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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Can you explain why you conclude that the rebellious angels existed as described by Peter at the end of the 6th creative day?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

Leaving aside the word innocent (a word which is not even mentioned in the account), are you trying to argue that Adam's obeying God and refraining from eating from the tree as God instructed was doing something God would view as wrong or reprehensible in some way?

Are you suggesting that Adam's obedience wasn't displeasing but neither was it pleasing to the Creator ("neutral")? That God is indifferent to his intelligent children's obedience?

[JehovahsWitness]

why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do?

GENISIS 2: 19-20

Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, andhe began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one ;and whatever the man would call each living creature, that became its name. So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild animal of the field

• Could it be that God brought the animals to Adam to see what Adam would name them?
  
  Is there a possibility that God didn't HAVE to do the above but let Adam name the animals because He (Jehovah God) wanted Adam to name the animals?
  
  Is there a possibility that Almighty God the creator wasn't "resorting" to any tactics at all but was simply letting Adam name the animals ?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

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:

Could you direct me to any words in the text that imply God requested Adam submit to sleep to extract a rib and that Adam refused or expressed in any way he would only be willing to submit himself to the process AFTER he was shown all the animals.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

.either admit that Adam was ....already looking among the animals for a wife

• - Does the text state Adam was looking for a mate?
  

  
  .either... Adam was ... not very willing to listen to what GOD had to say about it

  - Is there any record of a conversation between God and Adam on the subject of a suitable mate for Adam?
  
  - Is there any record of Adam rejecting any suggestion made by God on this subject?
  

  or, admit that GOD was taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS helpmeet

  - Is there anything in the text where God expressed a fear Adam would reject Eve once he met her?
  
  - Is such a eventuality suggested anywhere in the text?

JW

[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?

[Wootah]

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?

[ttruscott]

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.

Can you explain why you conclude that the rebellious angels existed as described by Peter at the end of the 6th creative day?

Job 38:7 tells us that people saw the creation of the physical universe and praise HIS name. Rom 1:20 tells us that no one has an excuse for not worshipping YHWH because everyone saw HIM prove HIS divinity and power by the "things that were made." Since this has never been fulfilled on earth, nor can it even be said that anyone in the history of the world ever learned clearly of YHWH's divinity and power from a study of nature, I conclude that we learned of this when HE created the physical universe before our very eyes.

I find support for our making the decision about HIS deity BEFORE this proof in Colossians 1:23...if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. in which the verb proclaimed is in a tense that refers to a finished action in the past which has been repeated after that. That is, it was once proclaimed then often proclaimed again.

The crux is that this proclamation was heard by every creature under heaven, a poetic method of saying everyone. Since the created on earth theory has many people not yet in existence who never heard of this proclamation since Paul or before, it is impossible for it to have been fulfilled in a mankind created on earth reality. Therefore I conclude that the theory that we were all created before the physical universe and heard the gospel first in that place has the ring of truth.

It is no great leap of faith to then conclude that
- if we heard the gospel we had to choose if it was true or not
- deciding if it was true entailed accepting YHWH as our GOD or rejecting HIM as our GOD
- such decisions would then separate all of creation into those who accepted the gospel from those who did not.

It is an absolute necessity given that YHWH, who cannot abide (live with) evil that once some had self created themselves as evil by rejecting HIS deity that HE call the judgement upon them. To bring any of his elect, those who did accept HIS deity, who might have been harbouring loving feelings about any of these people condemned already, HE called for them to come out from among them in their hearts so the evil ones could be judged. It is apparent (since there are indeed sinful elect) that some idolized the condemned ones over their GOD and rejected this call forcing the postponement of the judgement until they could be redeemed and brought to holiness, safe from the judgment as per the lesson in the the parable of the good seed, Matt 13:28 “ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29“ ‘NO! he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest.

This also adds credence to the absolute need for HIM to remove these sinners from heaven and sequester them away from the polite society in a prison. HE chose to create the physical universe at that time, we all saw it, and then HE had the evil ones and the elect sinners flung into the Sheol in the earth as per Rev 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. to be chained in the darkness of delusion until the judgement. From here they are sown into the world: the sinful elect (people of the kingdom) sown by the Son of Man and the non-elect (people of the evil one) sown by the devil. (NOTE: this sowing cannot be a creation because the devil sows also.)

This brings us to the garden where we have Sheol full of sinners and one of them being sown into the garden on the breath of GOD bringing his sinfulness with him so even though he was the third to sin in the garden, sin in fact did enter the world with him.

Also, when GOD claimed that all was very good, ALL from HIS pov included the sinners in Sheol as that imprisonment had to be an immediate response to their evil after the creation of that prison was finished. In verse Gen 1:1 we also learn ALL also included some sinful animals since the serpent was MORE cunning than the animals and these less cunning / subtle animals were cursed for their sinfulness with the serpent though less strongly.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 9 by ttruscott]

The crux is that this proclamation was heard by every creature under heaven, a poetic method of saying everyone. Since the created on earth theory has many people not yet in existence who never heard of this proclamation since Paul or before, it is impossible for it to have been fulfilled in a mankind created on earth reality. Therefore I conclude that the theory that we were all created before the physical universe and heard the gospel first in that place has the ring of truth.

Or, the proclamation is false and the equivalent of fake news created by the author. Conclusions based on a false premise are likely to be false themselves.