GOD CREATED MAN (ADAM) SINFUL

[jeremiah1five]

??? No, why don't you address the points I made in my post to you? As far as I'm concerned, you would "cut to the chase" by doing so.



If you're going to answer your own question, why ask me to answer it?

What you're doing in asking your questions above is forming a false dichotomy. Do you know what a false dichotomy is? As myself and others have explained to you in this thread, the situation of Adam and Eve in Eden prior to the Fall was unique, the two of them existing in a state of sinless innocence, and as a result, enjoying direct, unhindered fellowship with God in the Garden. Only once they'd rebelled against God and fallen into sin was that direct fellowship interrupted; only once they'd sinned did they suffer the punishment of God and were cast out of Eden. If, from the moment of their creation, Adam and Eve had been fundamentally sinful - that is: wicked, rebellious, breakers of God's law, as the Bible defines sin - God would have dealt with them as such, just as He did when Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit. But this wasn't at all the manner in which God interacted with Adam and Eve prior to their taking of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. How, then, do you say that they were, in fact, sinful creatures right from the very beginning of their existence? As far as I can see, your...peculiar notions about their sinful nature don't - and actually can't - account for this very marked difference that hinged, not on who they were, but on what they had chosen to do.

Sinless existence?

But they sinned, so

the conclusion from your position is sin comes from holy/sinless.

Tell me, according to your confession God is Holy. How long before God sin since you believe sin comes from sinless?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are two year old kids evil or holy?
They are moldable until they make their own choices to be evil or holy.

Why?
When the day of judgement comes all men will stand before God.
Then we can start to assign labels.

Man can't be anything until they do something to earn a label.
Adam wasn't sinful on the day before he sinned.

What is the point of saying God created Adam, (and some angels), sinful?
Are you going to blame God for sin?

Two-year old kids have a sin nature.

Thus, before God they are sinners just like adults.
Even born-again adults. It's their sin nature Scripture says we are all born with until the Lord's return and He changes the bodies of His people in the twinkle twinkle of His eye.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps 51:5.

Hope you can follow this:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom. 7:14–21.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I don't know about the serpent deriding Adam and Eve.
I hate to use conjecture unless there's supporting evidence elsewhere in scripture (which wouldn't make it conjecture I guess).

As to the rest.
I agree.
I think I answered to one of your posts in almost the same wording...


I do not agree, however, that God made them sinful.

God said everything He made was good.
Sin is not good.

Also, you're attributing our sinful nature to God.
That sounds a little reformed to me.
If God is all good and in Him there is no darkness,
then sin cannot be attributed to God.

This goes back to the problem of theodicy again.

The word "good" that God said of His creation after a creative act means "good enough" or "to specification." It has nothing to do with [moral] good. That's another word and it is not here.

God called the creation of the grass and herbs "good."
Are you going to say grass and herbs are morally "good" which is what your understanding of "good" seem to indicate?

The serpent was created by God and called "beast of the field."
Are you going to call the serpent [morally] "good" ?

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. Gen. 3:1.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It doesn't matter.
The Law of God are Commands, the Commands of God are Law.

Tell me...

Does sin come from sinner?

Or

Does sin come from holy?

You are contradicting yourself. You can't affirm and deny God's command is law. You must pick one.

It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to deduce sin entered the world when Adam became lawless, broke God's law by eating from the forbidden tree.

So Paul remains correct, and you are still flailing about like a blowfish out of water, all puffed up:

Paul is speaking about Mosaic Law, and how we are now saved apart from it, reconciled to God through Jesus. Therefore, when he says sin entered the world before God's law, he isn't speaking about God's Law Commanding Adam and Eve not to eat. So your insistence no law existed in Adam's day wrong according to you, but as you contradict yourself its very unlikely you notice.

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Rom. 5:10-14 NKJ)

 

[jeremiah1five]

You are contradicting yourself. You can't affirm and deny God's command is law. You must pick one.

It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to deduce sin entered the world when Adam became lawless, broke God's law by eating from the forbidden tree.

So Paul remains correct, and you are still flailing about like a blowfish out of water, all puffed up:

Paul is speaking about Mosaic Law, and how we are now saved apart from it, reconciled to God through Jesus. Therefore, when he says sin entered the world before God's law, he isn't speaking about God's Law Commanding Adam and Eve not to eat. So your insistence no law existed in Adam's day wrong according to you, but as you contradict yourself its very unlikely you notice.

10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Rom. 5:10-14 NKJ)

Paul is speaking about Written Law and Command Law.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom. 7:7–12.

Here's a Scripture to help you decide whether sin come from holy, or sin comes from sinner:

As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked:
1 Sam. 24:13.

Take it to heart. It's the Word of God.
Do you accept this in 1 Samuel 24:13?

Or will you ignore it?

 

[GodsGrace]

The word "good" that God said of His creation after a creative act means "good enough" or "to specification." It has nothing to do with [moral] good. That's another word and it is not here.

God called the creation of the grass and herbs "good."
Are you going to say grass and herbs are morally "good" which is what your understanding of "good" seem to indicate?

The serpent was created by God and called "beast of the field."
Are you going to call the serpent [morally] "good" ?

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. Gen. 3:1.

I don't care to discuss words.

The meaning is clear in the story of Adam and Eve.

If God said it was GOOD, it means it was not BAD.

Sin is bad.
I never mentioned the word MORAL in reference to trees or grass.
I did NOT call the serpent good.

Don't add to what I write.
Do you care to read my post again and REALLY reply?
Or do you just want to waste time?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I don't care to discuss words.

The meaning is clear in the story of Adam and Eve.

If God said it was GOOD, it means it was not BAD.

Sin is bad.
I never mentioned the word MORAL in reference to trees or grass.
I did NOT call the serpent good.

Don't add to what I write.
Do you care to read my post again and REALLY reply?
Or do you just want to waste time?

You can't get true doctrine from a translation.
You have to study the words in the original languages of the Scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldee, Greek.
Then you must find out nouns, pronouns, verbs, and adverbs, adjectives and tenses and participles, and other literary devices of language - any language.

OK. So, what do you mean when God called His various creations "GOOD?"
How readest thou?
Ah, so "good" to you means thew opposite of "bad."
As I said, the Hebrew word translated "good" in Genesis means "good enough" or "to specifications."
What God is saying where He says "good" He means "it's good enough, to my creative specifications. Just the way I want it!"
That's what He means. It has nothing to do with good or bad.

 

[GodsGrace]

You can't get true doctrine from a translation.
You have to study the words in the original languages of the Scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldee, Greek.
Then you must find out nouns, pronouns, verbs, and adverbs, adjectives and tenses and participles, and other literary devices of language - any language.

OK. So, what do you mean when God called His various creations "GOOD?"
How readest thou?
Ah, so "good" to you means thew opposite of "bad."
As I said, the Hebrew word translated "good" in Genesis means "good enough" or "to specifications."
What God is saying where He says "good" He means "it's good enough, to my creative specifications. Just the way I want it!"
That's what He means. It has nothing to do with good or bad.

OK.
You're not going to reply and I'm not going to speak about words.
I know 3 or 4 languages depending on how you want to count, so I don't need any lessons on language.

 

[jeremiah1five]

OK.
You're not going to reply and I'm not going to speak about words.
I know 3 or 4 languages depending on how you want to count, so I don't need any lessons on language.

For Christians the most important language is the language of the Holy Scriptures:
Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic, and Greek.

 

[Tenchi]

Sinless existence?

But they sinned, so

the conclusion from your position is sin comes from holy/sinless.

No, read again what I wrote. You have misunderstood me entirely. That, or you are unable to understand the simple fact that things change.

Tell me, according to your confession God is Holy. How long before God sin since you believe sin comes from sinless?

Are you saying God and the creatures He has made are in the same category? I sure hope not! Also you're engaging in equivocation of terms: sinless innocence and holiness are not the same things.

 

[Hopeful]

Two-year old kids have a sin nature.

Show that to me, from the bible.

Thus, before God they are sinners just like adults.
Even born-again adults. It's their sin nature Scripture says we are all born with until the Lord's return and He changes the bodies of His people in the twinkle twinkle of His eye.

Now you are saying those reborn of God's seed still have the nature of post-sin Adam?
Too sad to even reply.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me. Ps 51:5.

Hope you can follow this:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom. 7:14–21.

You don't seem to be aware that that part of Rom 7 is Paul's narrative of his pre-conversion past.
The proof is Rom 8:2 which answers Rom 7:23.
7:23 "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

What is your goal in pursuing your line of thought?
Do you get to blame God for sin?

 

[GodsGrace]

For Christians the most important language is the language of the Holy Scriptures:
Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic, and Greek.

J,
I told you I speak different languages - not to brag, but to make you know that I understand the limitations of translating one language to another.

I don't know Hebrew or Koine Greek or Aramaic.
But we have to trust the persons that did translate the bible, and especially the latest ones
since so much more is known about hermeneutics than when older bibles were translated...
especially those translated from the Latin - they lose 2 times.

Anyway, yes, I do dislike speaking about words.
There's one that I do like to understand in the Greek and that word is BELIEVE.
I'm sure you must know why - but it'll come out eventually.

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, read again what I wrote. You have misunderstood me entirely. That, or you are unable to understand the simple fact that things change.



Are you saying God and the creatures He has made are in the same category? I sure hope not! Also you're engaging in equivocation of terms: sinless innocence and holiness are not the same things.

You're using synonyms: 'sinless innocence' and holiness are the same things.
Did God reduplicate His Nature in Adam? That's the question that needs answer.
AND if God created Adam 'sinless innocence' then God reduplicated His glory in created matter. Was Adam omnipotent like God? Was Adam omniscient like God? Was Adam All-Wise and All-Knowing like God?
If Adam possessed any ONE Nature or Attribute of God He would have to possess ALL Nature and Attributes of God of he would fall short of the Glory of God. The word for that is 'sin' which is 'harmatia' meaning 'MISSING THE MARK.'
What is the 'mark?'
The Glory of God (or the Glory that IS God.)
There is ONLY ONE Who can stand before a Holy God and that is the Holy Son.
Adam was created sin-ful, or as the Greek is used 'missing the mark' of the Glory of God.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Show that to me, from the bible.

Now you are saying those reborn of God's seed still have the nature of post-sin Adam?
Too sad to even reply.

You don't seem to be aware that that part of Rom 7 is Paul's narrative of his pre-conversion past.
The proof is Rom 8:2 which answers Rom 7:23.
7:23 "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

What is your goal in pursuing your line of thought?
Do you get to blame God for sin?

Here's one passage of Scripture.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 51:5.

David said under anointing to the Holy Spirit that in the womb he grew (was shapen) in iniquity. He was conceived in sin, grew in sin, and was born in sin, grew up in sin, and suffered the consequences for sin in his adult life (remember Bathsheba?), and eventually paid the penalty for sin: he died. Physically.

Yes, we still sin even though God's seed is in us. Paul calls our existence living in this body of this death.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Rom. 7:24–25.

Paul had God's seed in him. He still sinned. His flesh, his body, served the LAW OF SIN. That's what he said. Do you believe him?

So you're saying that because of the seed of God in us we don't sin?

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 Jn 1:8–10.

Are you making God a liar because you refuse to believe Him when He says we still sin even as Christians?

 

[jeremiah1five]

J,
I told you I speak different languages - not to brag, but to make you know that I understand the limitations of translating one language to another.

I don't know Hebrew or Koine Greek or Aramaic.
But we have to trust the persons that did translate the bible, and especially the latest ones
since so much more is known about hermeneutics than when older bibles were translated...
especially those translated from the Latin - they lose 2 times.

Anyway, yes, I do dislike speaking about words.
There's one that I do like to understand in the Greek and that word is BELIEVE.
I'm sure you must know why - but it'll come out eventually.

BELIEVE, you say? Is that the word you like to understand?

The Greek word is 'pistis' and the translators use the word "faith" to translate that word along with the words, believe, belief, have confidence, etc.

God teaches His people that faith is founded on KNOWLEDGE. And if your beliefs are founded on error then you have no faith. God calls His people to gain KNOWLEDGE, and along with getting KNOWLEDGE He commands us to get WISDOM.

 

[Tenchi]

You're using synonyms: 'sinless innocence' and holiness are the same things.

No, they aren't the same thing. "Holiness" encompasses more than just righteousness, especially in connection with God Himself. The Genesis account gives a sense of what it was for Adam and Eve to exist in sinless innocence in Eden. They were, for example, unashamed of their naked condition, being unaware (innocent) of any reason why they should be ashamed. They behaved toward their Maker with openness and ease, having no cause to fear, or to hide from, Him. They enjoyed the delights of Eden without qualm and the company of God without resentment or relational hindrance. Not until Satan intruded upon Eden and tempted Eve into disobedience did Adam and Eve think to disobey their Maker. The "innocence" of Adam and Eve, then, was not merely a condition of not being guilty of sin, but of not knowing what sin was.

Was the innocence of Adam and Eve in Eden, holiness? No, it was merely the absence of the knowledge, and presence, of sin. "Holiness," in contrast, involves a person, or thing, or place being purposefully separated out unto God for His use and glory. Of course, a thing, or place, that has been made holy - temple, vessels, mountain, word, etc. - cannot be said to be righteous, or sinless, since it is inanimate and thus incapable of being moral, or righteous. Here, then, "holiness" differs from "innocent" in its meaning, encompassing more than just moral right and wrong.

In reference to God, "holiness" describes His unique majesty and glory, not merely the quality of His moral perfection (Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 32:3-4; 1 Samuel 2:2; Revelation 4:8). This is not the case for the term "innocent," which doesn't in any way refer to the glorious uniqueness and authority of God. I could go on delineating more of the ways in which the term "holiness" differs from "innocent," but that the terms differ in any way from one another is sufficient to dissolve the claim that they are the same.

Did God reduplicate His Nature in Adam? That's the question that needs answer.

Only in certain respects. We are all of us made in God's image, but we aren't anywhere close to being a perfect copy of all that God is.

AND if God created Adam 'sinless innocence' then God reduplicated His glory in created matter. Was Adam omnipotent like God? Was Adam omniscient like God? Was Adam All-Wise and All-Knowing like God?

Here, again, you're equivocating terms. God's glory is not defined as, or by, moral innocence. See above. You're also trying to establish a false dichotomy again, asserting that the sinless innocence of Adam and Eve necessitated being entirely as God is. This is simply false, as I've already explained to you (and which you have not rebutted in the slightest).

The word for that is 'sin' which is 'harmatia' meaning 'MISSING THE MARK.'
What is the 'mark?'

I already explained to you what God says in His word is the correct definition of sin and it isn't merely "missing the mark." Here you demonstrate why camping on root meanings of words is not always a good way to get at what a word actually means. Language evolves over time, words and phrases changing sometimes very dramatically in meaning. Context, too, may constrain, or expand, the meaning of a word, or phrase. Knowing the root meaning of a word or phrase in Scripture, then, by no means guarantees one has the right of things concerning that word or phrase - as you're demonstrating in the quotation above.

There is ONLY ONE Who can stand before a Holy God and that is the Holy Son.
Adam was created sin-ful, or as the Greek is used 'missing the mark' of the Glory of God.

Merely repeating your erroneous view doesn't make it correct. I've shown why what you say here is grossly in error and repetition of your error is not a sufficient defense.

 

[Hopeful]

Here's one passage of Scripture.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps 51:5.
David said under anointing to the Holy Spirit that in the womb he grew (was shapen) in iniquity. He was conceived in sin, grew in sin, and was born in sin, grew up in sin, and suffered the consequences for sin in his adult life (remember Bathsheba?), and eventually paid the penalty for sin: he died. Physically.

That is a great description of the condition of David's mom, but it says nothing about the condition of David.
In fact, it points to his self-effacing nature: his ability to recognize his need for the help of the Lord.
Your condemnation of the dead babies and mentally deficient appalls me.

Yes, we still sin even though God's seed is in us. Paul calls our existence living in this body of this death.

Untrue.
Saying that evil comes from God is border-line blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.
It also makes 1 John 3:9-10 a lie..."
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."
Your POV probably erroneously thinks peaches can come from pumpkin seeds.

"We", live in a vessel that will fade and die.
"We" will live forever though.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Rom. 7:24–25.

Rom 7:24..."O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"...
was already answered in Rom 6:6..."Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Rom 7:23..."But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."...
is answered in Rom 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
This exchange again points to some of late Rom 7 being a narrative of Paul's pre-conversion past.

Paul had God's seed in him. He still sinned. His flesh, his body, served the LAW OF SIN. That's what he said. Do you believe him?

See above, as he was writing about his pre-conversion days walking in the flesh. (Rom 7:5, 18)

So you're saying that because of the seed of God in us we don't sin?

Correct.
Seed can only bring forth after itself, so God's seed cannot bring forth liars, thieves, or murderers.
(Thanks be to God for the gift of rebirth !)

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 Jn 1:8–10.
Are you making God a liar because you refuse to believe Him when He says we still sin even as Christians?

Your interpretation of verse 8 and 10 makes verses 5, 7, and 9 a lie.
I walk in the light, God, in whom is no sin, darkness.
I confessed my sins (v9) and was washed of ALL my past sins by the blood of my Savior, Jesus Christ. (v7)
Why can't I say it actually happened?
Is it "wisdom" to continue walking in darkness, sin?

 

[jeremiah1five]

No, they aren't the same thing. "Holiness" encompasses more than just righteousness, especially in connection with God Himself. The Genesis account gives a sense of what it was for Adam and Eve to exist in sinless innocence in Eden. They were, for example, unashamed of their naked condition, being unaware (innocent) of any reason why they should be ashamed. They behaved toward their Maker with openness and ease, having no cause to fear, or to hide from, Him. They enjoyed the delights of Eden without qualm and the company of God without resentment or relational hindrance. Not until Satan intruded upon Eden and tempted Eve into disobedience did Adam and Eve think to disobey their Maker. The "innocence" of Adam and Eve, then, was not merely a condition of not being guilty of sin, but of not knowing what sin was.

Was the innocence of Adam and Eve in Eden, holiness? No, it was merely the absence of the knowledge, and presence, of sin. "Holiness," in contrast, involves a person, or thing, or place being purposefully separated out unto God for His use and glory. Of course, a thing, or place, that has been made holy - temple, vessels, mountain, word, etc. - cannot be said to be righteous, or sinless, since it is inanimate and thus incapable of being moral, or righteous. Here, then, "holiness" differs from "innocent" in its meaning, encompassing more than just moral right and wrong.

In reference to God, "holiness" describes His unique majesty and glory, not merely the quality of His moral perfection (Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 32:3-4; 1 Samuel 2:2; Revelation 4:8). This is not the case for the term "innocent," which doesn't in any way refer to the glorious uniqueness and authority of God. I could go on delineating more of the ways in which the term "holiness" differs from "innocent," but that the terms differ in any way from one another is sufficient to dissolve the claim that they are the same.



Only in certain respects. We are all of us made in God's image, but we aren't anywhere close to being a perfect copy of all that God is.



Here, again, you're equivocating terms. God's glory is not defined as, or by, moral innocence. See above. You're also trying to establish a false dichotomy again, asserting that the sinless innocence of Adam and Eve necessitated being entirely as God is. This is simply false, as I've already explained to you (and which you have not rebutted in the slightest).



I already explained to you what God says in His word is the correct definition of sin and it isn't merely "missing the mark." Here you demonstrate why camping on root meanings of words is not always a good way to get at what a word actually means. Language evolves over time, words and phrases changing sometimes very dramatically in meaning. Context, too, may constrain, or expand, the meaning of a word, or phrase. Knowing the root meaning of a word or phrase in Scripture, then, by no means guarantees one has the right of things concerning that word or phrase - as you're demonstrating in the quotation above.



Merely repeating your erroneous view doesn't make it correct. I've shown why what you say here is grossly in error and repetition of your error is not a sufficient defense.

QUOTE: No, they aren't the same thing. "Holiness" encompasses more than just righteousness, especially in connection with God Himself. The Genesis account gives a sense of what it was for Adam and Eve to exist in sinless innocence in Eden. They were, for example, unashamed of their naked condition, being unaware (innocent) of any reason why they should be ashamed. They behaved toward their Maker with openness and ease, having no cause to fear, or to hide from, Him. They enjoyed the delights of Eden without qualm and the company of God without resentment or relational hindrance. Not until Satan intruded upon Eden and tempted Eve into disobedience did Adam and Eve think to disobey their Maker. The "innocence" of Adam and Eve, then, was not merely a condition of not being guilty of sin, but of not knowing what sin was.
RESPONSE: Just because they were unaware of their sin-ful nature doesn't make them sinless, or innocent. They enjoyed the delights of Eden because there was no Command of THOU SHALT NOT [which shows we are indeed sinners]. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was used of God to give them the KNOWLEDGE of evil as they were enjoying the good until God chose to give them that knowledge. There can be no disobedience unless there was a restriction, a Command.

QUOTE: Was the innocence of Adam and Eve in Eden, holiness? No, it was merely the absence of the knowledge, and presence, of sin. "Holiness," in contrast, involves a person, or thing, or place being purposefully separated out unto God for His use and glory. Of course, a thing, or place, that has been made holy - temple, vessels, mountain, word, etc. - cannot be said to be righteous, or sinless, since it is inanimate and thus incapable of being moral, or righteous. Here, then, "holiness" differs from "innocent" in its meaning, encompassing more than just moral right and wrong.
RESPONSE: You're confusing holiness from sanctification. Even if there was no restriction or Command of THOU SHALT NOT Adam and Eve would have eventually died for they were not eternal.

QUOTE: In reference to God, "holiness" describes His unique majesty and glory, not merely the quality of His moral perfection (Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 32:3-4; 1 Samuel 2:2; Revelation 4:8). This is not the case for the term "innocent," which doesn't in any way refer to the glorious uniqueness and authority of God. I could go on delineating more of the ways in which the term "holiness" differs from "innocent," but that the terms differ in any way from one another is sufficient to dissolve the claim that they are the same.
RESPONSE: There is no sin in holiness. But Adam sinned. If they were not holy then they were less than the standard that is God. Thus, they missed the mark. The Greek word is 'harmatia,' and it is translated "sin."

Only in certain respects. We are all of us made in God's image, but we aren't anywhere close to being a perfect copy of all that God is.
RESPONSE: The Image of God is not dirt. The image of God in man is that he was created trichotomy: body, soul, and human spirit. The Image of God is the Son [Christ] for there is no better image of a Father than a Son. The image of God are us as new creations in Christ. The Holy Spirit is that Image. But since Adam sinned all children from that time forward were born body and soul ONLY, no human spirit.
Nor was Adam a copy of God. This too means "harmatia, missing the mark. The mark is the Glory of God. Adam was created fallen short of the Glory of God - sinful - for there is ONLY ONE GOD, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His Glory to NO ONE.

QUOTE: Here, again, you're equivocating terms. God's glory is not defined as, or by, moral innocence. See above. You're also trying to establish a false dichotomy again, asserting that the sinless innocence of Adam and Eve necessitated being entirely as God is. This is simply false, as I've already explained to you (and which you have not rebutted in the slightest).
RESPONSE: Innocence? Here's what Paul said about innocence:

For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Rom. 7:8–9.

He doesn't say, "without the law sin was non-existent." He is speaking of life and death. Opposites. Sin in Adam was dead, you can even say Adam was innocent of the knowledge of his sinfulness until the Commandment came. But sin was dead, not non-existent.
INNOCENCE: (Heb. niqqāyôn, lit., “clearness,” [from Unger's].
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mt 5:28.
The person who doesn't look on a woman to lust after her is innocent of adultery since the Law commands thou shalt not covet. But he is a sinner just the same. But if there is no law against coveting then we can lust on a woman all we want, ideally. We are sinners still. Adam was innocent of disobedience or any other sin - being sinful still - until the Commandment came and sin revived - but wait! What sin did Adam possess that revived instead of came into being for the Command of THOU SHALT NOT [eat of it] did not create sin in Adam. IT REVIVED. Thus, he must've been sin-ful except he had no KNOWLEDGE of it. He only had knowledge of 'good.'

There is a 10,000 word limit and we've exceeded the limit - so is this response.

 

[Tenchi]

RESPONSE: Just because they were unaware of their sin-ful nature doesn't make them sinless, or innocent. They enjoyed the delights of Eden because there was no Command of THOU SHALT NOT [which shows we are indeed sinners]. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was used of God to give them the KNOWLEDGE of evil as they were enjoying the good until God chose to give them that knowledge. There can be no disobedience unless there was a restriction, a Command.

You haven't shown that Adam and Eve were sinful. You just keep asserting it in the face of contrary perspectives as though your view is necessarily and obviously true, which it isn't. Adam and Eve weren't exactly as God is, but they were innocent as the Genesis account plainly indicates. From what the account tells us, Adam and Eve were, right from the start, under the prohibition of God not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. And they didn't, until the Serpent entered Eden and deceived Eve. This shows, not their innate sinfulness, but just how content they were to live in obedience to, and fellowship with, their Maker. If they had been the sinful creatures you want to make them out to be, they would have immediately run off to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and stuffed themselves with its fruit. That's not what they did, though, which contradicts your view pretty directly.

RESPONSE: You're confusing holiness from sanctification. Even if there was no restriction or Command of THOU SHALT NOT Adam and Eve would have eventually died for they were not eternal.

In the Bible, holiness and sanctification are synonymous terms, jeremiah1five. They both refer to the believer setting themselves apart from the World, the flesh and the devil unto God. Both terms refer to the purifying effect of doing so in the believer's life. Hagiasmos, in Greek, means "holiness," "purification," or "purity," though the word is translated "sanctification" in many English Bible versions.


Greek Word: ἁγιασμός
Transliteration: hagiasmos
Phonetic Pronunciation: hag-ee-as-mos'
Root: from <G37>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:113,14
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: Holiness, Holy, Holily, Sanctification, Sanctify

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
holiness 5
sanctification 5
[Total Count: 10]

from <G37> (hagiazo); properly purification, i.e. (the state) purity; concrete (by Hebrew) a purifier :- holiness, sanctification.
(Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.)

RESPONSE: There is no sin in holiness. But Adam sinned. If they were not holy then they were less than the standard that is God. Thus, they missed the mark. The Greek word is 'harmatia,' and it is translated "sin."

Your whole argument seems to reduce to: Not God, therefore sinful. But as the story of Adam and Eve in Eden illustrates, this isn't actually the case. The narrative very plainly indicates, as I pointed out in my last post to you, that they were innocent morally, going about naked without qualm, unaware, until they disobeyed God and ate the Forbidden Fruit, that there was anything wrong with doing so. They only hid from God after they'd disobeyed - sinned against - Him. But if they'd been sinful from the get-go, why hadn't they been hiding from God all along? God, too, did not treat Adam and Eve as sinners until they'd disobeyed - sinned against - Him. Prior to their eating the Forbidden Fruit, God gave no sign that His creatures were sinful, which He would have done if they had been. As a perfectly holy God, any sin in His creatures would have resulted in what happened after they ate the Forbidden Fruit. And so, there's this case in the Bible where creatures who are not God are not sinful but, rather, morally innocent; that is, they were unaware of mature moral distinctions, and so were without moral sensitivities, as very young children are who, by virtue of their immaturity, are incapable of moral thinking and action. It seems to me, then, that your idea about Man's innate sinfulness is not accurate biblically.

At most, we can say human beings are born with an innate disposition toward sin, a natural inclination to sinful selfishness, but no one is born guilty of sin, which is to say guilty of having disobeyed the command of God.

Also, "sin" is not defined by its root meaning, as I already explained to you in an earlier post. I don't know why you've ignored entirely what I pointed out to you, except, perhaps, that you have no good answer for my observations. God defines what sin is in His word and His definition is not merely "missing the mark." See my earlier post. If, though, "sin" is not simply "missing the mark," then all that you've rested on this premise collapses.

Really, you would make all of Creation sinful by your odd definition of "sin." Everything not God, which is everything but Him, is, according to your definition, sinful. Trees, oceans, fish, comets, black holes, suns, moons, shovels, and cats are all sinful things. Why, then, did God declare what He had made "very good" (Genesis 1:31)? According to your thinking, not being God, nothing was good, but, rather, it was all tainted by sinfulness! God disagrees with you very directly and plainly.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

RESPONSE: The Image of God is not dirt. The image of God in man is that he was created trichotomy: body, soul, and human spirit. The Image of God is the Son [Christ] for there is no better image of a Father than a Son. The image of God are us as new creations in Christ. The Holy Spirit is that Image. But since Adam sinned all children from that time forward were born body and soul ONLY, no human spirit.
Nor was Adam a copy of God. This too means "harmatia, missing the mark. The mark is the Glory of God. Adam was created fallen short of the Glory of God - sinful - for there is ONLY ONE GOD, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His Glory to NO ONE.

Who said the "image of God is dirt"? I didn't. The way in which Man is created in God's image far exceeds the "trichotomy" you've mentioned. I already explained in what ways in an earlier post which you've ignored. In any case, that we are not precisely as God is does not mean we are, therefore, necessarily full of sin (ie. sinful), as I've explained already.

Although, the "missing the mark" definition you want to give to sin is insufficient and unbiblical, it is also nonsensical, since nothing created could ever possess the full glory of God which is entirely unique to Him. To possess His glory would require that one was His equal in every respect, not merely possessed of body, soul and spirit. But God is infinite, without beginning or end. In this regard, no created thing can possibly be God's equal. Even if God imparted all that He is to us - His power, knowledge, character, omnipresence, self-sufficiency - we still would not be truly God's equal because we had a beginning, which God does not have. There is simply no way we could ever be God equal, not even by God's power, so why should we called sinful because this is so? "Sinful" in Scripture carries a moral meaning that entails personal responsibility, but not being God is not something for which any of us are responsible. We had no say in the nature of our being and could not have been as God is even if God had wanted us to be. How, then, are we "sinful" merely by not being as God is? This is a nonsensical idea.

RESPONSE: Innocence? Here's what Paul said about innocence:

For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Rom. 7:8–9.

He doesn't say, "without the law sin was non-existent." He is speaking of life and death. Opposites. Sin in Adam was dead, you can even say Adam was innocent of the knowledge of his sinfulness until the Commandment came. But sin was dead, not non-existent.

What does Paul's remarks have to do with the moral innocence of Adam and Eve and/or those incapable, by virtue of age or defect, of making moral evaluations and choices? As you and I do, Paul lived as an inheritor of the inclination toward sin that comes to us from Adam's sinful choice. But Adam inherited no such inclination. As the Genesis account clearly shows, he was, at the first, a morally-innocent creature, living in happy, unhindered fellowship with his Maker, no sin standing in the way between Adam and God. Paul, though was born under the curse of Adam's sin, inheriting from Adam a disposition toward sinful selfishness. There is, then, no proper parallel of the sort you're trying to draw between Adam and Paul.

In fact, like Adam, as an infant and toddler incapable of moral reasoning, Paul would have been morally-innocent, his moral responsibility suspended until such time as he became capable of moral reasoning. The law of God has no bearing upon this circumstance, those in such a state of innocence not being aware, or even capable of awareness, of moral reasoning and God's law.

Adam was innocent of disobedience or any other sin - being sinful still

Nope. See above.