Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[Kermos]

I already have and have shown your thinking on it to be in error.



??? Not going with this version. I work from these, instead:

Genesis 2:16-17 (ESV)
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 2:16-17 (NASB)
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 2:16-17 (ASV)
16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV)
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Of over sixty English translations that I looked at, only six used the word "when" and only once in those six was it used alone; the rest had "because when," or "for when." The vast majority of translations used "for" or "if," not "when." Your insistence on "when" as the proper translation of "ki" flies in the face of a tidal wave of translators not using this rendering of the word. Inasmuch as these are professional translators, highly-skilled in ancient Hebrew and other biblical languages, who think "if" or "for" is a better translation, I'm not at all willing to accept your peculiar rendering, especially when it seems mainly intended to conveniently allow for your view.



You already asserted this. Simply doing so again doesn't make your mistaken assertion any more right than the first time you asserted it. A bald assertion is not an argument for itself. A huge majority of Bible translators have opted for a different rendering of the work "ki." It will take far more than your mere assertion to counter the weight of their translation choices of "if" or "for."



Again, you're just asserting things here, not actually making a case for your view. I showed how "for" can be used in a conditional manner. It is, then, certainly a term of condition. Merely saying, "No it's not," however emphatically, doesn't change what I've pointed out in the least.



It's pretty clear to folks who have a better handle on English than you appear to have (like me) that your word jumble here is way off-base. See the translations of Genesis 2:17 I offered above.

Continued below.

Did God's Plan A Fail - Forcing God To Spontaneously Develop Plan B?

According to the "good Adam" teaching, God had an original plan for Adam to live forever in the paradise on earth where Adam was made, and it is just termed the Good Plan until Adam ate the fruit.
I equate "spiritually alive", "upright", "perfect", "righteous" and the like with "good" for the purposes of this sidebar.

Advocating the "good Adam" precept advocates the concept of good people converting to evil people; in other words, a GOOD Adam conquering a GOOD command of God in order to convert to an EVIL Adam.

The "good Adam" precept goes with the GOOD God being surprised by the GOOD Adam destroying the GOOD God's GOOD Plan A of the GOOD Adam living forever in God's GOOD paradise, so the GOOD God in a panic abandoned the GOOD Plan A to develop a GOOD Plan B to expel the EVIL Adam from paradise into a CURSED land with the GOOD promise of a Redeemer. The GOOD Plan A stopped being GOOD Plan A, so that means GOOD Plan A converted to EVIL plan A since the GOOD Adam caused GOOD Plan A to error out.

So, the "good Adam" precept conveys that God unwittingly created everything only to have it catastrophically crumble right in front of God. By the hand of man taken away from God. With God at the mercy of man. Unmercy perhaps being a better word.

This means GOOD God produced an imperfect plan, formerly GOOD Plan A now EVIL plan A; in other words, the GOOD God's GOOD Plan A failed with a spiritually alive Adam lost to be spiritually dead; in other words , the "good Adam" precept has it that GOOD Adam thwarted GOOD God, so GOOD God was too small to preserve GOOD Plan A, so GOOD God converted to EVIL god (this is following to where the "good Adam" precept leads), and EVIL god was incapable of preserving a spiritually alive person.

See that the "good Adam" precept has man snatching the "very good" of creation right out of God's hand; not only that, the man acts self-destructively during the snatching.

The "good Adam" precept has a good man doing the action of an evil man, so that is not a good man.

The "good Adam" doctrine leads to a different god than revealed by the Word of God.

The "good Adam" precept grossly distorts good and evil. The "good Adam" precept is confusion in the knowledge of good and evil.

In conclusion, the supporters of the "good Adam" precept advocate for good people converting to evil people which is absent from the entirety of the scripture; on the other hand, the Word of God is replete with God converting evil people into good people in Christ.

Moreover, God is good, and God's Way is good. Man is evil, yet God works all things out for good for the man of God's Way.

In actuality, with God there is no plan B - God is mightier than that. God's plan for the Redemption of Mankind through the Christ succeeds and is victorious, and this is God's plan before the foundation of the world.

continued to post 142

 

[Kermos]

continued from post 141

This is silly. People use the word "when" all the time in a non-divine, non-prophetic way - just like in the example of Bob and Sam: When a person takes cyanide, they will die; when a man punches an angry grizzly bear in the face, the man will be hurt; when all the wings of a plane flying in the air fall off, the plane will crash. In any case, it is as certain as anything can be (that isn't divine prophecy) that, if Sam steps into the bear-trap, he will break his leg. This is all Bob meant to say, not that he was prophesying a future event in a God-like way.



But I wasn't offering with the Bob and Sam example an instance of the direct interchangeability of "when" and "for." I was using the Bob and Sam example to show an instance where "when" is used conditionally. In any case, because you seem to have a poor grasp on English, you have badly miswritten how "for" would be properly used in the above example. To employ "for" by itself in a conditional way in the sentence, you should have written it out as follows:

Bob may say to Sam, "For to step in the bear trap, will be to break your leg."

Or,

Bob may say to Sam, "For a step in the bear trap will break your leg."

Or,

Bob may say to Sam, "For stepping in the bear trap will surely break your leg."

In each of these forms of the sentence, "for" is used alone in a conditional manner. How, then, is "for" not properly synonymous with the conditional use of "when"? Your language mishap above doesn't explain.



Yeah...see above.



I wasn't giving a word-for-word translation of Genesis 2:17 when I added this bit. I was drawing out the necessary implication of saying that God was prophesying Adam's disobedience. If "when" was used in a prophetic way in the verse, then Adam ultimately had no choice but to disobey God. Therefore, it's appropriate to understand the verse to imply that God forced Adam to sin. Capisce?



Do you think Adam could have refused Eve when it was prophesied by God that Adam would take the Forbidden Fruit and sin?



Why do you think simply asserting something makes it true? By itself, an assertion is just an assertion, nothing more.

Eve was what you might call a "catalyst for choice." She provided a crossroad of decision for Adam. But Eve did not compel Adam to eat the fruit. Scripture nowhere says that she did - or even implies this. Adam took the fruit knowing full-well it was wrong to do so. Did he do so because God had prophesied Adam would? Or did Adam choose freely to sin? If the former is true, God is responsible for Adam's sin. If the latter is true, Adam is responsible for his sin. Who are you going to blame, Kermos? I'm not blaming God, that's for sure!



When you start messing around with one part of Scripture, inevitably you have to mess around with other parts of it. You've denied the natural, straightforward reading of Genesis 2:17 and now are denying the divine inspiration of the apostle Paul's words. Wow. It's amazing how quickly going off the rails in one instance in Scripture has led you to do so again in another.



This doesn't answer my question at all. Your answer here is facile and evasive. What point was there in God warning Adam not to do something God had ordained Adam would do? If I program a robot to kill kittens, why should I warn it not to kill them? Can't you see the problem here?

"If" Versus "When": Logic Expression Keywords

The word "if" precedes a conditional logic expression, such as:

if conditional_logic_expression then result_for_uncertain_conditional_logic_expression
​

An "if" represents a dynamic logic expression; in other words, the conditional_logic_expression event might occur or not occur. An "if" is not fixed as "when" is fixed.

The word "when" precedes a unconditional logic expression, such as:

when unconditional_logic_expression then result_for_certain_unconditional_logic_expression
​

A "when" represents a fixed logic expression; in other words, the unconditional_logic_expression event must occur, regardless of past, present, and/or further. A "when" is not dynamic as "if" is dynamic.

An "if" is a different thing than a "when".

Words are used for information transfer, so evil things can result when a person redefines a word.

Your analogies are entirely broken and out of context:

1. Bob is not God. Bob cannot predict with certainty that Sam will step in the bear trap, so the correct language for Bob to use is "if" not "when".
2. You are not God. You programming a robot to kill kittens is not God creating Adam under the auspices of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world.

You wrote 'Of over sixty English translations that I looked at, only six used the word "when" and only once in those six was it used alone; the rest had "because when," or "for when." The vast majority of translations used "for" or "if," not "when."' in reference to Genesis 2:16-17.

Have you ever reviewed other occurrences the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) in the Bible outside of Genesis 2:16-17? I have. The Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) means a definitive occurrence again (Genesis 1:4) and again (Genesis 3:7) and again (Genesis 4:12) and etcetera.

Neither the Hebrew word for "because" nor the Hebrew word for "if" occur in Genesis 2:16-17, so those words break information transfer. The English words "because" and "if" are illegitimately inserted into the Word of God as shown in this accurate English translation:

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"
(Genesis 2:16-17)
​

of this Hebrew original:

ויצו יהוה אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
(Genesis 2:16-17)
​

The word "for" is an accurate translation for the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588), but the word "when" is a superior translation, yet the word "for" wrongly dilutes the meaning of "ki"/"when" in your mind.

The word "for" in Genesis 2:16-17 conveys a certain unconditional occurrence - in the exact same way as the word "when".

The word "that" results in precisely the same situation as "for" in Genesis 2:16-17. "That" indicates a definitive event in Genesis 2:16-17.

So, in the New American Standard Bible, the word "for" means "when" without exception:

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat;
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
(Genesis 2:16-17)
​

When the Word of God says כִּ֗י (ki - Strong's Hebrew: 3588 - for, that, when) in Genesis 2:16-17, then the Word of God speaks of an event that certainly will come to pass, hence prophecy by God about the thing that Adam would do as part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world.

A person has one type of will, either a will in the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) for the born of God (John 3:3-8) unto eternal life in Christ or a will in the image of Adam for the born of flesh (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22) also Biblically called self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) unto eternal punishment.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Did God's Plan A Fail - Forcing God To Spontaneously Develop Plan B?

According to the "good Adam" teaching, God had an original plan for Adam to live forever in the paradise on earth where Adam was made, and it is just termed the Good Plan until Adam ate the fruit.

First of all, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are parallel accounts of the creation, Gen. 1 covers the whole week, Gen. 2 only focuses on Day 6 when the first man and the first woman were created in the Garden of Eden - which was NOT the whole earth! Then in Gen. 1:28, man and woman were to "fill the earth and subdue it;" in Gen. 2:24, man shall "leave his parents and join his wife". Therefore Adam was never meant to stay in the Garden with God forever. Adam was commissioned to expand Eden to the whole earth, that was the original plan! Jesus the Lamb was "slain BEFORE the foundation of the earth", that does NOT contradict the historical and biblical fact that he was crucified at about AD/CE 30, that indicates Jesus was NOT a plan B, he was in the original plan!

 

[Mr. G Lee]

First of all, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are parallel accounts of the creation, Gen. 1 covers the whole week, Gen. 2 only focuses on Day 6 when the first man and the first woman were created in the Garden of Eden - which was NOT the whole earth! Then in Gen. 1:28, man and woman were to "fill the earth and subdue it;" in Gen. 2:24, man shall "leave his parents and join his wife". Therefore Adam was never meant to stay in the Garden with God forever. Adam was commissioned to expand Eden to the whole earth, that was the original plan! Jesus the Lamb was "slain BEFORE the foundation of the earth", that does NOT contradict the historical and biblical fact that he was crucified at about AD/CE 30, that indicates Jesus was NOT a plan B, he was in the original plan!

The garden of Eden was used to represent the whole earth . From that city of pleasure the gospel went out to the four corners. North, South, East and West

Jesus our brother in the lord is signified as the lamb slain from the foundation. The six days the Father did work.

The finished work was demonstrated (three days and nights ) beginning in the garden of Gethsemane and moved on a part two the hill or cross the bloody part .Then finale the demonstration of faith (the unseen works of the Father and Son in the tomb).

The father removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone finishing the promised one time demonstration.. . of the power or faith of the lamb .

 

[Mr. G Lee]

continued from post 141



"If" Versus "When": Logic Expression Keywords

The word "if" precedes a conditional logic expression, such as:

​

if conditional_logic_expression then result_for_uncertain_conditional_logic_expression​

​

An "if" represents a dynamic logic expression; in other words, the conditional_logic_expression event might occur or not occur. An "if" is not fixed as "when" is fixed.

The word "when" precedes a unconditional logic expression, such as:

​

when unconditional_logic_expression then result_for_certain_unconditional_logic_expression​

​

A "when" represents a fixed logic expression; in other words, the unconditional_logic_expression event must occur, regardless of past, present, and/or further. A "when" is not dynamic as "if" is dynamic.

An "if" is a different thing than a "when".

Words are used for information transfer, so evil things can result when a person redefines a word.

Your analogies are entirely broken and out of context:

1. Bob is not God. Bob cannot predict with certainty that Sam will step in the bear trap, so the correct language for Bob to use is "if" not "when".
2. You are not God. You programming a robot to kill kittens is not God creating Adam under the auspices of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world.

You wrote 'Of over sixty English translations that I looked at, only six used the word "when" and only once in those six was it used alone; the rest had "because when," or "for when." The vast majority of translations used "for" or "if," not "when."' in reference to Genesis 2:16-17.

Have you ever reviewed other occurrences the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) in the Bible outside of Genesis 2:16-17? I have. The Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) means a definitive occurrence again (Genesis 1:4) and again (Genesis 3:7) and again (Genesis 4:12) and etcetera.

Neither the Hebrew word for "because" nor the Hebrew word for "if" occur in Genesis 2:16-17, so those words break information transfer. The English words "because" and "if" are illegitimately inserted into the Word of God as shown in this accurate English translation:

​

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"​

(Genesis 2:16-17)​

​

of this Hebrew original:

​

ויצו יהוה אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל​

ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות​

(Genesis 2:16-17)​

​

The word "for" is an accurate translation for the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588), but the word "when" is a superior translation, yet the word "for" wrongly dilutes the meaning of "ki"/"when" in your mind.

The word "for" in Genesis 2:16-17 conveys a certain unconditional occurrence - in the exact same way as the word "when".

The word "that" results in precisely the same situation as "for" in Genesis 2:16-17. "That" indicates a definitive event in Genesis 2:16-17.

So, in the New American Standard Bible, the word "for" means "when" without exception:

​

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat;​

but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."​

(Genesis 2:16-17)​

​

When the Word of God says כִּ֗י (ki - Strong's Hebrew: 3588 - for, that, when) in Genesis 2:16-17, then the Word of God speaks of an event that certainly will come to pass, hence prophecy by God about the thing that Adam would do as part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world.

A person has one type of will, either a will in the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) for the born of God (John 3:3-8) unto eternal life in Christ or a will in the image of Adam for the born of flesh (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22) also Biblically called self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) unto eternal punishment.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

Adam gave up doing the will of God .He did the will of the serpent who in effect said you will not die look at my beaty and live . . why believe in a God not seen?

Jesus restored the true food our daily bread .

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

What's the difference?
You pick words out instead of reading entire chapters.
Words can be translated in different ways,
Concepts CANNOT.

No one comes to the Father but through me.
No one comes to the Father except because of me.

Where's the difference?
There is none.

Exactly we cannot come to the Father unless we first are empowered to hear his voice having hear it it empowers us to do it to His good pleasure . I would call it the law of His faith as a labor of His love. Using the things seen to reveal the unseen things of God our Faithful and True Creator

The wrath of God comes when mankind worships the creature seen rather than the unseen Faithful Creator .then we know thier is no light of the gospel

Roman1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (the Son of man Jesus) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

Jesus the Son of man did the will of the father with delight others like Jonas wanted to die knowing the power of mercy and grace combined that God would give to a multitude that don't know the right hand from the left

Philippians 2:13-14 For it is God (living) which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

What kind of witness do we desire to be today ? Murmurer ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The garden of Eden was used to represent the whole earth . From that city of pleasure the gospel went out to the four corners. North, South, East and West

No it wasn't. It was only a small speck on earth, probably in today's Iraq. If it represented the whole earth and Adam was already given authority over it, why would God command Adam and Eve to fill it and subdue it? In fact it represents HEAVEN on earth, the garden was an interface between heaven and earth. After the fall, this connection was cut off until Jesus came.

 

[Mr. G Lee]

No it wasn't. It was only a small speck on earth, probably in today's Iraq. Also it represents HEAVEN on earth, the garden was an interface between heaven and earth. After the fall, this connection was cut off until Jesus came.

Hi Thanks .

I don't think he will return to a corrupted creation .

The direction of the city of pleasure Eden is Eastward "toward the sunrise" as in moving in anticipation of the second Genesis . . creating two beginning in the beginning . . .from there the 4 gospel rivers going out to the whole dark world

Eastward used 40 times in that way to represent the new heaven and earth on the way coming into sight on the last day under the Sun.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations (plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they (plural) were created, in the day (singular) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (plural)

New wine, new wine skins.. . . .the old up in smoke

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi Thanks .

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations (plural) of the heavens and of the earth when they (plural) were created, in the day (singular) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (plural)

New wine, new wine skins.. . . .the old up in smoke

That's a matter of translation. In KJV and NKJV it's HISTORY of the heavens and of the earth. Heavens and earth are not living creatures, they don't reproduce, they don't have "generations".

 

[Mr. G Lee]

That's a matter of translation. In KJV and NKJV it's HISTORY of the heavens and of the earth. Heavens and earth are not living creatures, they don't reproduce, they don't have "generations".

They supply the house in the new heavens and earth and the food they the second generation.The first looked for another. .the promise. .

 

[Tenchi]

Advocating the "good Adam" precept advocates the concept of good people converting to evil people; in other words, a GOOD Adam conquering a GOOD command of God in order to convert to an EVIL Adam.

No, the idea that Adam was morally-innocent prior to the Fall does not mean that he acted to defy the command of God "in order to convert to evil." Nowhere in the Genesis account of the Fall, or anywhere else in Scripture, is it said that Adam was motivated by a desire to become evil in his choice to eat the Forbidden Fruit.

The "good Adam" precept goes with the GOOD God being surprised by the GOOD Adam destroying the GOOD God's GOOD Plan A of the GOOD Adam living forever in God's GOOD paradise, so the GOOD God in a panic abandoned the GOOD Plan A to develop a GOOD Plan B to expel the EVIL Adam from paradise into a CURSED land with the GOOD promise of a Redeemer. The GOOD Plan A stopped being GOOD Plan A, so that means GOOD Plan A converted to EVIL plan A since the GOOD Adam caused GOOD Plan A to error out.

So, the "good Adam" precept conveys that God unwittingly created everything only to have it catastrophically crumble right in front of God. By the hand of man taken away from God. With God at the mercy of man. Unmercy perhaps being a better word.

??? None of this is at all required in thinking that Adam was "good" before the Fall. It's actually just a cartoonish Strawman. In His omniscience, God had always known that Adam, given free agency by God, would use it to defy God's will. But, being God, this knowledge did not constitute a destruction of His ultimate plans in and for Creation. God is greater than all of our choices to defy Him and able to work out His will even when our freely working out our will defies His own. In His omniscience and omnipotence, God never has to suddenly develop a new plan in order to accommodate our rebellion, but has always known what to do to accomplish His will in a world of people freely choosing their own way over His. This is just how amazing and awesome God is.

It is the person with a very...small view of God who thinks that if He doesn't ordain every single thing, He simply can't accomplish what He wants to accomplish. The bigger - and better - view of God, the biblical truth about Him, is that He can do what He wants to do even when we are doing what we want to do contrary to His will.

The "good Adam" precept has a good man doing the action of an evil man, so that is not a good man.

??? If a fit, trim man sits down at a restaurant and eats an entire, loaded pizza, has he revealed that, all along, he has really been a fat, unfit man? Obviously not.

In conclusion, the supporters of the "good Adam" precept advocate for good people converting to evil people which is absent from the entirety of the scripture; on the other hand, the Word of God is replete with God converting evil people into good people in Christ.

??? Read 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. Born-again, spiritually-regenerated, "new creatures in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17) were living carnally, as immature babes in Christ. How, if they were in Christ and "all things had become new" were they living as though they weren't in him and had been "made new"? You seem to be saying above that such a state-of-affairs is impossible. Paul indicates in his various letters very clearly that you're wrong. People who have been fully justified and sanctified in and by Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2, 30), can live in a way completely contrary to who they actually are.

Kermos, you are not making your case, but are just continuing to show that you need some training in reasoning and logic and proper handling of God's word.

 

[Tenchi]

Words are used for information transfer, so evil things can result when a person redefines a word.

Yes, you've demonstrated this repeatedly in your posts.

An "if" represents a dynamic logic expression; in other words, the conditional_logic_expression event might occur or not occur. An "if" is not fixed as "when" is fixed.

As I've already demonstrated to you, "when" is not necessarily a term referring to a predetermined condition in the prophetic or theologically-deterministic sense. When I turn on the stove element and put my hand upon it when the element is red-hot, I will burn myself. This statement indicates mere cause and effect, a condition of reality under which, if nothing intervenes to mitigate or negate the condition, it is certain that I will burn my hand. But this is not a statement of prophecy like what is offered to us many times in John's Revelation. What John wrote MUST come to pass inasmuch as God has ordained that it will. But there is no divine, prophetic compulsion moving me to put my hand on a red-hot element. I WILL burn my hand only if I'm fool enough to choose to put it on a red-hot element. There is no divine, prophetic MUST in this statement, however. So, too, in Genesis 2:17, as I've already explained in an earlier post.

Your analogies are entirely broken and out of context:

1. Bob is not God. Bob cannot predict with certainty that Sam will step in the bear trap, so the correct language for Bob to use is "if" not "when".
2. You are not God. You programming a robot to kill kittens is not God creating Adam under the auspices of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world.

See, Kermos? This is all assertion without supporting argument.

I've never said Bob is God, predicting future events with divine certainty. It is Begging the Question to declare that Bob should use "if" rather than "when" in his statements to Sam about the bear trap. He is not constrained by the terms themselves to do so, as I've shown. Only your peculiar constraints upon the terms would require such a thing.

You wrote 'Of over sixty English translations that I looked at, only six used the word "when" and only once in those six was it used alone; the rest had "because when," or "for when." The vast majority of translations used "for" or "if," not "when."' in reference to Genesis 2:16-17.

Have you ever reviewed other occurrences the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) in the Bible outside of Genesis 2:16-17? I have. The Hebrew word כִּ֗י (ki) (Strong's Hebrew: 3588) means a definitive occurrence again (Genesis 1:4) and again (Genesis 3:7) and again (Genesis 4:12) and etcetera.

This is called a "red herring." You might want to look up what this is.

 

[Kermos]

Is there free will without choice?
Before the fall didn't Adam use free will to name the animals.

There is no such thing as free-will according to Scripture, so your question is non-sequitor.

Actions are described in the creation account for Adam, and there is no mention of choices. Let’s look at the passage you mention.

Of Adam naming the beasts and birds, it is written “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:19-20).

It is NOT written “and God placed one of the four footed creatures in front of Adam and God asked ‘what name do you choose for this creature cat dog or deer?'”.

As the recorded word in Genesis 2:19-20 indicate, Adam gave names to the creatures; in other words, Adam assigned names to the creatures.

The Hebrew word בָּחר ("choose" in English) is NOT in the word recorded in Genesis 2:19-20, so the only way you can achieve Adam "choosing" names for the animals is for you to add בָּחר (choose in English) into the word.

“Assigned” is conveyed in Genesis 2:19-20; on the contrary, “choose” is absent in Genesis 2:19-20.

See that action is expressed with “whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name” (Genesis 2:19).

Adam naming the beasts and birds does not indicate ability for Adam to choose God unto eternal life.

In Genesis 2:19-20, God demonstrates God's creative excellence by placing Adam on highly visible display such that God illumines that Adam was very intelligent by God's making.

No scripture states Adam had a freewill; therefore, Adam did not use free-will to name the animals.

Some people think, that like Adam illegally took of the tree (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 3:6), they can illegally take of that which is Holy (with their "I chose Jesus") through their own innate power instead of the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) causing themselves to be rewarded with being born of God (John 3:3-8) resulting in God's righteous induction of the person as a citizen in the Kingdom of God (John 15:15).

A person has one type of will, either a will in the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) for the born of God (John 3:3-8) unto eternal life in Christ or a will in the image of Adam for the born of flesh (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22) also Biblically called self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) unto eternal punishment.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

They supply the house in the new heavens and earth and the food they the second generation.The first looked for another. .the promise. .

Aren't we talking about the beginning of Creation? Why do you jump to New Jerusalem in the end?

 

[Corinth77777]

There is no such thing as free-will according to Scripture, so your question is non-sequitor.

Actions are described in the creation account for Adam, and there is no mention of choices. Let’s look at the passage you mention.

Of Adam naming the beasts and birds, it is written “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:19-20).

It is NOT written “and God placed one of the four footed creatures in front of Adam and God asked ‘what name do you choose for this creature cat dog or deer?'”.

As the recorded word in Genesis 2:19-20 indicate, Adam gave names to the creatures; in other words, Adam assigned names to the creatures.

The Hebrew word בָּחר ("choose" in English) is NOT in the word recorded in Genesis 2:19-20, so the only way you can achieve Adam "choosing" names for the animals is for you to add בָּחר (choose in English) into the word.

“Assigned” is conveyed in Genesis 2:19-20; on the contrary, “choose” is absent in Genesis 2:19-20.

See that action is expressed with “whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name” (Genesis 2:19).

Adam naming the beasts and birds does not indicate ability for Adam to choose God unto eternal life.

In Genesis 2:19-20, God demonstrates God's creative excellence by placing Adam on highly visible display such that God illumines that Adam was very intelligent by God's making.

No scripture states Adam had a freewill; therefore, Adam did not use free-will to name the animals.

Some people think, that like Adam illegally took of the tree (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 3:6), they can illegally take of that which is Holy (with their "I chose Jesus") through their own innate power instead of the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24) causing themselves to be rewarded with being born of God (John 3:3-8) resulting in God's righteous induction of the person as a citizen in the Kingdom of God (John 15:15).

A person has one type of will, either a will in the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) for the born of God (John 3:3-8) unto eternal life in Christ or a will in the image of Adam for the born of flesh (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22) also Biblically called self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) unto eternal punishment.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

Adam also could choose to eat off any tree

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Aren't we talking about the beginning of Creation? Why do you jump to New Jerusalem in the end?

It's when the new heavens and earth (not a reconditioned ) the second generation appears the old up in smoke. the last day under the Sun in a twinkling of the eye virtue restored

 

[Mr. G Lee]

Adam also could choose to eat off any tree

Yes in the end of the matter we know that Adam was used as the prophet as the head of the two . when the devil whispered in her ear adding to the word of God a violation he added "and neither shall you touch" or you will die false prophetcy) , deceiving Atam added by that which was added both to fell for the lie Adam as head used to represent Christ failing to protect her when she touched Adam ate using the bride as the scapegoat destroying virtue two walking as one . The Son of man, Jesus restored virtue he did defend the bride

Genesis the beginning of false prophets as false apostles Abel the second born to represent all born again of God the first true apostle sent with prophecy, first martyr, that witnessed he as born again from above.

 

[Tenchi]

Jeremiah 19:4-5 (ESV)
4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents,
5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind—

 

[Kermos]

Hi hope I am not going to break a rule or upset anyone by posting this, it's a bit overwhelming seeing how much effort it takes to prove something using the scriptures as evidence......I just assumed he had free will, how can he be held responsible if he didn't?

Hello eframe and Tenchi (thumbs upped eframe's post),

That assumption is based upon the precepts of men as opposed to the Word of God.

The Word of God is the foundation of the Christian, so, of course, we Christians know that the Truth (John 14:6) is revealed in Scripture.

Your concluding question is addressed in the following.

Here is the Word of God issuing commandment (not asking) with prophecy to Adam:

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"
(Genesis 2:16-17).
​

Here is the Word of God pronouncing judgment to Adam after he ate:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return
(Genesis 3:17-19).
​

The word "because" inherently indicates cause in (Genesis 3:17), and the word "because" is the first word that God said to Adam in Genesis 3:17-19.

God declares the cause as being that Adam listened to the voice of his wife, so the cause is not free-will according to the Word of God.

Here is the Word of God declaring who is responsible for who's sin:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself
(Ezekiel 18:20)
​

There is a complete absence of free-will choosing by Adam in Scripture.

Do you hear the Word of God?

A person has one type of will, either a will in the image of Christ (Romans 8:29) for the born of God (John 3:3-8) unto eternal life in Christ or a will in the image of Adam for the born of flesh (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22) also Biblically called self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) unto eternal punishment.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's when the new heavens and earth (not a reconditioned ) the second generation appears the old up in smoke. the last day under the Sun in a twinkling of the eye virtue restored

In the context of creation in Gen 1-2 it's still history, though.