If Adam had not sinned.

[Katzpur]

i think this story was a way to explain why it is we are embarrassed to show our nakedness...

the reason for silly questions is because its a story that has many many holes in it...

being sexually aware shouldn't be something to be ashamed of...imo.
it is a natural process...

I don't think you understood what I said. At least you didn't restate it as I said it. But it really doesn't matter. You would have had issues with whatever I said. It would just be different issues.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think you understood what I said. At least you didn't restate it as I said it. But it really doesn't matter. You would have had issues with whatever I said. It would just be different issues.

you are right
i would probably have had issues with anything that says something to the affect of;
it was all in god's plan ....

 

[jonadab]

Ah, the illusion of free will. At the risk being ignored for asking the question, just what is will, and what is it free of? ​

All irrelevant. ​

When you said

"It was not Gods original purpose for man someday to die. He warned Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree of Knowledge."
​

It implies that god was ignorant of what lay ahead: A&E disobedience. And as an omniscient creature--I do assume you believe god is omniscient*---he would have surely known what was about to happen with the two.

The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.
To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God’s exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.—Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.
Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: “What are you doing?” (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “everything that he delighted to do he has done.”—Ps 115:3.​

 

[jonadab]

I don't believe they would have done. I believe that they would have remained in ignorance and innocence (i.e. childlike) in the Garden of Eden forever, never experiencing sickness, pain, discouragment or anything we would see as negative. Consequently, they would have never been able to learn to choose between good and evil, and would never have had the opportunity to grow and progress. Since they did not become fully mortal until after they ate the fruit, they could neither reproduce nor die. (As my answer probably implies, Mormons hold Adam and Eve in pretty high regard.)

How do you explain Genesis 1:28 ?

 

[jonadab]

I saw that, but I added what I did because Mormons believe that it would have been impossible to keep the commandment of "being fruitful and multiplying" until after they had broken the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Before being cast out of the Garden of Eden, they didn't even know they were naked. We see that as an indication that in terms of their sexual desire, they were pretty much like children. They may have physically had all of the "parts" necessary to reproduce, but in Eden, their sexual desires simply didn't exist. They were made mortal when they were made to leave the Garden, and with mortality comes the ability to procreate and the guarantee of death at some point. I think most Christians think we'd all be living blissfully in Eden today if they'd never eaten the fruit. We LDS don't believe that.

Sorry! Just found your post in answer to my last question.
What is the scriptual basis for this idea?

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry! Just found your post in answer to my last question.
What is the scriptual basis for this idea?

You may not have noticed, but I'm LDS. I believe in scripture outside of the Bible. What I explained is taught in the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible doesn't really make it clear one way or the other.

 

[Thief]

The tree of knowledge is as real as Tarzan, in the context of their stories.
In the same way that Tarzan exists, so does the tree of knowledge.
If they indeed exist, then they are not simply metaphors.

You're flip flopping....draw a line.

 

[waitasec]

if there was a tree of life....why did it die?
or where is it? can you kill off the tree of life?
anyway....

 

[Skwim]

The argument that God’s not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits.

But it does, which is why we have the term. . . .

Perfect:

Complete; thorough; utter.
Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area;
Being without defect or blemish:
​

Things which are not quite complete; thorough; utter, etc. we commonly call "near perfect," or such.

Ultimately, God’s own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.—De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.

And this is why your Bible, which I assume you consider to be at least inspired by god and to carry his imprimatur, describes his knowledge as perfect and complete.

Matthew 5:48
.... even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Job 37:16
Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

1 John 3:19-20
By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him;
for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Isaiah 46:9
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.

Psalm 139:4
Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
​

To illustrate this, God’s almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases.

So what? If his knowlege is perfect: he knows every thing, which is what the word "omniscient" means, then the deed is already done. If you know your alphabet can you unknow it? Of course not. And while we may forget things, that T follows S, I'm sure you don't consider god to be a forgetful being. And as I made clear, the word "omniscient" means having total knowledge; knowing everything.

Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God’s executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions.

Well that's the believer's problem isn't it now. Either god is omniscient or he isn't. Take your pick. Most Christians say he is:

And to refresh your memory.

___________________________________________________
om·nis·cient (

m-n

sh

nt)adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n. 1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.
__________________________________________________________


​

God is Omniscient
Definition:
The attribute of God by which God perfectly and eternally knows all things which can be known, past, present, and future.
source

What does it mean that God is omniscient?
Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts,
source

God is Omniscient
We can understand God's perfect knowledge of past, present and future in much the same light: he invented it. He knows it perfectly because it's his plan
source
​

So, as I see it you've got a problem, one that isn't going to be resolved by denying that god knows what the future holds. He knew that A&E would take a bite of the apple and he knew that he would be saddling them death.

 

[Koldo]

You're flip flopping....draw a line.

Excuse me, what do you mean?

 

[Thief]

Excuse me, what do you mean?

I was asking if you believe the tree of knowledge to have been physically real?
You seem to respond...yes.

Then when questioned again you say it is as real as Tarzan in context of a fictional story.

Now I must as again.....
Do you believe in a tree that can impart knowledge as the fruit is consumed?

 

[Koldo]

I was asking if you believe the tree of knowledge to have been physically real?
You seem to respond...yes.

Then when questioned again you say it is as real as Tarzan in context of a fictional story.

Now I must as again.....
Do you believe in a tree that can impart knowledge as the fruit is consumed?

Let me put it this way: If I assume , for the sake of a debate or discussion, that the facts depicted in Genesis are true, then the Tree of Knowledge is real.

However, if you are asking me about my personal belief then i would say that nothing about Genesis is real. It is all fiction.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do you believe in a tree that can impart knowledge as the fruit is consumed?

In Eden the two real trees were for symbolic purposes.

Failure to respect God's law against touching the tree of Knowledge of good and bad would bring about man's downfall into human imperfection of no longer having a healthy sound mind, heart and body.

The tree being out of bounds for humans is a symbol of God's right to determine what is good or bad for humans. God sets or determines the best standards for us to live by. Meaning 'good' is approved by God 'bad' condemned by God.

By God saying don't touch was as if God put up his no trespassing sign on it.
Disobedience violated God's boundary in that prohibited area, and by eating the forbidden fruit Adam was then taking the law into his own hands, and Adam set up people rule as being superior to God's rule or way of governing mankind.

So knowledge of good or bad meant Adam set up to choose now for himself what he thought was good or he thought was wrong ignoring God's sovereignty.

 

[jonadab]

So, as I see it you've got a problem, one that isn't going to be resolved by denying that god knows what the future holds. He knew that A&E would take a bite of the apple and he knew that he would be saddling them death.

The Scriptures reveal that there are situations in which God chooses not to foreknow the outcome. Just before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he declared: “I am quite determined to go down that I may see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” (Genesis 18:21) This text clearly shows us that God did not foreknow the extent of the depravity in those cities before his angels investigated matters.

True, God can foresee certain events, but in many cases, he has chosen not to use his foreknowledge. Because God is almighty, he is free to exercise his abilities as he wishes, not according to the wishes of humans.

 

[Thief]

So...having come this far....back to the first post.

Having partaken...having acquired the knowledge of good and evil...

The acquisition was sinful?
And we also knowing...are sinners by default?

If Adam has not gained heaven.....will you?

 

[gnostic]

According to the few references of Sheol in the Hebrew Tanakh, it is the afterlife for everyone.

Sheol is like the Greek Hades, the abode of the dead (hence a Netherworld or Underworld), where everyone go. It is not heaven, which is the abode of God and angels.

In Greek religion and myth, the Underworld, or Hades, was not hell, but there was a region in Hades, in which was called Tartarus; a place where only the worse were kept there and punished (like Tantalus, Sisyphus) and where the Titans were imprisoned. Most people go to the Field of Asphodel, but a very special few went to Elysian Field. The Elysian Field is not heaven too.

So to answer your question, Protoman. Adam most likely went to the Abode of the Dead (Sheol), like everyone else including other prophets (with the possible exceptions of Enoch and Elijah).

 

[Katzpur]

Adam most likely went to the Abode of the Dead (Sheol), like everyone else including other prophets (with the possible exceptions of Enoch and Elijah).

Correct.

 

[Skwim]

The Scriptures reveal that there are situations in which God chooses not to foreknow the outcome.

If god did not know "whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it" then he's not omniscient. God is not said to be capable of omniscience, but actually omniscient. There is no choosing not to know, which would have been the case if 18:21 is correct, because then the term "omniscient" would not be applicable. So again you have a choice:

1) God is omniscient, and the situation as related in Genesis 18:21 is misleading, OR . . .

2) The situation is correct and god did have to go down to see what was up, which means he's not omniscient.
​

Take your pick.

 

[waitasec]

Now I must as again.....
Do you believe in a tree that can impart knowledge as the fruit is consumed?

i don't think this allegory suggest that.
i believe the act of instigating ones free will (whatever that is) opened the door to another dimension...but even that leaves room for debate; did god ever intend for humans to have free will (whatever that is) but wanted trained obedient humans instead...

 

[TashaN]

If Adam had not sinned, would he eventually have gone to heaven?

He WAS in Heaven. I think we had to go down to earth anyway.