ttruscott
Well-known member
I posted this in another thread and it was suggested it would be a good stand-alone topic so here goes! I post from the pov that we were created as SPIRITS before the earth was created which sheds quite a new light on Christian theology.
I do not offer this as proof of my Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) because there is only the same proof as any other sect has, that is, either none or the witness of the holy spirit in your heart by faith. I am not offering proofs, I am offering a new pov based only upon an interpretation of scripture.
I suggest there are good reasons to believe that Adam and Eve were already sinners when they were sown into the earth. Let's look closely to see if there are any clues about this:
First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything as very good which is accepted to imply Adam and Eve were very good also before they ate. But very good 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 Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
It seems to me that Gen 1:31 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. If we accept that Satan et all sinned AFTER the proof of YHWH's divinity and eternal power rendered no one without an excuse, we are in the untenable situation that Satan and the demons knew they were doomed if they fought against YHWH but then started the war in heaven against HIM anyway! Were they suicidal or what?? So at least some of the people created in GOD's image had a free will and scorned GOD unto damnation before the creaton of the physical universe.
Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life 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 state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church (His sheep gone astray) by training them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, 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.
Third:
The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD, verse 1:31? Does it not suggest that GOD created something as not good?
How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?
Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?
And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper
suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...
So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example.
Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you! ?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Or only a bit of miscommunication?
Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and
faithful, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse? If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they had had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm. Do we only think that erm means naked because we need it eisegetically to avoid the implication that Adam was a sinner before he ate?
If Adam and Eve were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is an euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being merely unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness ! When sinfulness is represented as being naked like it is in Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. it means to be fallen and sinful, not merely unclothed. And, it is seen, being naked in sin is also related to being blind.
Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco... another blasphemy altogether!) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars (those paragons of interpreting GOD's theology) and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?
Fourth:
I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before the creation of the physical universe which can be surmised from Job 38:7 where ALL the sons of GOD sang HIS praises for this act which was the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power that rendered everyone without excuse, Rom 1:18-20... Iow, if you are a son of GOD, you were probably there at the creation of the physical universe and sang your heart out!!!!
Fifth:
Then there is also Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law is NOT given to the righteous to steer their decisions but to the sinful to convict them of their sin. Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. which suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.
Sixth:
Then as well, there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. in the garden. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate. The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden, was the first to bring evil into world.
To sum up the hints that Adam and Eve (not just in the serpent) were sinful in the garden before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil. Since being naked is not a sin then there is no reason for their eyes to be opened to their nakedness when they ate. If nakedness does refer to their sin, then remember they were naked before they ate.
4. Job 38:7 suggests we all saw the act of creation of the physical universe so we are without excuse, Rom 1:28-20.
5. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
6. Adam was the first to bring sin into the world implying that he was sinful when he was placed in the garden because others sinned before him.
I do not offer this as proof of my Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) because there is only the same proof as any other sect has, that is, either none or the witness of the holy spirit in your heart by faith. I am not offering proofs, I am offering a new pov based only upon an interpretation of scripture.
I suggest there are good reasons to believe that Adam and Eve were already sinners when they were sown into the earth. Let's look closely to see if there are any clues about this:
First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything as very good which is accepted to imply Adam and Eve were very good also before they ate. But very good 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 Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.
It seems to me that Gen 1:31 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. If we accept that Satan et all sinned AFTER the proof of YHWH's divinity and eternal power rendered no one without an excuse, we are in the untenable situation that Satan and the demons knew they were doomed if they fought against YHWH but then started the war in heaven against HIM anyway! Were they suicidal or what?? So at least some of the people created in GOD's image had a free will and scorned GOD unto damnation before the creaton of the physical universe.
Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life 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 state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church (His sheep gone astray) by training them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, 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.
Third:
The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD, verse 1:31? Does it not suggest that GOD created something as not good?
How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?
Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?
And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper
suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...
So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example.
Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you! ?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Or only a bit of miscommunication?
Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and
faithful, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse? If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they had had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm. Do we only think that erm means naked because we need it eisegetically to avoid the implication that Adam was a sinner before he ate?
If Adam and Eve were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is an euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being merely unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness ! When sinfulness is represented as being naked like it is in Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. it means to be fallen and sinful, not merely unclothed. And, it is seen, being naked in sin is also related to being blind.
Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco... another blasphemy altogether!) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars (those paragons of interpreting GOD's theology) and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?
Fourth:
I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before the creation of the physical universe which can be surmised from Job 38:7 where ALL the sons of GOD sang HIS praises for this act which was the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power that rendered everyone without excuse, Rom 1:18-20... Iow, if you are a son of GOD, you were probably there at the creation of the physical universe and sang your heart out!!!!
Fifth:
Then there is also Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law is NOT given to the righteous to steer their decisions but to the sinful to convict them of their sin. Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. which suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.
Sixth:
Then as well, there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. in the garden. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate. The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden, was the first to bring evil into world.
To sum up the hints that Adam and Eve (not just in the serpent) were sinful in the garden before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil. Since being naked is not a sin then there is no reason for their eyes to be opened to their nakedness when they ate. If nakedness does refer to their sin, then remember they were naked before they ate.
4. Job 38:7 suggests we all saw the act of creation of the physical universe so we are without excuse, Rom 1:28-20.
5. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
6. Adam was the first to bring sin into the world implying that he was sinful when he was placed in the garden because others sinned before him.
Last edited:
