Bible Study Adam: created perfect?

[Webers_Home]

.
According to Gen 1:31, Adam was completed just as God had in mind. However, I think subsequent events demonstrate that Adam wasn't created morally perfect, but rather; morally innocent.

Buen Camino
/

 

[watchman333]

Nobody's perfect. But I agree, Adam was innocent until he sinned, THEN, he knew that he was naked!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
I should probably define what's meant by moral innocence.

The details of the Genesis story indicate that Adam was created with a memory; but not with a conscience; which Webster's defines as: a sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character; together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

In other words: Adam knew the limits in regards to tasting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he knew the consequences for testing those limits; but he was thoroughly incapable of feeling it was wrong to test them. In other words; knowing something is wrong, and feeling something is wrong, are two very different approaches to morality.

†. Gen 3:11 . . Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?

So then, Adam's sin wasn't in going against the grain of his conscience because at the time, he didn't have one. Adam's sin was in testing the limits, and for that sin one need not have a knowledge of right and wrong but simply a knowledge of the rules.

Take for example Adam's feelings about frontal nudity. Up till the forbidden tree incident, Adam never once felt that frontal nudity was wrong, nor had Adam's maker even suggested it was wrong. But after sampling the tree, Adam began to feel it was wrong; which is way different than being told it's wrong. Is frontal nudity wrong? Well; I've been a Bible student since 1968 and have yet to encounter even one passage in the entire Bible where God clearly, and without ambiguity, either forbids or condemns frontal nudity. In other words; people have made frontal nudity wrong only because they feel it's wrong.

Buen Camino
/

 

[enlightened]

.
I should probably define what's meant by moral innocence.

The details of the Genesis story indicate that Adam was created with a memory; but not with a conscience; which Webster's defines as: a sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character; together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

In other words: Adam knew the limits in regards to tasting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he knew the consequences for testing those limits; but he was thoroughly incapable of feeling it was wrong to test them. In other words; knowing something is wrong, and feeling something is wrong, are two very different approaches to morality.

†. Gen 3:11 . . Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?

So then, Adam's sin wasn't in going against the grain of his conscience because at the time, he didn't have one. Adam's sin was in testing the limits, and for that sin one need not have a knowledge of right and wrong but simply a knowledge of the rules.

Take for example Adam's feelings about frontal nudity. Up till the forbidden tree incident, Adam never once felt that frontal nudity was wrong, nor had Adam's maker even suggested it was wrong. But after sampling the tree, Adam began to feel it was wrong; which is way different than being told it's wrong. Is frontal nudity wrong? Well; I've been a Bible student since 1968 and have yet to encounter even one passage in the entire Bible where God clearly, and without ambiguity, either forbids or condemns frontal nudity. In other words; people have made frontal nudity wrong only because they feel it's wrong.

Buen Camino
/

i disagree that Adam did not have a conscience. He was told what was good to do, and what was bad to do; therefore, as long as he ate from the trees allowed, he knew he was doing do; and so was the case when he came near the forbidden tree but did not eat. This is the Knowledge of Good; however, as soon as he ate the forbidden fruit, he immediately knew in his 'conscience' that he was doing evil, so he gained the Knowledge of Evil.

What you do not understand or believe is that Adam lost the Likeness of the Lord GOD he was created after, which is light, as soon as he ate, and therefore, his and Eve's nakedness were now exposed.

If frontal nudity is not wrong, why then was Hamm's son, Canaan, cursed because Hamm saw Noah's nakedness (GEN9:22-27)?

 

[King James]

Paul talk of Jesus being second Adam.

 

[Sinthesis]

Good, but not perfect.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

What you do not understand or believe

Is it impossible that you are the one who is neither understanding nor believing? Do you sincerely believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra? You really ought to be more careful with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrives when you are forced to eat them.

If frontal nudity is not wrong, why then was Hamm's son, Canaan, cursed because Hamm saw Noah's nakedness

The better question is: Why was Canaan cursed instead of Ham? After all; it was Noah's son Ham who embarrassed him; not his grandson Canaan.

Anyway, what you've gone and done is read your own feelings into the story. You feel that frontal nudity is sin, therefore you feel that Noah committed a sin by being naked in his tent. But I've been a Bible student for going on 45 years now and have never seen even one verse that clearly, and without ambiguity, either condemns or forbids frontal nudity per se; and until somebody shows me a verse, I will continue to insist that frontal nudity per se neither violates God's laws nor offends His sensibilities.

Buen Camino
/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The details of the Genesis story indicate that Adam was created with a memory; but not with a conscience ...

I believe you would have a difficult time proving that from the text.

In other words: Adam knew the limits in regards to tasting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and he knew the consequences for testing those limits; but he was thoroughly incapable of feeling it was wrong to test them. In other words; knowing something is wrong, and feeling something is wrong, are two very different approaches to morality.

This is what I mean. There is nothing in the text indicating that he merely had a "feeling" about the instructions God had given him. He had the absolute knowledge of the instruction not to partake of the tree, but he chose to do so anyway. His intellect is demonstrated by his ability to name the beasts of the field, and to reason that while they all had "helpers" -- opposite genders. He did not. The sense of the text indicates this was a sad realization for Adam to experience. Therefore, it is clearly demonstrated there was an understanding on his part of both his ability to reason and to feel, and he did not confuse which was which.

Take for example Adam's feelings about frontal nudity.

Here is an incorrect assumption, that Adam and Eve realizing they were "naked" was a reference to their lack of clothing. They had known from the moment of their first breath they were naked, and they were no more bothered by the physical fact of nudity now than they were before. It had nothing to do with that. They were husband and wife, first of all, so their nakedness was common to their marriage, both before and after The Fall. Neither had seen another man or woman, because they didn't exist, so they had no cause to be embarrassed or titillated by nudity.

It was a realization that their act of disobedience left them uncovered by God's protection and fellowship. They severed fellowship with Him through their disobedience. This is in regards to the nakedness of their souls. Now, suddenly, they were conscious of being stripped of the honor and glory, privileges and power, vested with them by God. They had covered up the image of God in which they were created with the image of sin they brought upon themselves through disobedience.

Until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they did not know they had a choice in behavior. They did not know they could choose not to obey God, nor had they conceived of the possibility that they would want to do so. Why would they? He was their provision, their stay, their power and their glory. Now? He was both their judge and their salvation, because now obedience was a choice, a daily decision, and when they chose to disobey, there were consequences, the first of which was the eviction from God's perfect Garden.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

There is nothing in the text indicating that he merely had a "feeling" about the instructions God had given him.

I know.

Here is an incorrect assumption

Is it impossible that you are the one making incorrect assumptions instead of me? Do you sincerely believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra? You really ought to be more careful with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrives when you are forced to eat them.

Buen Camino
/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Is it impossible that you are the one making incorrect assumptions instead of me? Do you sincerely believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra? You really ought to be more careful with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrives when you are forced to eat them.

It's not impossible, no. But I can read Hebrew.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

It's not impossible, no. But I can read Hebrew.

No buts. You either believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra or you don't. Which is it?

BTW: the ability to read Hebrew is no guarantee that you have either an ear to hear, or a heart to understand what you are reading. For example: the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day could read Hebrew; but many of their interpretations were full of holes.

Buen Camino
/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No buts. You either believe yourself infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra or you don't.

While you're accusing me of considering myself "infallible," perhaps you'd like to examine your commitment to your own viewpoint. I believe the word of God is inerrant and infallible, which is nothing even remotely similar to considering myself such, and the idea that anyone would make such a claim about themselves if laughably ludicrous. Perhaps your accusation is a coverup of how you view your own conceptualization of the subject?

What I posted is what His word says. End of discussion.

 

[Matthew G]

If I may...

No one is morally perfect. If we were, we wouldn't be susceptible to sin. Clearly, Adam was susceptible, because he gave in. However, he was made exactly the way God wanted him, because that is the first time we are told God saw something was "very good". Until the creation of Man, everything was seen as "good". - Genesis 1:31

However, even though Adam was made exactly how God wanted, he still wasn't morally perfect, because he was created with free will (which means the capacity for sin). We were created for a personal relationship with the Lord, but what's the point of that creation if it's only going to worship and seek that relationship because it's programmed to do so? Adam had to choose to follow God. Which means there also had to be the ability for him to choose not to.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Adam was Created perfectly good for God's Eternal Purpose in Christ Jesus which was a Redemptive Purpose !

 

[Matthew G]

Adam was Created perfectly good for God's Eternal Purpose in Christ Jesus which was a Redemptive Purpose !

Exactly, but that redemptive purpose required Man to fall. Jesus was the only perfect man to walk the earth.

 

[savedbygrace57]

matt

but that redemptive purpose required Man to fall.

Exactly ! Adam was Created for God's purpose to sin in order to the fulfilling of His Eternal Redemptive Purpose in Christ !

 

[Webers_Home]

.

I believe the word of God is inerrant and infallible . . What I posted is what His word says.

Just for the record: I do not challenge the reliability of God's words; what I do challenge is the reliability of what tnd thinks God words say; and unless a man sincerely believes he is infallible and speaking for God ex cathedra, he should not go around telling people they are making incorrect assumptions just because what they think God's words say don't agree with his own thinking. That is the attitude of a bigot; which I cannot, and will not, tolerate.

The Bible is a really hard book to interpret. If it was easy, we'd all be in full agreement as to what it says; but we aren't. In point of fact, even the experts can't agree on how best to interpret the words of God. The problem is; according to 1Cor 2:1-16 the very words that reveal the mind of God also serve to keep His mind concealed; thus the only truly reliable interpreter is the Bible's unseen custodian: God's Spirit; a divine being to whom not everyone has access because He's selective.

Buen Camino
/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Just for the record: I do not challenge the reliability of God's words; what I do challenge is the reliability of what tnd thinks God words say

And you hold yourself separate from this practice yourself? From the beginning of your challenge to my views, you have attacked me and my understanding of the Scriptures. You have assailed me, claiming I believe myself to be infallible and inerrant. And yet you are not giving your own interpretation of what Scripture says, leaving it open to the exact same challenge?

You need to look at yourself. I'm not getting upset, nor calling those views wrong because my personal opinion says they are wrong. The very nature of the original languages and the tenor of a vast majority of commentaries discount the possibility the passage is about actual, physical nakedness. I meant no personal affront to you in making the statement "here is a wrong assumption." That is not directed at you. It is directed at the concept expressed.

Yet you want to take it personally and accuse me of bigotry? Very well. God bless you, live a good life, and I'll see you in heaven were we can both look back on this fleshly life, our foibles and failures, and praise God we no longer have to live in these earthly bodies.

 

[seve]

Adam was physically MADE from the dust of the ground and became a NATURAL "living soul" (not perfect) .... then, Adam sinned and was kick-out of the garden of Eden... after a period of time... (during Seth' generation - Gen. 4:26) men began to call upon the name of the Lord. God being rich in mercy... decided to redeemed Adam and his generations by CREATING man (Adam) in their image and likeness.....him; them...... making Adam perfect in the eyes of the Lord.

Of course, the above analogy is based on my Biblical understanding.... unless proven wrong.... I'll continue to stick to my belief....

 

[seve]

1Cr 15:45-46 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. v46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

God is a Holy Spirit.... therefore, to be Created in the image and likeness of God... is to be created spiritually... or being born again spiritually from our natural state of nature (flesh).

Once again, the above Scriptural support is based on my Biblical understanding....