Witnessing

[Anne]

Okay I was looking at this in a much broader scoop when I wrote it. But didn't sum it up good enough.

The scripture to me says were subject to hope, and also says we are subject to vanity. This piece also says If you can actually see what it is you hope for then it's not hope. To clearify the difference between hope and want, You can't hope for something that exists, You can want it, desire. You can't hope for a bag of potato chips then go buy some lol.

Thus hope has to deal with a unknown. You hope to see the glory of god, this would be a unknown correct?

Hope a ill friend in the hospital is alright, Again this would be a unknown correct?

My question would be what is the actual nature of this hope, that god felt the need to enforce (subject to) on humanity along with vanity?

Aaah.........now I understand you better, well this doesn't change what I thought you meant by your original post too much, should have an answer back to you in the wee small hours.............( I think my head hurts )

[Anne]

I'm still not entirely sure what your query is!! But I'll have a stab at answering!

The scripture to me says were subject to hope, and also says we are subject to vanity. This piece also says If you can actually see what it is you hope for then it's not hope. To clearify the difference between hope and want, You can't hope for something that exists, You can want it, desire. You can't hope for a bag of potato chips then go buy some lol.

Okay, I get you.

Hope can also be described as a 'longing' for something. (e.g. 'I hope to go to heaven'). How many times have you heard the unsaved say - 'I hope I go to heaven'. They hope to go to heaven, because they don't have true salvation and are unsure of their outcome after they die.

From the start, anyone who believes in God and knows about the eternity of heaven and hell will probably hope to go heaven. And it's that very hope that drives many of us to get saved and make sure of our outcome.

So, This is why Paul says "For we are saved by hope".

You hope to see the glory of god, this would be a unknown correct?

Mmmm... the answer to this question is Yes AND No.

I believe Paul is saying in this passage that if we have true salvation - we do not need to hope for it. For if we have true salvation - we are garaunteed a place in heaven and therefore we have no need to hope for it because we will surely see the glory of God.

This is why Paul says in Romans 8:4 - "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"

Which is basically saying - 'We've been saved because we longed for an assurance heaven - And if you have something - you no longer need to hope for it!'

However, in the case of those who have not yet recieved true salvation - they still hope to see the glory of God.

Does this answer your question? Or have I missed the point?

Okay I was looking at this in a much broader scoop when I wrote it. But didn't sum it up good enough.

The scripture to me says we're subject to hope, and also says we are subject to vanity. This piece also says If you can actually see what it is you hope for then it's not hope. To clearify the difference between hope and want, You can't hope for something that exists, You can want it, desire. You can't hope for a bag of potato chips then go buy some lol.

Thus hope has to deal with a unknown. You hope to see the glory of god, this would be a unknown correct?

Hope a ill friend in the hospital is alright, Again this would be a unknown correct?

My question would be what is the actual nature of this hope, that god felt the need to enforce (subject to) on humanity along with vanity?

I would agree that hope is a desire to have something not yet attained and that vanity at its core is indeed sin......well sort of.... , there is a little more to it than that, so I'll just list them briefly here, but yeah, desire (yearning) and sin are kinda what they are.

The only thing I will point out is that the scripture reference given in post #121 as Romans 8 v 4 is incorrect, and I'm quite sure Tribulation meant to write Romans 8 v 24, just in case you all are looking at your Bibles wondering where we got the word hope in Romans 8 v 4.

What is vanity? (Romans 8 v 20)

The vanity which we were made subject to is inutility, a transientness or more clearly a depravity (a taking away of something) my concordance goes on to translate it as being empty, a profitlessness and interestingly it is also connected with the word idol, to be honest i'm not sure why though. The word vanity in the context of this verse is also connected with the idea of tentative manipulation, or an unsuccessful search in connection with punishment, a folly, or something which serves no purpose.

There's more, but I think this will suffice, to be honest folks i'm not seeing the word "sin" mentioned, certainly not the specific act of "sin" itself, but a picture is forming in my mind that the vanity which we were subjected to is the result of the act of "sin" committed.

So let me look at that verse again dood, and see if I can get any understanding from it in view of the above,

"For the creature (that's us and may even pertain to the world and nature in general) was made subject to vanity, (we became inheritors, of the consequence of the act of sin, .......bare with me here......that is to say that as a result of sin, our lives became profitless, without purpose, and unsuccessful), not willingly.......(now this does not mean that we were forced into sin, this is not what I am getting from these words anyhow, but more we committed the original sin willingly and were thus bannished from the garden, unwillingly ie i'm quite sure that Adam and Eve did not want to leave the Garden of Eden, as a result of which their lives and later their descendants lives became a fruitless and profitless search for fulfillment. But Paul then goes on to say this), but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.

Now hold on a second......if we read the word vanity as sin, is Paul here then saying that , God subjected us to sin unwillingly and then turned round and threw in a bit of hope against our wills also, which doesn't really make much sense to me............as spock would say, "it is not logical". No I think it better to view vanity as the result of sin and not sin itself. Does that make sense?

Stay with me here.........We commited sin and thus were subjected to vanity (profitlessness, emptyness, etc,) unwillingly, but the same God who subjected us to that vanity (punishment of sin) subjected us to hope, do you get it???

But what is this hope that we have been subjected to? (Romans 8 v 24)

Hope, in relation to this verse means to anticipate with pleasure and with confidence, anticipate with knowledge............are you all hearing this.........gonna say it again, TO ANTICIPATE WITH KNOWLEDGE , that means we are not hoping in blind faith, we are not hoping for something which we know nothing of, but we know in our minds because of the Bible and the facts which are revealed to us that what we wait for is real and true, it is not blind faith, Selah!!!!!!!!

Lets bring this all together and take a second Look at those two verses only, Romans 8 v 20 and 24

For the creature was made subject to vanity (remember I think vanity is the result of sin), not willing (ie the life which we now live became the result from the sin committed in the garden and as a result we were punished made subject to vanity, death, suffering, etc was against our desire or will, not the sin itself nor the hope which was later given), but by reason of him (the same God who punished us is the same God who......) who hath subjected the same in hope (given us knowledge by various means so that we can anticipate His return, which we have not yet seen.)

verse 24

For we are saved by hope (we are saved by the knowledge of salvation and receiving of such) ; but hope that is seen is not hope (our anticipitation of what we know is coming, whether it be when we pass on or in this lifetime, will henceforth cease to be hope and become a living reality) : for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for it? (what reason would there be to hope for embracement within the arms of Jesus Christ, if we were already in His arms. What you have received you have no need to want for anymore. To put it more plainly, when you get to Heaven you'll have no need to hope to go to Heaven any longer).

Did I answer your question dood got a bit carried away there I think, let me just check........................okay nearly finished, I promise You asked the following:-

My question would be what is the actual nature of this hope, that god felt the need to enforce (subject to) on humanity along with vanity?

God felt the need to enforce the hope which He has, so that we would live in aniticipation with knowledge of going to be with Him or His eventual return someday, so that we would not become downtrodden and in despair within this life, in short God did us a great mercy here dood, He could have just kicked us out and left us to fend for ourselves!

It was because of sin we were made subject to vanity, and because of vanity we were made subject to hope.

I wait in hope for your reply (the aniticipation of the knowledge that you will have something to say about that )

God Bless you

Anne

[Openly Curious]

dood,

those whom have recieved Christ as Saviour has a blessed hope that we will be with him one day for eternity and according to the book of Titus the hope we have teaches us to purify ourselves or set ourselves apart for God's use because He has given us a promise in His word (His will) that He will one day return in the clouds and we will be caught up to be with the Lord those who are alive when He comes in the air according to the book of Thessalonians. Then after those who are alive are caught up then those who have died and gone to the grave they will be resurrected and caught up in the clouds as well. We are instructed to comfort one another with this knowledge. A believers hope is in Christ as he is out hope and those that are His is subject unto Him. Or future in glory rest in Christ and Christ alone and what He did on the cross.

Mankind was subjected to sin by one man's disobedience (sin) death passed upon all according to Romans. But by one man's obedience the gift of eternal life and righteousness is inputed to those who receive Christ. So we were subjected to sin but we are also subjected to hope.

How is this so it is so because through Christ obedience and subjection to the cross we are made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus to those who will receive the work Christ did. As Jesus becomes our hope and He made all the promises of God to us yes and amen. We through Christ inherit all the blessings and promises in the word all of Revelations chapter 21 and 22 is ours and or hope is in Christ.

OC

[Anne]

I see what you are saying OC, and I know that you were talking to dood, but if I could ask you what in your opinion is the following in relation to Romans 8 verses 20, 24

1. What is Vanity and why were we subjected to it (or why was it enforced upon us)?

2. What is Hope and why were we subjected to it (or why was it enforced upon us)?

Just to clarify OC, I do not necessarily disagree with what you have said, i'm just curious as to the above two points.

[Openly Curious]

I see what you are saying OC, and I know that you were talking to dood, but if I could ask you what in your opinion is the following in relation to Romans 8 verses 20, 24

1. What is Vanity and why were we subjected to it (or why was it enforced upon us)?

2. What is Hope and why were we subjected to it (or why was it enforced upon us)?

Just to clarify OC, I do not necessarily disagree with what you have said, i'm just curious as to the above two points.

Hello Anne,

this is difficult in some ways to explain because to get to point b we have to understand point a first so all the post are kind of all bouncing around as i see it thus far. but I will try to explain the best I can so you can understand.

It is important to understand that God created man and put him in the garden with one law to follow and we all know that was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now vanity or sin or disobedience however you want to say it was not enforced upon us in the way that is being described in #1 of your question and we were not subjected in that way to vanity.

But man was subjected to vanity or disobedience which is sin through temptation which Satan brought into our world in order to get us to rebell against God in the same way as in heaven when the devil was lifted up in pride and a third of the angels rebelled against God and just as fast as lightening flashes across the sky the devil got kicked out of heaven.

So Satan in seeking a following after himself entered our world and tempted man to fall. God will never force his will or His way on a person as Satan tries to do. But God wants us to obey and serve Him because we really want to of our own freewills which He gave unto us when He created us to start with. So God gave man a choice even in the garden of Eden to obey or disobedience man was subjected by way of choice and a freewill to choose. God's will was never forced upon us.

But Adam was the first man and we are all descendants of Adam but because Adam chose to rebell against God by his own freewill death passed upon all that would be born and we are subjected to the same consequences of breaking that one law in the garden it was death as death passed upon all as the wages of sin is death and the gift of God is eternal life.

Satan through temptation basically through one man's sin or disobedience got the whole human race that would ever be born into his clutches and held them captive. Now for point #2

Hope was not enforced upon us either but we were subjected to it in that we now through Christ have a choice to make we can accept Christ of our own freewill because we want the forgiveness of sin and so we receive Him in our hearts and lives and this is obedience as the will of God was to redeem fallen man in other words God through Christ obedience to the cross was the way that God gave unto the whole human race from Adam to be free from Satan's cluthches. Just as sin abounded and grew in this world from the fall in the garden so now through Christ righteousness can abound and grow in this world as people accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. As God inputs His righteousness into those whom recieve Him as Lord.

We are subjected once again by way of choice as God again will not force His will and His ways on nobody but He did make a way for us to be saved so we could have eternal life. Which is what hope is

We have hope in Christ from the penalty of our sins that we ourselves commited as we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. In Revelation chapter one you can read where Christ defeated death hell and the grave for us we are no longer held a prisoner of Satan when we choose to accept Christ. For Christ is mankind's hope of eternal life in heaven all who do not choose Christ will have to bear the penalty of their sins and according to Galatians chapters 5 and 6 eternal damnation

Jesus is our hope that mankind did not have because the blood of the bulls and goats could never satisfiy or appease the wrath of God it took the blood of the spotless lamb to satisfy and appease the wrath of God.

We are subjected in #1 and #2 of your questions by means of choice as God gave the power of choice unto each of us and we have to decide in this life who it is we want to serve. I hope I have clarified for you.

if not i will try later in a couple of days.

loving blessings

OC

[Anne]

OC,

The origin of sin has been discussed at great length, here are only two of the posts involved. But as you can see, it was discussed. Including the garden, the two trees and Adam and the first womans occupancy there, their later demise following temptation by the serpent.

Right here's hoping everything goes okay now, otherwise, people might learn that computers do fly on the odd occasion, but only when sufficiently motivated to do so!

Firstly, i want to apologise for not getting back to you right away, but I had my first day off work in a while, so i'm afraid i took full advantage of it.

Secondly, for those who have asked if they can join in, i have no objections, on the understanding that it is also okay with dood, and that you agree to refrain from posting anything that is hurtful or otherwise might be considered abusive. The purpose of this thread is not to score points, but to understand and in turn learn. So by all means, if you can abide by that, please join in. But for the time being, please understand that i will be concentrating on doods points which he has put to me.

Now where was I before ? I have been thinking about a question or rather a point you made in your previous reply:-

You made an observation that "Adam and Eve did not sin intentionally but did it unknowingly, so how can a person be held accountable for sin if they did it unknowingly?"

I think that was the jist of what you were saying, did I get it right?

Okay, I understand that you have no wish to get into a.............what was it you called it,..........a scripture throwing festival I'll try to be as kind to you as i can, but when we are speaking about the Bible and the people therein, then my only point of reference is the Bible and thus I must apply the "Best evidence rule" to this point which you have made, but I promise I will keep it to a minimum...........honestly

Okay, let me just collect my thoughts,.........we read of the Creation Account in Genesis chapter 1 and concluding in Genesis chapter 2, but it is not until chapter 3, that things start to go wrong for the Adam and the first woman. At this point, the first woman is in the Garden of Eden and from what I understand the implication is that she was alone, Adam was off somewhere else, possibly in the garden.........typical man, where is he when you need him ......just a joke folks!

Let me just read the first five verses of Genesis chapter 3 again,.............okay, this is the first time, as far as i recollect, that the serpent (devil), is mentioned and a conversation ensuing between him and the first woman.........Now there's an interesting bit here dood, which is relevant to your point, but i'll just quote these few words, so don't panic! It's the concluding few words of verse five:-

"and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Bare with me, before my computer crashed this was the stage I was thinking about.....this knowledge, I suspect, was unique to the angels and God himself, so I'm just going to get out the old concordance to see if I can try and understand its implication here. Now this is interesting, my fellow scholars here will correct me if i am wrong ..........but I see that this is the only point where this type of knowledge is mentioned, mmmm I wonder..............just a sec dood, let me think this through..................okay, let me try and explain this correctly, this knowledge spoken of here, is not the same knowledge of, or understanding of what is right and wrong. That is to say that I believe, at this stage,that Adam and the first woman would have known the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, for example, I think it would be correct of me to say that Adam and the first woman would have understood that it was right to obey God, and wrong to disobey God, so to say that they had unknowingly committed this sin, I think is incorrect. But nothing I've said so far, proves me right, this is only my impression. So bare with me again..........I think this might take a while can you tell?............The knowledge that the serpent tempted the first woman with, was an entering into the heart of an understanding, a knowledge of how to do something which appears good but by all accounts is achieved by deceptive means, but the outcome of which is evil, understand that the first woman may not have known this, but certainly the serpent would have, remember we are speaking with the benefit of hindsight, does that make sense??? I'll try to clarify, let me look at the good and evil spoken of in this verse...........LOL, i need more space on this desk, there's not enough room for these notes !!!!! I've found something rather interesting, so I'm going to go back to the first time the tree of knowledge of good and evil is ever mentioned.

You're probably wondering "Why on earth is Anne, telling me all this?" I was wondering it too, but I think it best so you understand where i'm coming from and why I conclude the things I do!

Time for another coffee I think! (okay so you didn't really need to know that )

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis Chapter... my goodness, where did I put my Bible, it's here somewhere.........Genesis Chapter 2 verse 9 together with the tree of life and the tree of knowledge is then later mentioned in verse 17.

Now most people think this tree was not an actually tree, just symbolic of sin.........lol, don't worry i'm not going to go into that......suffice it to say it was an actual tree and as real as the trees we see growing around us to day, now the first Commandment of God to man was "see that there tree there, don't eat the fruit from it, nay don't even touch it, is not good for you, it'll kill you!" Okay so those weren't His actual words but, you see what I mean. The observation is made here, that they were not commanded not to eat of the tree of Life, which is significant, but may not be relevant at this stage. But i am happy to discuss it if you wish.

Now bearing in mind here that Adam and later the first woman, would have been well aware of this commandment, so I would be correct in concluding that they would have known it was against God's will for them to have either touched it or eaten of it, now God didn't just leave that commandment up in the air, that is to say, He told them not to eat it and He told them why, that they would die, not drop dead instantly you understand, but they would begin to die, continue to die, and eventually die, am I making sense to everyone???? But I have a side thought on why death would not have been instantenous (yeah probably didn't spell that right, i know, you can all stop laughing any time now ) I suspect that when Adam and the first woman ate off the tree of knowledge that they were disallowed access to the tree of life. But again that is a side issue, back to the topic in hand I think!

So what is this good and evil then, if it is not the knowing of the different between that which is right and that which is wrong? The first mentioning of the good and evil (the tree folks) by God is the same good and evil with which the serpent tempted the first woman. Check it out if you have concordance, I have strongs concordance the reference numbers are 2896 (good) and 7451 (evil), and you will see that the good and evil mentioned are the same good and evil that the serpent tempted with.

So why on earth, did the first woman fall for it? I think there must be a deception somewhere, but understand not on the behalf of God, let's look at that................I think it is best to look at what God actually said and then what the serpent "implied"!

Folks i'm just going to post this, and then continue, i don't want to lose this again and have to retype, try not to reply to any points i've made until i've shown you my conclusion.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

(oooooohhh, it's like an episode of neighbours )

MEANWHILE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.............

Lost my train of thought there for a moment, couldn't get that stupid neighbours tune out of my head!

Okay, what did God actually command Adam?

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the TREE of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And what was it that the serpent said to the first woman?

" Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the trees of the fruit of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die (This was calling God a liar): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

(Here we get insight into what the first woman was thinking!) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, a tree to be desired to make one wise, SHE TOOK of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT....................

Of course you know the scene does not end there dood, but I think this is sufficent to examine the following three points:

1. What did God say?

2. What did the serpent imply?

3. What on earth was the first woman thinking?

Now the first thing I noticed, was the Commandment was given directly to Adam by God, not to the first woman, and the temptation by the serpent was presented to the first woman. I'm wondering why the serpent went directly to the first woman and tempted her, and not to Adam!

Speaking from a my point of thought, I suspect that if you want to break a chain, you hit the weakest point. ( looking around for flying objects coming my way )

So on to answering those point I mentioned above:-

1. God said, to Adam, (my interpretation folks, NOT Gods' actual words) don't eat of the tree of the understanding of how to do good by evil means, or, by eating of this tree you will attempt to achieve that which is good by evil means, this is deception, and is wrong, it will enter your hearts and change your hearts. (Does that make sense? I can explain it better if anyone wants me to).

*OBSERVATION NOTE*

Right here, dood, shows us that Adam knew that it was wrong to eat of the tree, and the first woman would have later known it too, she even admits to knowing this, so it is right to conclude that both Adam and the first woman knew the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, or more correctly to say, they knew that it was right to follow Gods commandment and not eat of the tree, and that it was wrong to disobey Gods commandment and eat of the tree.

2. The serpent, outright called God a liar, there was no implication here, something which should have alerted the first woman that there was something not quite right with this serpent chap, he had a bit of a screw missing! (but again, we have the benefit of hindsight), afterall God had never led them wrong before, so why would she have had any reason to distrust God. I suppose also, in her innocence, she may have believed, as the devil, then called Lucifer, was also a created being by God she had no reason to believe that he would do her any harm either. Just a thought, not a conclusion folks! Understand that although I am saying that Adam and the first woman knew the difference between the doing of right and wrong, I am not saying it had entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong! No, indeed, I strongly believe the doing of wrong had never ever entered their hearts at this stage. The serpent then goes on to imply, that God is somehow afraid that once she (that is first woman) eats of the tree that she will be just a good as God in power and all knowledge. There is an implication that God didn't want the competition! The serpent then goes one step further, and implys that it would be good for her to have this knowledge, that it would somehow make her a better person. That it would make her as wise as God! Therefore how could that be a bad thing?

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

With regards to "your eyes shall be opened," I think this is a spiritual opening and a phyiscal opening of the eyes (lol....... I don't mean everyone was walking around with their eyes closed folks! prior to this) I think is was a perspective change, a changing of a point of view, a seeing of things differently to what they had previously done.

3. So baring this all in mind, why did the woman then eat the fruit? Maybe she thought that God was with holding something good from her, maybe she thought God had made an error in not allowing them to eat the fruit. I do not know, but certainly she would not have understood deceit, for this knowledge was not in her heart to understand. The first woman, appears to have eaten the fruit, because when she actually looked at it and considered it, such a beautiful fruit, must be very tastey, surely such a thing, such a beautiful thing, made by God Himself, could do no harm? For if what the serpent was saying was true, then she would be wiser and therefore a better person, because of the knowledge gained from this fruit! Alas, this was not the case, for upon eating the fruit "her eyes were open" and in her heart she understood evil and good, and was given the ability to do evil or good, it was now her choice........it had entered her heart the feelings of saddness, misery, deceit, etc and she now had the knowledge how to achieve these, oh Lord God, she must have thought, what have I done? She had listened to the serpent, she had committed the very first sin, disobeying Gods' command to man, she made a mistake an error of judgement, she trusted the serpent to bring her no ill. And as we know, from the Bible, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree which she gave to him, and here Adam made a decision, for he would have seen, I think it likely, the saddness in his wifes eyes about what she had just done, and he ate also, I suspect knowingly and deliberately disobeying Gods command to man.

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

The first woman committed the first sin by mistake, Adam, committed sin knowingly and deliberately. His possible motivation for this may have been, because he did not want to be seperated from someone he had come to love.

So dood, i must conclude, that Eve(the first woman) and Adam, knowingly disobeyed Gods command and ate the fruit. First Eve, by her misplaced trust in the serpent, and then Adam by his not wishing to be parted from Eve. Either way, they most certainly knew how to do right and wrong, but it had not entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong.

They did sin intentionally, whether by mistake or knowingly, and that was why they were held accountable for sin.

Does this make sense? Not asking for agreement on my conclusion dood, if you want me to explain further..............

God Bless you dood, now i'm going to study example 3 which you placed on your first post.

The conclusion from scripture was indeed that Adam and Eve fell from Grace as a result of sin, but to go over every detail in this single post would take forever and I don't think my fingers are up to it.

But what dood is asking is not now the origin of sin, but more what is the essence of vanity and hope and why were we subjected to both? Does that make sense OC.

Your Sister in Jesus Christ

Anne

[Openly Curious]

OC,

The origin of sin has been discussed at great length, here are only two of the posts involved. But as you can see, it was discussed. Including the garden, the two trees and Adam and the first womans occupancy there, their later demise following temptation by the serpent.

Right here's hoping everything goes okay now, otherwise, people might learn that computers do fly on the odd occasion, but only when sufficiently motivated to do so!

Firstly, i want to apologise for not getting back to you right away, but I had my first day off work in a while, so i'm afraid i took full advantage of it.

Secondly, for those who have asked if they can join in, i have no objections, on the understanding that it is also okay with dood, and that you agree to refrain from posting anything that is hurtful or otherwise might be considered abusive. The purpose of this thread is not to score points, but to understand and in turn learn. So by all means, if you can abide by that, please join in. But for the time being, please understand that i will be concentrating on doods points which he has put to me.

Now where was I before ? I have been thinking about a question or rather a point you made in your previous reply:-

You made an observation that "Adam and Eve did not sin intentionally but did it unknowingly, so how can a person be held accountable for sin if they did it unknowingly?"

I think that was the jist of what you were saying, did I get it right?

Okay, I understand that you have no wish to get into a.............what was it you called it,..........a scripture throwing festival I'll try to be as kind to you as i can, but when we are speaking about the Bible and the people therein, then my only point of reference is the Bible and thus I must apply the "Best evidence rule" to this point which you have made, but I promise I will keep it to a minimum...........honestly

Okay, let me just collect my thoughts,.........we read of the Creation Account in Genesis chapter 1 and concluding in Genesis chapter 2, but it is not until chapter 3, that things start to go wrong for the Adam and the first woman. At this point, the first woman is in the Garden of Eden and from what I understand the implication is that she was alone, Adam was off somewhere else, possibly in the garden.........typical man, where is he when you need him ......just a joke folks!

Let me just read the first five verses of Genesis chapter 3 again,.............okay, this is the first time, as far as i recollect, that the serpent (devil), is mentioned and a conversation ensuing between him and the first woman.........Now there's an interesting bit here dood, which is relevant to your point, but i'll just quote these few words, so don't panic! It's the concluding few words of verse five:-

"and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Bare with me, before my computer crashed this was the stage I was thinking about.....this knowledge, I suspect, was unique to the angels and God himself, so I'm just going to get out the old concordance to see if I can try and understand its implication here. Now this is interesting, my fellow scholars here will correct me if i am wrong ..........but I see that this is the only point where this type of knowledge is mentioned, mmmm I wonder..............just a sec dood, let me think this through..................okay, let me try and explain this correctly, this knowledge spoken of here, is not the same knowledge of, or understanding of what is right and wrong. That is to say that I believe, at this stage,that Adam and the first woman would have known the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, for example, I think it would be correct of me to say that Adam and the first woman would have understood that it was right to obey God, and wrong to disobey God, so to say that they had unknowingly committed this sin, I think is incorrect. But nothing I've said so far, proves me right, this is only my impression. So bare with me again..........I think this might take a while can you tell?............The knowledge that the serpent tempted the first woman with, was an entering into the heart of an understanding, a knowledge of how to do something which appears good but by all accounts is achieved by deceptive means, but the outcome of which is evil, understand that the first woman may not have known this, but certainly the serpent would have, remember we are speaking with the benefit of hindsight, does that make sense??? I'll try to clarify, let me look at the good and evil spoken of in this verse...........LOL, i need more space on this desk, there's not enough room for these notes !!!!! I've found something rather interesting, so I'm going to go back to the first time the tree of knowledge of good and evil is ever mentioned.

You're probably wondering "Why on earth is Anne, telling me all this?" I was wondering it too, but I think it best so you understand where i'm coming from and why I conclude the things I do!

Time for another coffee I think! (okay so you didn't really need to know that )

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis Chapter... my goodness, where did I put my Bible, it's here somewhere.........Genesis Chapter 2 verse 9 together with the tree of life and the tree of knowledge is then later mentioned in verse 17.

Now most people think this tree was not an actually tree, just symbolic of sin.........lol, don't worry i'm not going to go into that......suffice it to say it was an actual tree and as real as the trees we see growing around us to day, now the first Commandment of God to man was "see that there tree there, don't eat the fruit from it, nay don't even touch it, is not good for you, it'll kill you!" Okay so those weren't His actual words but, you see what I mean. The observation is made here, that they were not commanded not to eat of the tree of Life, which is significant, but may not be relevant at this stage. But i am happy to discuss it if you wish.

Now bearing in mind here that Adam and later the first woman, would have been well aware of this commandment, so I would be correct in concluding that they would have known it was against God's will for them to have either touched it or eaten of it, now God didn't just leave that commandment up in the air, that is to say, He told them not to eat it and He told them why, that they would die, not drop dead instantly you understand, but they would begin to die, continue to die, and eventually die, am I making sense to everyone???? But I have a side thought on why death would not have been instantenous (yeah probably didn't spell that right, i know, you can all stop laughing any time now ) I suspect that when Adam and the first woman ate off the tree of knowledge that they were disallowed access to the tree of life. But again that is a side issue, back to the topic in hand I think!

So what is this good and evil then, if it is not the knowing of the different between that which is right and that which is wrong? The first mentioning of the good and evil (the tree folks) by God is the same good and evil with which the serpent tempted the first woman. Check it out if you have concordance, I have strongs concordance the reference numbers are 2896 (good) and 7451 (evil), and you will see that the good and evil mentioned are the same good and evil that the serpent tempted with.

So why on earth, did the first woman fall for it? I think there must be a deception somewhere, but understand not on the behalf of God, let's look at that................I think it is best to look at what God actually said and then what the serpent "implied"!

Folks i'm just going to post this, and then continue, i don't want to lose this again and have to retype, try not to reply to any points i've made until i've shown you my conclusion.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

(oooooohhh, it's like an episode of neighbours )

MEANWHILE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.............

Lost my train of thought there for a moment, couldn't get that stupid neighbours tune out of my head!

Okay, what did God actually command Adam?

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the TREE of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And what was it that the serpent said to the first woman?

" Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the trees of the fruit of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die (This was calling God a liar): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

(Here we get insight into what the first woman was thinking!) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, a tree to be desired to make one wise, SHE TOOK of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT....................

Of course you know the scene does not end there dood, but I think this is sufficent to examine the following three points:

1. What did God say?

2. What did the serpent imply?

3. What on earth was the first woman thinking?

Now the first thing I noticed, was the Commandment was given directly to Adam by God, not to the first woman, and the temptation by the serpent was presented to the first woman. I'm wondering why the serpent went directly to the first woman and tempted her, and not to Adam!

Speaking from a my point of thought, I suspect that if you want to break a chain, you hit the weakest point. ( looking around for flying objects coming my way )

So on to answering those point I mentioned above:-

1. God said, to Adam, (my interpretation folks, NOT Gods' actual words) don't eat of the tree of the understanding of how to do good by evil means, or, by eating of this tree you will attempt to achieve that which is good by evil means, this is deception, and is wrong, it will enter your hearts and change your hearts. (Does that make sense? I can explain it better if anyone wants me to).

*OBSERVATION NOTE*

Right here, dood, shows us that Adam knew that it was wrong to eat of the tree, and the first woman would have later known it too, she even admits to knowing this, so it is right to conclude that both Adam and the first woman knew the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, or more correctly to say, they knew that it was right to follow Gods commandment and not eat of the tree, and that it was wrong to disobey Gods commandment and eat of the tree.

2. The serpent, outright called God a liar, there was no implication here, something which should have alerted the first woman that there was something not quite right with this serpent chap, he had a bit of a screw missing! (but again, we have the benefit of hindsight), afterall God had never led them wrong before, so why would she have had any reason to distrust God. I suppose also, in her innocence, she may have believed, as the devil, then called Lucifer, was also a created being by God she had no reason to believe that he would do her any harm either. Just a thought, not a conclusion folks! Understand that although I am saying that Adam and the first woman knew the difference between the doing of right and wrong, I am not saying it had entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong! No, indeed, I strongly believe the doing of wrong had never ever entered their hearts at this stage. The serpent then goes on to imply, that God is somehow afraid that once she (that is first woman) eats of the tree that she will be just a good as God in power and all knowledge. There is an implication that God didn't want the competition! The serpent then goes one step further, and implys that it would be good for her to have this knowledge, that it would somehow make her a better person. That it would make her as wise as God! Therefore how could that be a bad thing?

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

With regards to "your eyes shall be opened," I think this is a spiritual opening and a phyiscal opening of the eyes (lol....... I don't mean everyone was walking around with their eyes closed folks! prior to this) I think is was a perspective change, a changing of a point of view, a seeing of things differently to what they had previously done.

3. So baring this all in mind, why did the woman then eat the fruit? Maybe she thought that God was with holding something good from her, maybe she thought God had made an error in not allowing them to eat the fruit. I do not know, but certainly she would not have understood deceit, for this knowledge was not in her heart to understand. The first woman, appears to have eaten the fruit, because when she actually looked at it and considered it, such a beautiful fruit, must be very tastey, surely such a thing, such a beautiful thing, made by God Himself, could do no harm? For if what the serpent was saying was true, then she would be wiser and therefore a better person, because of the knowledge gained from this fruit! Alas, this was not the case, for upon eating the fruit "her eyes were open" and in her heart she understood evil and good, and was given the ability to do evil or good, it was now her choice........it had entered her heart the feelings of saddness, misery, deceit, etc and she now had the knowledge how to achieve these, oh Lord God, she must have thought, what have I done? She had listened to the serpent, she had committed the very first sin, disobeying Gods' command to man, she made a mistake an error of judgement, she trusted the serpent to bring her no ill. And as we know, from the Bible, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree which she gave to him, and here Adam made a decision, for he would have seen, I think it likely, the saddness in his wifes eyes about what she had just done, and he ate also, I suspect knowingly and deliberately disobeying Gods command to man.

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

The first woman committed the first sin by mistake, Adam, committed sin knowingly and deliberately. His possible motivation for this may have been, because he did not want to be seperated from someone he had come to love.

So dood, i must conclude, that Eve(the first woman) and Adam, knowingly disobeyed Gods command and ate the fruit. First Eve, by her misplaced trust in the serpent, and then Adam by his not wishing to be parted from Eve. Either way, they most certainly knew how to do right and wrong, but it had not entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong.

They did sin intentionally, whether by mistake or knowingly, and that was why they were held accountable for sin.

Does this make sense? Not asking for agreement on my conclusion dood, if you want me to explain further..............

God Bless you dood, now i'm going to study example 3 which you placed on your first post.

The conclusion from scripture was indeed that Adam and Eve fell from Grace as a result of sin, but to go over every detail in this single post would take forever and I don't think my fingers are up to it.

But what dood is asking is not now the origin of sin, but more what is the essence of vanity and hope and why were we subjected to both? Does that make sense OC.

Your Sister in Jesus Christ

Anne

i have answered these questions in post 127

the essence of vanity is death both physical and spiritual

the essence of hope is spiritual life and eternal life

and the hope that our bodies will be ressurrected one day and we will get a glorified body that is no longer subject to vanity. Our fleshly bodies right now are subject to death dying and disease but out glorified bodies will not be subject any more to the pain and sorrows of this life as we have been subjected unto at this time but through this life we do learn these things

It is like billielovesdarren said in one of her post earlier God wanted a family and those who are born again become His family as they choose Him and let Christ be Lord of their lives.

God wanted his children to know the difference between good and evil and to choose it willingly what they wanted to serve Him in sincerity and truth or continue to rebell and be none of His.

these are the things that we have to decide and no body else can make those decisions for you as a individual.

Personally I am glad that I have been subjected to vanity so that I would know the evils of sin and rebellion and having gone through some tough things in my life of some of those evils of sins. I see firsthand what rebellion has done to our world in which we are subjected to live in all the crimes and brutal murders this is what Satan brought into our world through rebellion and disobedience I would not have known this without being subject to the evil or vanity.

I chose to turn my back of Satan and to serve Christ. Because I also have been subjected to His great love and I know of the righteousness of God and I know of His goodness and mercy as well. But if God would not have subjected us to both good and evil we would have never known what we really wanted to choose now would we. but because God made us subject to both we can from our own knowledge of good and bad make up our own minds apart from Satan in order to serve the one true and livng God.

oc

We were subjected to it so we would know what it was and also know what the love of God was all about as our hope is found only in Christ Jesus as we wait patiently for the redemption of our bodies to wit as it says further in Romans 8: 20-24 it all goes haned in hand.

[Tribulation]

The only thing I will point out is that the scripture reference given in post #121 as Romans 8 v 4 is incorrect, and I'm quite sure Tribulation meant to write Romans 8 v 24, just in case you all are looking at your Bibles wondering where we got the word hope in Romans 8 v 4.

Whoops!

[Anne]

I just thought i'd point it out incase confusion arose Trib, sorry.................

[Anne]

wonders if dood is hiding