott]

You keep repeating your questions while ignoring mine

Because your arguments are bogus.

• i) You present a detailed post about Adam's so called loss of innocence but when I try and establish if this was a good or a bad thing to see if it is linked back to some kind of prehuman fall from grace, You suggest I'm building some kind of trap.

I kept trying to find out what your point was but you would not explain... I was trying to say I was feeling uncomfortable and perhaps I projected some of the dismay I have felt with other more aggressive members but I had no intention of insulting you. I am sorry that I insulted you. I will do better to focus my paranoia!

ii) You claim God reluctantly offered animals to Adam for him to see they were unsuitable marriage (your own word) partners but when I take this argument to its logical conclusion, you suddenly say marriage has some different meaning that has nothing to do with sex and reproduction.

I only used the word marriage because you used it. Then I saw where that one word was leading us and so I tightened up my definitions.

It was not marriage I said had nothing to do with sex and reproduction, it was the work of the helpmeet. I was trying to separate the meaning of helpmeet from marriage (esp. no sex - no reproduction) which I passed over when you suggested marriage, not thinking of sex and reproduction, sigh.

iii) You admit there is no stated conversation where Adam rebelled against God's plan to put him to sleep and provide him a wife, but insist that he did.

Yes, BECAUSE he went to search among the animals first... The inference of the accusation is that if it was not written that it happened then it did not happen but the CONTEXT of the story is that they knew when GOD was in the Garden and HE called to them and talked things over with them which can be extrapolated back to HIS dealings with Adam about the animals and about Eve...this is a logical extrapolation unless someone has a prior assumption.

What do you want me to write, there is nothing to push back on but conjecture, circular reasoning and axiom. JW

my question was: in the phrasing of

Genesis 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

and in light of the fact that ancient Hebrew had no periods and no sentence spacings, what do you conclude is the meaning of why GOD had written:

sogaveadamnamestoallthelivestockandtothebirdsoftheairandtoeverybeastofthefieldbutforadamnotwasfoundahelpersuitable ???

Notice between field and but there is no punctuation, nothing to cause a separation of thought or context. This verse is one thought, one pov. Adam looked for a helper amongst the animals but failed to find one. Then (it follows logically) he accepted YHWH's plan to put him to sleep and create Eve's body from his rib. Maybe...

[polonius]

Legend has it that if Adam and Eve existed, they lived around 6,000 BC.

The legend written in our Bible however, dates from about 900 to 200 BC. It's nice story and some Fundamentalists will tell us it is true. As in this thread so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_ ... al_history

Textual history
The Primeval History forms the opening chapters of the Torah, the five books making up the history of the origins of Israel. This achieved something like its current form in the 5th century BCE,[26] but Genesis 1-11 shows little relationship to the rest of the Bible:[27] for example, the names of its characters and its geography - Adam (man) and Eve (life), the Land of Nod ("Wandering"), and so on - are symbolic rather than real,[28] and almost none of the persons, places and stories mentioned in it are ever met anywhere else.[28] This has led scholars to suppose that the History forms a late composition attached to Genesis and the Pentateuch to serve as an introduction.[29] Just how late is a subject for debate: at one extreme are those who see it as a product of the Hellenistic period, in which case it cannot be earlier than the first decades of the 4th century BCE;[30] on the other hand the Yahwist source has been dated by some scholars, notably John Van Seters, to the exilic pre-Persian period (the 6th century BCE) precisely because the Primeval History contains so much Babylonian influence in the form of myth.[31][Note 1] The Primeval History draws on two distinct "sources", the Priestly source and what is sometimes called the Yahwist source and sometimes simply the "non-Priestly"; for the purpose of discussing Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis the terms "non-Priestly" and "Yahwist" can be regarded as interchangeable.

I find it interesting that some (otherwise) rational people interpret a very old legend as factual history.

But, lets pretend.

I do so enjoy the story of the talking snake. Did he grow up to become a politician?

hi polonius - before I remove your post as off topic random rambling can you demonstrate how it relates to the intent of the OP?

RESPONSE: Because it relates to the fictional nature of the first seven books of the Bible( expecially Genesis )which were written about the time of the Babylonian Captivity. So it is deals directly with the credibility of the Genesis yarn.

See: The Bible Unearthed, in print and online. Also read articles published by Tel Aviv university on-line. Historical fact and historical fiction are two entirely different things.