Why couldn't God forgive Adam?
-
Of course telling the truth is not a sin, that's an obvious strawman arguement.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Genesis 3
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
Is telling the truth a sin ?
They had come out straight with watever they had done isn't it ? Where is the element of shifting the blame ?
Notice that God did not ask why Adam had eaten the fruit. The question was whether he had indeed eaten from the tree.
And how did Adam respond?
He gave the reason first before admitting that he did.
Notice the order of his answer.
This is the element of shifting the blame.
Perhaps this also shows that there was a sense of guilt in Adam.
For a more practical understanding of this, we can always recall from our experiences in army where some smart alec would be reprimanded by the superior officer because he avoided the question when tasked to give just a yes or no answer.
Or the case of the attorney in court who would exhort the person to answer again the question with just a yes or no after trying to divert from the actual question.
Of course, this is my understanding of the text and I don't expect you to agree with it.
But I would think the onus is on you instead to prove otherwise. -
Notice that God did not ask why Adam had eaten the fruit. The question was whether he had indeed eaten from the tree.
Com'on, he admitted he ate the fruit within the same sentence. Gramatically, the order of the wording doesn't means tat he is shifting the blame.
And how did Adam respond?
He gave the reason first before admitting that he did.
Notice the order of his answer.
This is the element of shifting the blame.
Perhaps this also shows that there was a sense of guilt in Adam.
"I ate the fruit because eve gave to me" have the same meaning and emphasis as "Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it".For a more practical understanding of this, we can always recall from our experiences in army where some smart alec would be reprimanded by the superior officer because he avoided the question when tasked to give just a yes or no answer.
However adam did give a "yes" and clear answer tat he did indeed eat the fruit. He did not avoid the question at all or deny eating the fruit. It is really a simple answer and u interprete more than the words had stated.
Or the case of the attorney in court who would exhort the person to answer again the question with just a yes or no after trying to divert from the actual question.Of course, this is my understanding of the text and I don't expect you to agree with it.
I think the onus is on u since u claim to "interprete" more than the text had said literally. The literal understanding is adam say eve gave her to fruit and he ate it. I interprete it as such. U interprete much more than the words had stated claiming adam is shifting the responsibility and wasn't remorseful and trying to reason himself out when there is nothing in the words tat suggested as such.
But I would think the onus is on you instead to prove otherwise. -
Is this what was being recorded as his answer?Originally posted by stupidissmart:"I ate the fruit because eve gave to me" have the same meaning and emphasis as "Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it".
not really, right,
the answer recorded is like this.
"The woman you gave me, she gave me the fruit and I ate it"
here is my interpretation (you need not accept it)
The woman You gave me (God, its Your Fault, You gave me this woman), she (Not my fault, she gave it to me), and I ate it (I only open my mouth, chew and swallow)...
and since then, it had become a nature of human to put the blame on the whole whole but never himself (some term this as "self preservation" or "survial instinct"). -
here is my interpretation (you need not accept it)
Tat is really your own interpretation
The woman You gave me (God, its Your Fault, You gave me this woman), she (Not my fault, she gave it to me), and I ate it (I only open my mouth, chew and swallow)... the woman u gave me (literally eve), she gave me the fruit ( literally gave adam the fruit) and I ate it ( and adam ate it). It still means "Eve gave adam the fruit and he ate it" The way he say it is probably wat people who r lost would say.
(god is your fault) is really wat u add it in. Did adam blame god for saying the woman u gave me ? (Not my fault, she gave it to me) when he just say "she gave it to me". Did adam shift blame when he say eve gave it to her ? (I only open my mouth, chew and swallow) Again u add in the word "only" when he say simply he ate it. -
Like I said, you need not accept my interpretation... cause what we are doing here are just putting our individual opinion forward.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is really your own interpretation the woman u gave me (literally eve), she gave me the fruit ( literally gave adam the fruit) and I ate it ( and adam ate it). It still means "Eve gave adam the fruit and he ate it" 
-
I agree that whether or not Adam is remorseful or not is a point of contention and may not be proved exegetically.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think the onus is on u since u claim to "interprete" more than the text had said literally. The literal understanding is adam say eve gave her to fruit and he ate it. I interprete it as such. U interprete much more than the words had stated claiming adam is shifting the responsibility and wasn't remorseful and trying to reason himself out when there is nothing in the words tat suggested as such.
But given the circumstances of the situation when the Lord of all creations is before you and asking directly a question, to answer otherwise (adding to the answer by refering to eve) and not in the least offer an apology would constitute (at least to me) a sign of unrepentance.
Of couse like I said you do not have to agree with my hermeunetics and thus I think we can agree to disagree.
But do keep in mind there's a danger of only leaning on a literal interpretation of the Word.
We only have to look at the case of the pharisees to understand that. -
But do keep in mind there's a danger of only leaning on a literal interpretation of the Word.
I think it is a bigger risk is to add in your own words and interpretations to an otherwise normal statement. U can twist the whole scripture watever u want it to be and start your own religion if u add in your words to the bible.
We only have to look in the case of the pharisees to understand that. -
I do agree with you on the danger of this, just that sometimes, like in a conversation, we just wanted to emphasis on some aspect of things, put put forward a personal point of view, hence its prudent to indicate up front that its a personal view/interpretation that we are talking about.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think it is a bigger risk is to add in your own words and interpretations to an otherwise normal statement. U can twist the whole scripture watever u want it to be and start your own religion if u add in your words to the bible. -
Agreed.Originally posted by vince69:I do agree with you on the danger of this, just that sometimes, like in a conversation, we just wanted to emphasis on some aspect of things, put put forward a personal point of view, hence its prudent to indicate up front that its a personal view/interpretation that we are talking about.
That's why its imperative that a Christian understands the basics of interpretating scripture.
To lean unevenly towards either side would result in eisogesis -
The element of blame shifting occurred in the context that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree. At that point of the context, it is already a shared (being husband and wife) and individual (as created being of God) responsibility and demonstration of free will that they should not eat from that tree. If you do not want to do it, who can force you ? Moreover, when Eve stretch her hand to take the fruit....Adam is with her. (Genesis 3:6)Originally posted by stupidissmart:Genesis 3
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
Is telling the truth a sin ? They had come out straight with watever they had done isn't it ? Where is the element of shifting the blame ?
i think God is more interested that Adam and Eve admit in their own capacity that they committed a sin vis-a-vis His commandments. Well, perhaps you have your own way of thinking, but to me, a person who committed a crime and who is courageous enough to take responsibility that it is an act of his own free will, will admit it up front firstly in his own capacity - "Yes, i did it." Does this person need to give a "grandmother" story if nobody ask him or her "How"....?
Well, you could probably be right...but to me, Adam and Eve seems to have the intention to "downplay" their own wrong doings. God is God. Afterall, His perfect moral nature sees sin as sin. And well, interpretation of the Bible is not always literal - esle Jesus's parables would certainly have you turning by your nose. Intepreting the Bible has got to do more with those who seek after God's own heart and knowing the context of which a verse is given - which sometimes mean, you have to read the whole book or the whole Bible before the understanding begins. -
I have yet another question: This has to do with the forbidden fruit. I understand that God wanted to give free will to both Adam and Eve and that's why he planted the Tree of Knowledge. But contrary to what most people think, the problem is not whether he chose to give Adam free will but whether he had KNOWN that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit.
If God had KNOWN, it means Adam did not have free will as he was already destined to eat the fruit. So who controls destiny? Due to his omnipotence, it must be God. But if he did not control Adam's destiny and had KNOWN beforehand, then there must be something above the power of God that controls destiny in order to let him know the future events.
In contrast, if God had really not known beforehand that Adam was going to eat the fruit, then God is probably not as powerful as we have thought. The only conclusion that I can draw is that omnipotence and free will simply cannot exist on the same plane. So, what's your take on this issue? -
Quite good.
The two camp of thoughts hasn't appear yet. Good sign.
-
The element of blame shifting occurred in the context that God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree. At that point of the context, it is already a shared (being husband and wife) and individual (as created being of God) responsibility and demonstration of free will that they should not eat from that tree. If you do not want to do it, who can force you ? Moreover, when Eve stretch her hand to take the fruit....Adam is with her. (Genesis 3:6)
Is there any shifting of blame when adam and eve take the fruit ? WHen asked adam admitted he take the fruit.i think God is more interested that Adam and Eve admit in their own capacity that they committed a sin vis-a-vis His commandments. Well, perhaps you have your own way of thinking, but to me, a person who committed a crime and who is courageous enough to take responsibility that it is an act of his own free will, will admit it up front firstly in his own capacity - "Yes, i did it." Does this person need to give a "grandmother" story if nobody ask him or her "How"....?
Grandmother story ? u mean half a sentence can form a grandmother story ? He like to say his point in a slightly longer sentence and u blame him and come out with all manner of conclusions for tat ? He admit he ate the fruit in a sentence and u say he had say a grandmother story. U want him to say it in less than one sentence ?Well, you could probably be right...but to me, Adam and Eve seems to have the intention to "downplay" their own wrong doings. God is God. Afterall, His perfect moral nature sees sin as sin. And well, interpretation of the Bible is not always literal - esle Jesus's parables would certainly have you turning by your nose. Intepreting the Bible has got to do more with those who seek after God's own heart and knowing the context of which a verse is given - which sometimes mean, you have to read the whole book or the whole Bible before the understanding begins.
I have never say tat u interprete the parable literally. If u read the bible literally u knew tat it was a metaphor. And the story of adam and eve r not parables. If u do not read it literally for tis sentence, how do u read the sentence ? With added words ? Furthermore, there is really no ground for one to say another did not finished reading the bible. I say I have read the bible. Do u doubt me ? -
You choose one camp and I choose the other.Originally posted by M©+square:Quite good.
The two camp of thoughts hasn't appear yet. Good sign. 
-
Doh wan lah.Originally posted by Icemoon:You choose one camp and I choose the other.
Asking for trouble ah.
Peace is good.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)
Woohoo!!!! -
Where are the Christians?
-
You want also cannot.Originally posted by M©+square:Doh wan lah.
Asking for trouble ah.
Peace is good.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)
Woohoo!!!!
'cos I dunno what are the two camps. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:You want also cannot.
'cos I dunno what are the two camps. -
Actually beside this question, i wanna know why God dont allow Adam to take the Fruit of Immortality
And would Adam have died if he didnt take the Fruit and kena banished from Eden... -
Adam was already an immortal.Originally posted by laurence82:Actually beside this question, i wanna know why God dont allow Adam to take the Fruit of Immortality
And would Adam have died if he didnt take the Fruit and kena banished from Eden... -
i think u should rephrase ur qtnOriginally posted by Carburettor2:Why couldn't God forgive Adam when it was the serpent who tricked both Eve and Adam into eating from the Tree of Knowledge? I know of people who have a stronger sense of forgiveness than God. So is God worse than a mortal?
why couldn't God forgive u,
then u can think about Adam -
Originally posted by faithful967:i think u should rephrase ur qtn
why couldn't God forgive u,
then u can think about Adam
This is a weird qns.
It made it seem like God is hands tied. -
Hmm... interesting thought you have there, could He be tied by His own character and nature, ie; Righteous and Just?Originally posted by M©+square:
This is a weird qns.
It made it seem like God is hands tied.
*... if can anyhow forgive without proper penatly, then justice cannot be accounted for, right? -
It is known that if you repent sincerely and convert you will get redemption and be forgiven.Originally posted by vince69:Hmm... interesting thought you have there, could He be tied by His own character and nature, ie; Righteous and Just?
*... if can anyhow forgive without proper penatly, then justice cannot be accounted for, right?
So if Adam have truly repented, ALTHOUGH HE WAS WRONG FIRSTLY, BUT HE ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS, then why did God Not forgive him? and penalise him? -
He where got ask for forgiveness?Originally posted by nightzip:It is known that if you repent sincerely and convert you will get redemption and be forgiven.
So if Adam have truly repented, ALTHOUGH HE WAS WRONG FIRSTLY, BUT HE ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS, then why did God Not forgive him? and penalise him?