A question about Adam

[Copper Scroll]

Copper, I'm interested to know what scriptures you use to support your belief that God is limited by time and cannot see our future. Did you post them already? if so, please direct me to them

I don't wish to hijack this thread. You'll find a short answer in the other thread ("God's foreknowledge" under Apologetics) in post 16.

Sure. Although he hasnt created a universe for those senarios, that I know of.

Get outta here. If those "universes" don't exist, nothing can be known about them or done in them.

Romans 5:14 states that Adam was a likeness of Christ. As his likeness was not one of transgression, it must be one of nature.

2Cor 5:20 states that Christ knew no sin, was sinless, he was without sin. His nature was purely 100% righteous and so therefore were his motivations

This makes sense, and I agree. But it doesn't say anything about God knowing that Adam would sin. The question was If God knew Adam would choose to sin when God made him, why was Adam appraised as "very good" by God?

[Copper Scroll]

If God knew that Adam would sin when He created him, why is it said that God did not create Adam to sin? and why is it said that he was not created with a sinful nature?

God created Adam with the application of dwelling together with Him in faith. Though Adam chose a different application in sin, this was not God's desired application. Many homosexuals say this is their natural desire. If they had this sinful nature you speak of, you might be lead to agree. But we see in scripture, they exchanged the natural use (natural application) for that which is against nature.

But if God created man with the knowledge that the man would sin, how is the sin not apart of the man's nature? Man would definitely have a head, two arms, two legs--and man would definitely sin. If God did not desire for Adam to apply himself to sin and God knew that He would, then why did God make him? or why did God not prevent the man from sinning when He made him?

As far as application and nature being scriptural. I'll make a couple points. 1. There are no scriptures in the Bible (unless you use the NIV) about a sinful nature. 2. The Bible rarely gives definitions of words. For this we turn to other sources that can tell us what the words they use mean. The problem we stumble upon is (as already stated in point 1) the Bible never talks about a sinful nature. So since the idea doesn't come from the scripture, instead of using Strong's, I resort to Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English. You can use any dictionary you want. Nature is the essense of something. What its made of. A human by nature has two arms, two legs, one head, eyes to see, ears to hear, so on and so forth. This is the nature. Adam had the choice to continually apply his nature to faith in God or to apply his nature to sin. These were the applications of his nature. And where God had made Him for the former application, he used his nature for the latter.

Your definitions are clearer now. I did not mean to imply that they needed to be scripturally based. It's just that saying something like "A nature can only be changed by an omnipotent being" sounds kinda dogmatic.

I still think that a person can change their own nature. If a human has by nature two arms, two legs, one head, etc. then amputees are disqualified from the human race--or they've simply changed their nature. I don't mean to be nit-picky here, but a person can change just about anything on him or herself. Adam defiled the goodness with which God created him and passed that stain onto us. The reward for it is our eventual physical death.

Also, if the animals from whose skins Adam and Eve's new clothes were made were sacrificial (meant to "pay" for their transgression), I think the Bible would have said so explicitly.

[ElijahSK]

Thanx for the reply Ernie. But I would like to say this. You say there is a principle that runs thru out the bible, but the first time we see a sacrifice in the Bible is with Noah. Also you must show a principle from begining to end.

The first time a we see a sacrifice in the Bible is with Noah? I think you are forgetting Cain and Abel as early as Genesis 4:4. That shows from the first generation on.

The sacrifice isn't really a point of debate (like you said). It is simply one reason we can say why they didn't immediately die scripturally since we see it throughout all the generations.

Still looking for scriptures to answer the questions in my previous post. It's on the previous page if any of you are up for the challenge.

[ElijahSK]

Actually I did not forget that because it was not a sacrifice as in blood which I was getting at. The Bible said Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat (choice, or best) thereof. And God had respect unto Abel and his offering. This is strongs def of that word offering.

Noahs was a burnt offering, Abrahams was to be a burnt offering.

In neither case am I talking about a burnt offering. That is in the case of God making the coats, or in the case of Abel offering his lamb. What I'm talking about is a sacrifice. It is clear that by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Maybe we just aren't understanding each other. Do you mean to say Abel's sacrifice wasn't for the remission of sins symbolizing the Messiah to come? I have heard it said that God favored Abel's offering by sending fire upon it, but I don't put weight in that. At any rate, I would still hold it was a sacrifice symbolizing the coming Messiah.

Edited March 29, 2006 by ElijahSK

[Dad Ernie]

Actually I did not forget that because it was not a sacrifice as in blood which I was getting at. The Bible said Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat (choice, or best) thereof. And God had respect unto Abel and his offering. This is strongs def of that word offering.

minchâh

min-khaw'

From an unused root meaning to apportion, that is, bestow; a donation; euphemistically tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary): - gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.

Noahs was a burnt offering, Abrahams was to be a burnt offering.

Greetings Ruck,

Perhaps the BURNT offering, was intended to reveal that the offering was only a TEMPORARY institution UNTIL the REAL sacrifice was completed - meaning Jesus???? Do you suppose? But Jesus, if he were to obey the entire law would have to have been BURNT at the stake, instead, He was only CRUCIFIED, without a bone being broken.

I too immediately thought of Cain and Abel and the "better" sacrifice that Abel offered. Where do you think he learned that from? Don't you suppose that Adam TAUGHT both Cain and Abel about the "covering" God afforded him and Eve by the SACRIFICE of an animal to provide a TEMPORARY COVERING for them? What did God do? Just make a SKIN OF AN ANIMAL appear WITHOUT KILLING AN ANIMAL for it? Yes, He could, but an overriding principle throughout the scriptures is that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

Now if you can't accept that, I don't know what to say.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[SwordFish]

Actually I did not forget that because it was not a sacrifice as in blood which I was getting at. The Bible said Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat (choice, or best) thereof. And God had respect unto Abel and his offering. This is strongs def of that word offering.

minchâh

min-khaw'

From an unused root meaning to apportion, that is, bestow; a donation; euphemistically tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary): - gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.

Noahs was a burnt offering, Abrahams was to be a burnt offering.

Greetings Ruck,

Perhaps the BURNT offering, was intended to reveal that the offering was only a TEMPORARY institution UNTIL the REAL sacrifice was completed - meaning Jesus???? Do you suppose? But Jesus, if he were to obey the entire law would have to have been BURNT at the stake, instead, He was only CRUCIFIED, without a bone being broken.

I too immediately thought of Cain and Abel and the "better" sacrifice that Abel offered. Where do you think he learned that from? Don't you suppose that Adam TAUGHT both Cain and Abel about the "covering" God afforded him and Eve by the SACRIFICE of an animal to provide a TEMPORARY COVERING for them? What did God do? Just make a SKIN OF AN ANIMAL appear WITHOUT KILLING AN ANIMAL for it? Yes, He could, but an overriding principle throughout the scriptures is that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

Now if you can't accept that, I don't know what to say.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Once again not denying what the Words says but we must know why Abels was better. It was not because it was a blood sacrifice. To say Abel killed the lamb is really guess work IMO. . Abel was a keeper of sheep and Cain was tiller of the ground. Cain did not have sheep to tend to but he did have fruit. What is said of Abel is not said of Cain. Abel brought the firstlings and not just the firstlings but the fat (choice, or best). Cain just brought plain fruit.

Once again to say that God killed an animal would be pure guess work. I cant deny that God covered them, that God accepted Abels offering/sacrifice this is stated CLEARLY. But once again the word does not specify the how these things were done. God just shows us the end. So in this case I would rather be sure that this is what God has done instead of assuming because it was established later on. If God killed to show the future permanent sacrifice why is it not stated clearly. I choose not to have any opinion on this matter anymore because the more I talk I assume and the more I hear it seems like assuming. Some mysteries will just have to be revealed when in that day, unless by grace He reveals it sooner. In anycase I pray that I am not hindering anything by my opinion.

But to be totally honest. It is above my head atm. Anything that is said to me at the moment about the inital covering and evens Abels sacrifice is spectulation off of future events. So at that I think I am done with that one. I pray that the eyes of my understanding are enlightened by the grace of God thru Christ Jesus.

In the book of 1 john it says that God was not pleased with Cains offering because his works were evil the things or the way he lived in God's sight were evil. the bible also says in 1 john that the works of Abel were righteous in other words he lived right in God's sight and because of it his offering was accepted and Cain's was rejected.

Swordfish

[SwordFish]

ruckb1

1 john 3:11-17

for this is the message that ye heard from the beginning that we should love one another "NOT" as Cain who was of that wicked one (a servant of Satan) and slew his brother and wherefore slew he him? (Answer) "BECAUSE" his own works (deeds in life) were evil and his brother's righteous (deeds in life) marvel not my brethren if the world hate you (speaking of those like Cain who served the devil instead of God) we know that we have passed from death unto life "BECAUSE" we love the brethren (he that loveth is born of God scripture tells us) he that loveth not his brother abideth in death (still in their sins) whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer (like Cain was) and ye know that no murderer (like Cain) hath eternal life abiding in him Hereby perceive we (know) the love of God because he laid down his life for us and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren but whoso hath this world's good and seeth his brother have need and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him how dwelleth the love of God in him? (he don't)

cain did not love God nor serve God in his life he did not have the love of God in his life and served his father the devil. abel on the other hand did love God and served him in his life cain had no regard for God nor his brother the love of God was not in cain. scripture is ensightful on the matter.

also 1 john 1:5 john 13:34 2 john 5

SwordFish

[Guest NooPilgrim]

CS:

Get outta here. If those "universes" don't exist, nothing can be known about them or done in them.

Good point, I cannot prove my point of view with this premise and by the same token, neither can you. All we can say is that in our limited knowledge God has not done these things, rather than saying he is able or unable to. This leaves us with only scripture which telles us that God is perfect, eternal and with him all things are possible. I agree that we could go into the semantics of the original language and its usage, but I'd rather we didnt as it would veer us from the main thread somewhat.

This makes sense, and I agree. But it doesn't say anything about God knowing that Adam would sin. The question was If God knew Adam would choose to sin when God made him, why was Adam appraised as "very good" by God?

Because he WAS as I have shown with the typology. The statement doesnt show Gods lack of foreknowledge or foresight, it is simply a statement fixed on particular moment in time. Its not against the laws of logic, even if you DO know the future.

[Guest NooPilgrim]

*accidental duplicate*

Edited March 30, 2006 by NooPilgrim

[suzanagimpel]

I tought you are going to ask did Adam have a belly botton or not?

Ha, Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!