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?

[bluethread]

I would agree with the OP in that tov(good) does not refer to the Greek absolute agathos proposed by Democritus. It is rather relational, referring to that which is acceptable to Adonai. I also, agree that they were acceptable to Adonai, because they suited His purposes. However, I do differ with you regarding the nature of those purposes.

[brianbbs67]

Just another thought that came to me, God's reference to very good could just an assessment of the situation,ie all is as planned.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 42 by brianbbs67]

Yes, what I called HIS purpose in creation.

[ttruscott]

Bad things is the garden after HE saw all was very good:

1. a crafty serpent, more crafty than the other animals
2. the evil of the animals as crafty lite so to speak
3. the not good of Adam being alone
4. Their being naked, (The Hebrew arm translated as naked is same word used to describe the craftiness of the serpent...) but not ashamed, that is, in rebellion to being called sinful
5. the not good of Eve consorting with the serpent

And let's not forget:
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man... IF the sin is Adam's eating, it was AFTER the sinful serpent entered the garden with evil intent and Eve sinned at least twice (accepting a demon as her pastor or mentor and eating, making Adam at least the third to sin in the world...

it implies in that for sin to enter with him he had to be sinful when he entered the world on the breath of GOD. Only PCE deals with this without contortion of scripture...

[polonius]

Ttruscot claimed that"

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

RESPONSE: An interesting claim. Do you have any evidence or is this a private belief system?

[ttruscott]

Ttruscot claimed that"

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

RESPONSE: An interesting claim. Do you have any evidence or is this a private belief system?

Did you just notice? Interesting...But let's stick to the topic here, eh?

[polonius]

Ttruscot claimed that"

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

RESPONSE: An interesting claim. Do you have any evidence or is this a private belief system?

Did you just notice? Interesting...But let's stick to the topic here, eh?

RESPONSE: Evidently I am. I responded to your claim in a previous message. Do you have any support for your claim?

[ttruscott]

Ttruscot claimed that"

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

RESPONSE: An interesting claim. Do you have any evidence or is this a private belief system?

Did you just notice? Interesting...But let's stick to the topic here, eh?

RESPONSE: Evidently I am. I responded to your claim in a previous message. Do you have any support for your claim?

The point is not a discussion of whether the scenario is true or not or has evidence or not but whether it is logical interpretation of the Bible story.

I suggest the bible supports this interpretation. It is my evidence, obviously.

[mgb]

Such are the pitfalls of taking Genesis literally. It is an allegorical story about the fall. There are two falls in the bible, the fall of angels and of mankind. I don't believe the fall of mankind took place on earth, in an earthly garden. As Origen says, the fall of angels preceded the fall of mankind. The fallen angels were determined in their rebellion. The good angels remained loyal to God and in between were the undecided; mankind. These undecided spirits are given human lives to help them to return to God.

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

Time began with the fall of angels when spirits descended into 'veils of matter' (Origen)

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

That we are punished for Adam's sin is incoherent. Adam is a generic name for all men. Eve is a generic name for all women. All men and women shared in the fall, as spirits before they became human.

[ttruscott]

Such are the pitfalls of taking Genesis literally. It is an allegorical story about the fall.

I work from the pov that it is a re-creation of the fall in real time with real people...Adam and Eve were real people though their experience in the garden need not be so real, I tend to accept it.

There are two falls in the bible, the fall of angels and of mankind. I don't believe the fall of mankind took place on earth, in an earthly garden. As Origen says, the fall of angels preceded the fall of mankind. The fallen angels were determined in their rebellion. The good angels remained loyal to God and in between were the undecided; mankind. These undecided spirits are given human lives to help them to return to God.

This is almost exactly what I have come to believe except think the fall of the elect was due to a rebellion against the call of GOD for the judgement.

Please consider: all spirits created in GOD's image were created at the same time in the same place. Only one type of person was created, ie, those in HIS image. The differences we read about between angels, demons and men and sheep and goats are all caused by our sinful choices or are job descriptions, ie, angel.

We are separated into two main groups, the elect and the non-elect when the gospel was first preached to everyone, Col 1:23, and some accepted YHWH as their GOD and put their faith in the Son as their saviour (from any future sin) while others rejected HIM as a false god and a liar and scorned the Son, making themselves forever unfit to be HIS bride, ie demons.

Then, when GOD called for everyone to come out from among these reprobate in their hearts so they could be judged, some elect chose to rebel against the call for judgement, idolizing their friends who sinned over GOD's call for justice.

Thus they too became sinful, the sinful good seed and the sheep gone astray, and the judgement had to be postponed until they could be redeemed, choose holiness and accept GOD's call for judgement.

Then all sinners, reprobate and elect sinners alike, were sequestered in the prison planet Earth for the redemption of the sinful elect, HIS church, HIS sheep, HIS good seed.

Pretty well what you suggest with some details...

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

That we are punished for Adam's sin is incoherent. Adam is a generic name for all men. Eve is a generic name for all women. All men and women shared in the fall, as spirits before they became human.

Thank you for the confirmation! It has been a lonely slog thru this arid valley,