rather than Adam bringing sin with him ...1213 wrote:But anyway, the garden was a place where they were with God and everything was well.
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?
."
