Why didnt God take away the choice without violating freewill

[Whatever]

Adam added "in the middle of the garden" and "don't touch it"

so blank state or not, that shows his emotional immaturity, he was acting like a child.

Adam didn't add anything. It was Eve who added things:
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;
Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' "

Genesis 2:9 tells us that both trees were in the "midst" of the garden
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam wasn't acting like a child. He was acting like a sinner.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Adam didn't add anything. It was Eve who added things:

God didn’t give Eve that order, He gave it to Adam. The only reasonable possibility is that Adam added things.

Adam wasn't acting like a child. He was acting like a sinner.

He was acting like a child as he couldn’t take responsibility and he couldn’t own his mistakes.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Adam wasn't acting like a child. He was acting like a sinner.

More like both.

 

[KV-44-v1]

I would reply that whatever glorifies God is good.

Does it glorify God to punish sin? Yes/no
If yes, then sinning a lot is good??!
Sin is not good, no. - God being glorified is good. But sin is bad.

New King James
Act 4:26 THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.' 27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

The greatest evil ever committed was determined beforehand to be done. It brought about the salvation of a multitude of people.

People wouldn't need to be saved if humans didn't rebel in the 1st place.

 

[Free]

Do not put words in my mouth, I said what I said. You're as despicable as the talking heads on the lamestream media who habitually do so to frame a false narrative. I don't wanna have any beef with you, so drop it and stop picking up on me.

It seems you actually didn’t understand my post, as I put no words in your mouth at all. You made a truth claim that has no biblical support, so it’s only your opinion and should be stated as such, which is what my post stated. Teaching something as though it were true when it isn’t is dishonest.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Do not put words in my mouth, I said what I said. You're as despicable as the talking heads on the lamestream media who habitually do so to frame a false narrative. I don't wanna have any beef with you, so drop it and stop picking up on me.

He said "what you SHOULD have said" not "what you DID say".
Who is the real word putter?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Evil is not of its own entity, but the ABSENCE of good. Satan is not the counterpart of God, but the oppoent, adversary, enemy of God, that's what "Satan" means in Hebrew, his daison d'etat is negation of God, he's only a friction against God's motion, that's the nature of evil.

Then why does evil infect stuff? Why does the human heart tend towards sin? A lack of something does not have this M.O.
Why are the sinners called "goats" in the Bible instead of "non-sheep" or whatever? Why are they called tares, and not "non wheat"? Clearly sin is an aggressive force that attacks.

It's not some mere "lack". If it were, it'd be easier to stop the highly influential spread of sin.

Why does "lack" cause people to attack Christians instead of just leave them alone? Privation theory doesn't seem solid!

 

[Free]

The "knowledge" from the tree of knowledge is the knowledge of good and evil, that's the connection. My claim is that Christians of all people are expected to know the difference between good and evil. If you disagree, show me any evidence that suggests we should rather be ignorant by not knowing good and evil.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Your claim was: “It wasn't God's purpose for them to sin, but it was His purpose for them to eat the Tree of Knowledge - when they were READY.” You also said Isa 5:20 is your evidence, but you still have not shown how it can support your claim.

Where is your biblical support for that claim?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why does "lack" cause people to attack Christians instead of just leave them alone? Privation theory doesn't seem solid!

They hate Christians because their evil deeds were exposed, Jn. 3:20.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Who is the real word putter?

Who's the real nosy busybody?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Who's the real nosy busybody?

I didnt say anyone was. You are the first one who said that.

 

[KV-44-v1]

They hate Christians because their evil deeds were exposed, Jn. 3:20.

If there was a "lack" there would be no need to try and hide anything.
If there was a "lack" they would more likely try to run away and go sin somewhere else.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Where is your biblical support for that claim?

What is your biblical counter claim, sir? I've asked you repeatedly, are we expected to know good and evil at all? If no, why is it a woe not knowing good and evil? If yes, then how are we supposed to know it apart from the tree of knowledge? Answer the question or stop inquisiting me with an accusatory tone.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I didnt say anyone was. You are the first one who said that.

I was not responding to you.

If there was a "lack" there would be no need to try and hide anything.
If there was a "lack" they would more likely try to run away and go sin somewhere else.

Yes there was a need. Nakedness was not a separate entity, it was just absence of clothing, what was Adam and Eve's need to try and hide themselves from the sight of God?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nakedness was not a separate entity, it was just absence of clothing, what was Adam and Eve's need to try and hide themselves from the sight of God?

Nakedness and morality are totally different things. Seeing nakedness was merely a FRUIT of their sin.

Btw, how can moral evil bear fruit if it is a lack? Fruit is a ""positive"" thing, it's the presence of fruit not an abscene of something.

Matthew 7:17

Hiding is a proactive action.

Yes there was a need.

What was the need?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

What was the need?

The need to sew fig leaves and hide from God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Nakedness and morality are totally different things. Seeing nakedness was merely a FRUIT of their sin.

Btw, how can moral evil bear fruit if it is a lack? Fruit is a ""positive"" thing, it's the presence of fruit not an abscene of something.

Or maybe, the fruit of their open eyes, according to what the bible really says with no mention of "morality"? Are you calling eye opening a sin? If that's a sin, then is it a sin for Jesus to open the eyes of the blind (Jn. 9:7)? Is it a sin to open the eyes of the disciples (Lk. 24:31)? Is it a sin for Paul to regain his sight and see (Acts 9:18)? Is it a sin to sing Amazing Grace - "(I) was blind but now I see"?

 

[KV-44-v1]

The need to sew fig leaves and hide from God.

Why/How would a lack of something crate a need for covering?

Or maybe, the fruit of their open eyes, according to what the bible really says with no mention of "morality"?

They realized they were unclothed because of eating fruit of the knowledge of good n evil tree. Eating it was the sin.

Are you calling that a sin? If that's a sin, then is it a sin for Jesus to open the eyes of the blind (Jn. 9:7)? Is it a sin to open the eyes of the disciples (Lk. 24:31)? Is it a sin for Paul to regain his sight and see (Acts 9:18)? Is it a sin to sing Amazing Grace - "(I) was blind but now I see"?

That is physical blindness. God did not issue any commands against healing. He did issue a command against eating forbidden fruit. Also, literal physical blindness is a result of the fall.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Why/How would a lack of something crate a need for covering?

Because that "something" IS covering. covering of their nakedness. God later killed an innocent animal to cover them, that seems pretty much to have substantiated such a "need". If there were no such "need", why didn't God just kick them out butt naked?

They realized they were unclothed because of eating fruit of the knowledge of good n evil tree. Eating it was the sin.

No, disobedience was. That was the original sin. That tree was not a tree of evil, they didn't ate fruit of sin, the fruit is the fruit of the knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL, not just evil.

That is physical blindness. God did not issue any commands against healing. He did issue a command against eating forbidden fruit. Also, literal physical blindness is a result of the fall.

Well that's funny, you didn't specify what kind of "blindness" you're talking about. Also, if "literal physical blindness is a result of the fall", then whose "fall" it is? The sinner's? The sinner's parents'? All the way up to Adam and Eve? Or how about "NEITHER ... but that the works of God should be revealed in him"? Says not I, but Lord Jesus, Jn. 9:3.

 

[Free]

What is your biblical counter claim, sir?

You don't seem to understand that there is nothing to counter. You made a claim and provided no support.

I've asked you repeatedly, are we expected to know good and evil at all? If no, why is it a woe not knowing good and evil? If yes, then how are we supposed to know it apart from the tree of knowledge?

Of course we are, this side of the Fall. But your claim has nothing to do with this side of the Fall. You are fallaciously begging the question.

Answer the question or stop inquisiting me with an accusatory tone.

I'm merely pointing out that your claim has not been supported, which is necessary for any truth claim.