What Changed?

[Rufus]

JohnRH answered that already... though some want to believe that no good thing means something good.

Sadly, what you say is true. Some here simply cannot accept cut 'n' dry, black 'n' white, absolute statements. They need to find ways to equivocate, to bend, to distort the Word of God. It appears it's not in their nature to do otherwise.

 

[Magenta]

Sadly, what you say is true. Some here simply cannot accept cut 'n' dry, black 'n' white, absolute statements. They need to find ways to equivocate, to bend, to distort the Word of God. It appears it's not in their nature to do otherwise.

Well, there is always context, but in this instance, it seems a plain and simple downright refusal to accept what Scripture plainly states, and that is that the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Cannot submit to God's law means he is UNABLE to, and needs enabling to do so, which we see being rejected left right and centre. Then they have knee-jerk reactions to "total depravity" and some talk about it in terms that are not part of what it means at all. Lots of deception going on with those who do that, while they claim it is part of the Calvinistic mindset, while ignoring that Arminianism promotes depravity and so does Molinism, because it is what the Bible actually teaches.

 

[Ballaurena]

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon (eis: to) all men, for that all have sinned: (eph'On pantes hEmarton: upon which all [men] sinned.)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Eph'On means "upon which". I take the referent of this "which" to be "death passed to all men". Upon death passing to all men, all sinned.

How does that work? Well, once men became physically mortal without access to the tree of life, they began to feel the need to give their temporary life significance and meaning. Some did this by developing technologies. Some did this by gaining fame or infamy through building cities and waging war. Some did this by accruing to themselves resources and pleasures. Sin offered shortcuts to attaining these marks of significance and meaning. In this way mortality enslaved carnally-minded people into sinful behaviours. Some like Enoch chose to be spiritually minded in the main, and in the main sought significance and meaning in pleasing God. But most chose sinful shortcuts to carnal-minded goals. Hence, upon death passing to all men, all sinned. This may be why Hebrews 2:14-15 says-

"Forasmuch then as the children re partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

So death is ubiquitous. but sin as a consequence of the fear of death comes as a result of an awareness of one's mortality, and sin does not necessarily come to those who have not yet become afraid of death.

Thank you. I'm glad you are being intellectually honest with yourself by addressing verse 12, whether or not I agree. You have some interesting thoughts in there, though I don't have the resources to weigh them very carefully right now, and I don't feel a real calling to do so anyway. I might take a closer look later, but God didn't tell us to argue everything out, so may we each find our way with God however it plays out.

Just so we are clear, though, the Tree of Life was/is Holy Spirit. Maybe you already knew that and even implied it, but like I said, I don't have a lot of resources right now.

 

[Ballaurena]

I'd like to interject a novel view that I've yet to see, my belief that the statement, "all men die BECAUSE they sin," would be most accurate to read, "all men die BECAUSE of sin." This would leave the statement inclusive of the full spectrum of innocence.

The real question there is what was the implication in the original language, or more precisely what did God mean, though only He can really answer that.

 

[Ballaurena]

If this is true, then how can a sinner be saved - since the spirit must be poured out to save him/her?

Repentance and baptism.

 

[Magenta]

Isaiah 42:16

 

[Mem]

So, then with what kind of moral-spiritual nature is everyone born?

Going by the example of the first two people, either a nature of extreme naivety in trusting others' assertions of morality or, if knowing better having been told better, willfully ignorance. And there's no way of judging who is who without power of discernment, as much as anyone might pretend to know.

 

[Mem]

The real question there is what was the implication in the original language, or more precisely what did God mean, though only He can really answer that.

Yet many answer as if they know exactly

 

[Mem]

Q... MY qqq granddaughter hit enter for me... ejilsjl;fi so dposi i'llklif leavittereskl leave it there for now

 

[PaulThomson]

Thank you. I'm glad you are being intellectually honest with yourself by addressing verse 12, whether or not I agree. You have some interesting thoughts in there, though I don't have the resources to weigh them very carefully right now, and I don't feel a real calling to do so anyway. I might take a closer look later, but God didn't tell us to argue everything out, so may we each find our way with God however it plays out.

Just so we are clear, though, the Tree of Life was/is Holy Spirit. Maybe you already knew that and even implied it, but like I said, I don't have a lot of resources right now.

Gen 3:22 And said (And said: Wa-Ya"MaR) the LORD God,
"Behold (HeN), the man (Ha-"aDaM) is become (HaYaH: Qal perfect/completed) as one (K-"eKhaD) of us (MiMeNU, to know L-Da'aTh: Qal infinitive construct) good and evil (ThoB W-Ra') , and-now (W-'aTaH), lest he put forth (PeN-YiShLaH: Qal imperfect/uncompleted) his hand (YaDU), and-take (W-LaQaKh: Qal waw consecutive perfect) also (GaM) of the tree (Me'eTs) of life (Ha-HaYiYM), and-eat (W-"aKhaL: Qal waw consecutive perfect), and-live (W-HaY: Qal waw consecutive perfect) forever (L-'oLaM).
and-sent-him-forth (W-YShaLKheHU: Piel waw consecutive perfect ) the LORD God from the garden of Eden to till (La-'aNoD: Qal infinitive construct) the ground from which he had been taken (LaQQaKh: Piel perfect/completed without waw prefix).

This verbal chain is called the waw-consecutive. When a series of actions follow one another sequentially, the first verb in the chain has no waw prefix, to designate it as the beginning of a chain; and subsequent actions are prefixed with waw and are in the opposite verb form from the first verb in the chain, but are understood as meaning the same verb form as the first verb in the chain.

Here we have a verb chain beginning with "he put forth his hand"... and-take... and eat ,,, and live forever ... and sent him forth.
The first verb in in the incompleted form: a progressive action, and action in progress. The following waw-prefixed verbs are all in the completed form but should be understood as referring to uncompleted/progressive actions.

So the intended sense here is -

"Behold the man became as one of us, to know good and evil."
And now, lest he keep on taking of the tree of life, and keep on living, and keep on living forever, the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.

I seems to me that Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but were given access to a tree whose fruit and leaves would regenerate their bodies as they continued to eat from it. We see this tree in Revelation 21, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and to which the redeemed will again have access. So, it is quite possible that animals which did not have access to this tree of life were already capable of dying before Adam and Eve sinned. We know that death came to all men through Adam, but we are not told that death began for the animal kingdom through that sin. I am not dogmatic on this either way. I don't think the scriptures tell us.

So, I don't think the tree of life was likely to be the Holy Spirit. I think it was probably a powerfully medicinal tree.

 

[Rufus]

Going by the example of the first two people, either a nature of extreme naivety in trusting others' assertions of morality or, if knowing better having been told better, willfully ignorance. And there's no way of judging who is who without power of discernment, as much as anyone might pretend to know.

If what you say is true, then how could the "first two people" have been characterized as "very good"? Ignorance or naivety are very good moral traits?

 

[Rufus]

Gen 3:22 And said (And said: Wa-Ya"MaR) the LORD God,
"Behold (HeN), the man (Ha-"aDaM) is become (HaYaH: Qal perfect/completed) as one (K-"eKhaD) of us (MiMeNU, to know L-Da'aTh: Qal infinitive construct) good and evil (ThoB W-Ra') , and-now (W-'aTaH), lest he put forth (PeN-YiShLaH: Qal imperfect/uncompleted) his hand (YaDU), and-take (W-LaQaKh: Qal waw consecutive perfect) also (GaM) of the tree (Me'eTs) of life (Ha-HaYiYM), and-eat (W-"aKhaL: Qal waw consecutive perfect), and-live (W-HaY: Qal waw consecutive perfect) forever (L-'oLaM).
and-sent-him-forth (W-YShaLKheHU: Piel waw consecutive perfect ) the LORD God from the garden of Eden to till (La-'aNoD: Qal infinitive construct) the ground from which he had been taken (LaQQaKh: Piel perfect/completed without waw prefix).

This verbal chain is called the waw-consecutive. When a series of actions follow one another sequentially, the first verb in the chain has no waw prefix, to designate it as the beginning of a chain; and subsequent actions are prefixed with waw and are in the opposite verb form from the first verb in the chain, but are understood as meaning the same verb form as the first verb in the chain.

Here we have a verb chain beginning with "he put forth his hand"... and-take... and eat ,,, and live forever ... and sent him forth.
The first verb in in the incompleted form: a progressive action, and action in progress. The following waw-prefixed verbs are all in the completed form but should be understood as referring to uncompleted/progressive actions.

So the intended sense here is -

"Behold the man became as one of us, to know good and evil."
And now, lest he keep on taking of the tree of life, and keep on living, and keep on living forever, the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.

I seems to me that Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but were given access to a tree whose fruit and leaves would regenerate their bodies as they continued to eat from it. We see this tree in Revelation 21, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and to which the redeemed will again have access. So, it is quite possible that animals which did not have access to this tree of life were already capable of dying before Adam and Eve sinned. We know that death came to all men through Adam, but we are not told that death began for the animal kingdom through that sin. I am not dogmatic on this either way. I don't think the scriptures tell us.

So, I don't think the tree of life was likely to be the Holy Spirit. I think it was probably a powerfully medicinal tree.[/QUOTE]

Oh...so God is this heap big medicine man? He makeum powerful medicine.

 

[PaulThomson]

And all Adam's progeny come into this world in this spiritual condition. We inherited it from him.

Is. 1:5-6 is addressed to a generation of Jews who had hardened their hearts to an extreme. There is no scriptural support for identifying every human being, from conception onwards, as so extremely hardened as that particular generation of habitually rebellious Israelites.

 

[PaulThomson]

Gen 3:22 And said (And said: Wa-Ya"MaR) the LORD God,
"Behold (HeN), the man (Ha-"aDaM) is become (HaYaH: Qal perfect/completed) as one (K-"eKhaD) of us (MiMeNU, to know L-Da'aTh: Qal infinitive construct) good and evil (ThoB W-Ra') , and-now (W-'aTaH), lest he put forth (PeN-YiShLaH: Qal imperfect/uncompleted) his hand (YaDU), and-take (W-LaQaKh: Qal waw consecutive perfect) also (GaM) of the tree (Me'eTs) of life (Ha-HaYiYM), and-eat (W-"aKhaL: Qal waw consecutive perfect), and-live (W-HaY: Qal waw consecutive perfect) forever (L-'oLaM).
and-sent-him-forth (W-YShaLKheHU: Piel waw consecutive perfect ) the LORD God from the garden of Eden to till (La-'aNoD: Qal infinitive construct) the ground from which he had been taken (LaQQaKh: Piel perfect/completed without waw prefix).

This verbal chain is called the waw-consecutive. When a series of actions follow one another sequentially, the first verb in the chain has no waw prefix, to designate it as the beginning of a chain; and subsequent actions are prefixed with waw and are in the opposite verb form from the first verb in the chain, but are understood as meaning the same verb form as the first verb in the chain.

Here we have a verb chain beginning with "he put forth his hand"... and-take... and eat ,,, and live forever ... and sent him forth.
The first verb in in the incompleted form: a progressive action, and action in progress. The following waw-prefixed verbs are all in the completed form but should be understood as referring to uncompleted/progressive actions.

So the intended sense here is -

"Behold the man became as one of us, to know good and evil."
And now, lest he keep on taking of the tree of life, and keep on living, and keep on living forever, the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.

I seems to me that Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but were given access to a tree whose fruit and leaves would regenerate their bodies as they continued to eat from it. We see this tree in Revelation 21, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and to which the redeemed will again have access. So, it is quite possible that animals which did not have access to this tree of life were already capable of dying before Adam and Eve sinned. We know that death came to all men through Adam, but we are not told that death began for the animal kingdom through that sin. I am not dogmatic on this either way. I don't think the scriptures tell us.

So, I don't think the tree of life was likely to be the Holy Spirit. I think it was probably a powerfully medicinal tree.

Oh...so God is this heap big medicine man? He makeum powerful medicine.

Argument by ridicule... another logical fallacy Calvinists rely heavily upon.

 

[PaulThomson]

Gen 3:22 And said (And said: Wa-Ya"MaR) the LORD God,
"Behold (HeN), the man (Ha-"aDaM) is become (HaYaH: Qal perfect/completed) as one (K-"eKhaD) of us (MiMeNU, to know L-Da'aTh: Qal infinitive construct) good and evil (ThoB W-Ra') , and-now (W-'aTaH), lest he put forth (PeN-YiShLaH: Qal imperfect/uncompleted) his hand (YaDU), and-take (W-LaQaKh: Qal waw consecutive perfect) also (GaM) of the tree (Me'eTs) of life (Ha-HaYiYM), and-eat (W-"aKhaL: Qal waw consecutive perfect), and-live (W-HaY: Qal waw consecutive perfect) forever (L-'oLaM).
and-sent-him-forth (W-YShaLKheHU: Piel waw consecutive perfect ) the LORD God from the garden of Eden to till (La-'aNoD: Qal infinitive construct) the ground from which he had been taken (LaQQaKh: Piel perfect/completed without waw prefix).

This verbal chain is called the waw-consecutive. When a series of actions follow one another sequentially, the first verb in the chain has no waw prefix, to designate it as the beginning of a chain; and subsequent actions are prefixed with waw and are in the opposite verb form from the first verb in the chain, but are understood as meaning the same verb form as the first verb in the chain.

Here we have a verb chain beginning with "he put forth his hand"... and-take... and eat ,,, and live forever ... and sent him forth.
The first verb in in the incompleted form: a progressive action, and action in progress. The following waw-prefixed verbs are all in the completed form but should be understood as referring to uncompleted/progressive actions.

So the intended sense here is -

"Behold the man became as one of us, to know good and evil."
And now, lest he keep on taking of the tree of life, and keep on living, and keep on living forever, the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.

I seems to me that Adam and Eve were not created immortal, but were given access to a tree whose fruit and leaves would regenerate their bodies as they continued to eat from it. We see this tree in Revelation 21, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations, and to which the redeemed will again have access. So, it is quite possible that animals which did not have access to this tree of life were already capable of dying before Adam and Eve sinned. We know that death came to all men through Adam, but we are not told that death began for the animal kingdom through that sin. I am not dogmatic on this either way. I don't think the scriptures tell us.

So, I don't think the tree of life was likely to be the Holy Spirit. I think it was probably a powerfully medicinal tree.

If what you say is true, then how could the "first two people" have been characterized as "very good"? Ignorance or naivety are very good moral traits?

God does not judge the way you judge. His ways are higher than yours. Maybe you should stop criticising God's judgement.

 

[Rufus]

Is. 1:5-6 is addressed to a generation of Jews who had hardened their hearts to an extreme. There is no scriptural support for identifying every human being, from conception onwards, as so extremely hardened as that particular generation of habitually rebellious Israelites.

A generation of Jews who hardened their own hearts, heh? You're truly the master of Eisegesis! Here's the passage in larger context:

Isa 1:1-6
1:1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!For the LORD has spoken:"I reared children and brought them up,but they have rebelled against me. 3 The ox knows his master,the donkey his owner's manger,but Israel does not know,my people do not understand."
4 Ah, sinful nation,a people loaded with guilt,a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption!They have forsaken the LORD;they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.
5 Why should you be beaten anymore?Why do you persist in rebellion?Your whole head is injured,your whole heart afflicted. 6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness — only wounds and welts and open sores,not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.
NIV

You conveniently forget an important detail in the history of Israel and all the pagan nations in the ANE that surrounded them: They were ALL wicked nations! The only difference between Israel and the pagan Gentile nations that surrounded them was that Israel was the chosen, covenant nation of God, and as such could be characterized as an apostate nation. But there was zero difference morally-spiritually between them and the pagan nations, to wit:

Ps 2:1-3
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
NIV

Sounds to me that pagan nations had the same kind of wicked, rebellious spirit against God and his Anointed One as Israel did! Wasn't Israel steeped in the idolatry of their pagan, God-hating neighbors?

And isn't the OT loaded with passages that speak to the temporal judgments God brought against Israel and her pagan neighbors - first by Assyria then Babylon?

And don't Jews and Gentiles both descend from Adam? So what would make one differ in nature from the other? Do the Jews put their pants on differently from the Gentiles?

 

[Rufus]

God does not judge the way you judge. His ways are higher than yours. Maybe you should stop criticising God's judgement.

But neither ignorance or naivety are virtues in scripture, so how could A&E been characterized as "very good".? Maybe you should actually read the bible some day with the intentions of understanding its Author.

 

[Rufus]

Argument by ridicule... another logical fallacy Calvinists rely heavily upon.

So, I guess the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, as well, bore this magical fruit that opened the eyes of all eaters to behold both Good and Evil?

 

[Mem]

If what you say is true, then how could the "first two people" have been characterized as "very good"? Ignorance or naivety are very good moral traits?

Do you think they born morally astute?

 

[PaulThomson]

But neither ignorance or naivety are virtues in scripture, so how could A&E been characterized as "very good".? Maybe you should actually read the bible some day with the intentions of understanding its Author.

God said they were very good. You say God judged Adam and Eve's created state wrongly. You are judging and correcting God. Such hubris.