Why Adam's Sin Became the Downfall for Us All

[james bond]

Clearly humans weren't without God since God regularly communicated with and spoke to people even after the Fall and he intervened at times in the world so God was still there.

Yes, he communicated with selected people on Earth after the fall, but can you quote your source that he was physically present on Earth?

Is he described as he was when he was in the garden with Adam and Eve? If God the Father despised sin, then why not just return to heaven?

 

[sooda]

Shoebill Stork

It looks like a flying dragon type animal? Is this another myth that has spread worldwide (psst masquerading as evolutionary science)?

What does the Shoebill Stork have to do with anything?

Shoebill Stork: Ultimate Guide To The Fantastic Shoebill Bird!
https://shoebillbird.org
Shoebills are ancient birds that have been recognized by humans all the way back to the time of ancient Egypt. The shoebill was mislabeled as a stork for a long time, but was eventually relocated to the pelican group and is also considered to be somewhat similar to a heron.

Shoebills can grow as tall as five feet, boast a nearly eight-foot wingspan, and weigh up to fifteen pounds. Despite their large size, relatively little is known about their habits in the wild..

 

[1213]

This contradicts the Bible.

How?

Good question. God the Father is spirit so would be invisible, but we read in Genesis that both Adam and Even heard him walking through the garden and heard his voice talking with them. They even felt his presence, so they must've been able to see him in some physical form like the wind, cloud, or maybe some human form (theopany). If God is like us, then I don't see why he would not take a human form. Most illustrations show God the Father in human form.

Bible says we should not make images of God. But, there is also the point that according to the Bible, there has been many gods or sons of God. Like for example:

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

Now it happened on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, that Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6

So, in Biblical point of view, there are many gods, but only one true God. And I believe the one who is called Elohim in the Bible, is the one and only true God. And the one who is called Yahweh, is probably actually Jesus and one of those who have been called god on earth. Genesis 1 tells how Elohim created, while Genesis 2 tells how Yahweh formed things. It may be that Yahweh is like human and he is the one who Adam and Eve saw as in human form.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6

 

[james bond]

What does the Shoebill Stork have to do with anything?

Shoebill Stork: Ultimate Guide To The Fantastic Shoebill Bird!
https://shoebillbird.org
Shoebills are ancient birds that have been recognized by humans all the way back to the time of ancient Egypt. The shoebill was mislabeled as a stork for a long time, but was eventually relocated to the pelican group and is also considered to be somewhat similar to a heron.

Shoebills can grow as tall as five feet, boast a nearly eight-foot wingspan, and weigh up to fifteen pounds. Despite their large size, relatively little is known about their habits in the wild..

Is it an example of the mythological bird/dragon that you posted about? Many people have been fooled today by the mythology of the flying dragon or flying bird. This bird is an example of those who believe in today's mythology of flying dragons or flying dinosaurs.

Let me explain. It is considered religion because God created birds and flying animals on the 5th day. On the 6th, he created land animals. To contradict him, Satan wrote in his evolution book that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are dinosaurs today. It is the second macroevolution event. The first being humans evolved from monkeys. Satan considers his evolution science, but we know that birds are birds and dinosaurs were dinosaurs (unless we find they still exist today, but not as birds).

 

[sooda]

Is it an example of the mythological bird/dragon that you posted about? Many people have been fooled today by the mythology of the flying dragon or flying bird. This bird is an example of those who believe in today's mythology of flying dragons or flying dinosaurs.

Let me explain. It is considered religion because God created birds and flying animals on the 5th day. On the 6th, he created land animals. To contradict him, Satan wrote in his evolution book that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that birds are dinosaurs today. It is the second macroevolution event. The first being humans evolved from monkeys. Satan considers his evolution science, but we know that birds are birds and dinosaurs were dinosaurs (unless we find they still exist today, but not as birds).

Your ignorance is appalling.

Flying Dragon - Description, Habitat, Image, Diet, and ...
Complete List of Animals - Animals Networkflying-dragon
The Flying Dragon is a bizarre creature. Also known as a Flying Lizard or Gliding Lizard, this reptile uses modified ribs to glide through the air. Researchers recognize 42 different species of this unique lizard, and categorize them in the taxonomic genus Draco. All of the species live in southern Asia.

 

[james bond]

so, you can have free will and still be incapable of sin? I thought God that was not possible, without turning into robots. And God does not like to be worshipped by robots, apparently.

And what do you mean with perfect? Were Adam and Eve not perfect?

ciao

- viole

It is for when the believers become new beings of new flesh and bone like Jesus and enter the new heaven. We will have free will, be incapable of sin, and not be robots. This is not understandable in our present lives because we are of blood and live in a fallen world.

Yes, Adam and Eve were perfect and all they had to do was not sin by disobeying God. Today, all we have to do is believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior and then we are on our way.

 

[james bond]

You could benefit from a class in theology. This is a painfully abysmal example of theological thinking.

What did I miss?

 

[sojourner]

What did I miss?

Where do you want me to start? Your thinking is muddled, The examples given don't follow from biblical exegesis, or from apostolic Tradition. There are leaps of illogic. Conclusions are being made that simply have no basis in anything but your own head.

 

[sooda]

What did I miss?

You don't even have a rudimentary understanding if the theory of evolution.

Did dinosaurs actually lay eggs or give birth? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/Did-dinosaurs-actually-lay-eggs-or-give-birth
Dec 18, 2017 · Well, the only creatures that are related to dinosaurs which still exist (birds and crocodiles, although crocodiles are more distantly related than birds) don’t give live birth. They all lay eggs. Most of the fossils that have been found that give us information about dinosaur reproduction suggest that the majority of dinosaurs laid eggs.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, he communicated with selected people on Earth after the fall, but can you quote your source that he was physically present on Earth?

1) Can you quote a source that says God was ever physically present on earth? We all know about Genesis 2, when "God went walking in the cool of the day," but we also know this is highly poetic and metaphoric.
3) Exodus 33: God passed by the cleft of the rock. God appears to have been just as metaphorically present on earth at that point after the fall as God was in the Garden.
None of this suggests that God was physically on the earth, or that God physically "returned to heaven." The idea that we are "without God" is theologically ludicrous. The whole "Emmanuel" thing indicates that God is "with us. You need to shift your ideas from a physical propinquity to a spiritual propinquity. And, since we are alive because God blew God's Spirit into us in creation, there's no reason to think that we are ever spiritually separated from God.

 

[james bond]

How?



Bible says we should not make images of God. But, there is also the point that according to the Bible, there has been many gods or sons of God. Like for example:

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
Psalms 82:1

I said, "You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, And fall like one of the rulers."
Psalms 82:6-7

Now it happened on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, that Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6

So, in Biblical point of view, there are many gods, but only one true God. And I believe the one who is called Elohim in the Bible, is the one and only true God. And the one who is called Yahweh, is probably actually Jesus and one of those who have been called god on earth. Genesis 1 tells how Elohim created, while Genesis 2 tells how Yahweh formed things. It may be that Yahweh is like human and he is the one who Adam and Eve saw as in human form.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6

Are you still arguing against God the Father still being here?

Why would he stay when he hates sin because he is holy? Do you know what holy means? It is very important to him because he struck people down immediately when he instructed them on how to handle holy things and they did not follow the instructions.

I'm at a disadvantage because you do not answer my questions while I end up answering yours and arguing against other points you make up such as we should not make images of God.

Thus, are you against the Sistine Chapel? Are you against depicting theopany? I think you misinterpret things to fit your own narrative; which is what?

We do not worship these depictions which is what you are arguing against. What we do is admire them for their art. It may tells us things like that of a narrative story. Having a crucifix in the home could be a reminder to pray daily.

As for the gods in Psalms or sons of God in Job, who do you think they are?

Are you sure that is what you claim in my Biblical pov I guess to show you believe the one and only true God. What backs up your claims? What creed do you believe?

 

[james bond]

You don't even have a rudimentary understanding if the theory of evolution.

Did dinosaurs actually lay eggs or give birth? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/Did-dinosaurs-actually-lay-eggs-or-give-birth
Dec 18, 2017 · Well, the only creatures that are related to dinosaurs which still exist (birds and crocodiles, although crocodiles are more distantly related than birds) don’t give live birth. They all lay eggs. Most of the fossils that have been found that give us information about dinosaur reproduction suggest that the majority of dinosaurs laid eggs.

I'm putting you on ignore. There is nothing to gain from discussing with an ignoraumus.

 

[james bond]

Where do you want me to start? Your thinking is muddled, The examples given don't follow from biblical exegesis, or from apostolic Tradition. There are leaps of illogic. Conclusions are being made that simply have no basis in anything but your own head.

Provide a couple of examples and we can discuss more in detail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wikipedia is founded by Jimmy Wales, a known pornographer. It is liberal and biased against Christianity.

You do realise that wikipedia articles aren't written by him, whoever he is, do you?

Jimmy Wales used porn site money to launch Wikipedia, then edited his own entries to try to hide his links to porn industry

Wikipedia is a part of his for-profit company, but he uses it to raise donations. Do you give money to the low-life scum?

I don't. Sometimes, I'll use it for fun, entertainment, and sports lookups for convenience. Never for serious topics.

Instead, if you have to memorize anything, look up something, or want to feel righteous about yourself instead being slimed, use conservapedia.

Jimmy Wales - Conservapedia

Whatever man.
I see there is no point to try and talk some sense into you.

I think it's hilarious that you submit conservapedia (what's in a name...) as an unbiased alternative, LOL!

Just for the fun of it, let's compare articles on a few subjects:

big bang cosmology:
Big Bang theory - Conservapedia
Big Bang - Wikipedia

Note even only the difference in references and citations on the bottom.

Gerardus Mercator:
Gerardus Mercator - Conservapedia
Gerardus Mercator - Wikipedia

Not much to say... The conservapedia "article" consists of...... 9 (NINE) full sentences!
LOLOLOL!!!

The holocaust:
Holocaust - Conservapedia
The Holocaust - Wikipedia

Again, note the difference in references and citations on the bottom of the pages.

Germ theory of desease:
Germ theory of disease - Conservapedia
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

The "references" of the conservapedia article are nothing short of HILARIOUS.
And so is the article. Seems as if conservapedia jumps at every opportunity to promote their religious preferences. How.... unsurprising.

Drums:
Drum - Conservapedia
Drum kit - Wikipedia


I mean, seriously............................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm putting you on ignore. There is nothing to gain from discussing with an ignoraumus.

Ha. The ultimate "stick head in sand" defense.

 

[james bond]

1) Can you quote a source that says God was ever physically present on earth? We all know about Genesis 2, when "God went walking in the cool of the day," but we also know this is highly poetic and metaphoric.
3) Exodus 33: God passed by the cleft of the rock. God appears to have been just as metaphorically present on earth at that point after the fall as God was in the Garden.
None of this suggests that God was physically on the earth, or that God physically "returned to heaven." The idea that we are "without God" is theologically ludicrous. The whole "Emmanuel" thing indicates that God is "with us. You need to shift your ideas from a physical propinquity to a spiritual propinquity. And, since we are alive because God blew God's Spirit into us in creation, there's no reason to think that we are ever spiritually separated from God.

Are you sure it was Genesis 2 and not 3?

In Gen 3, God went walking on a cool day, but what did you leave out? This is after Adam and Eve's sin and they now realize they did wrong. What would best represent meeting God that way? Or even representing someone who provided for them and someone they could trust.

What if all you heard was God's voice? Is this the most effective way to live with somebody if you could not see them? How do you trust them?

"And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:8

While we do not know how God or Jesus looks like from Scripture, we have to think they must've had some presence even though God is spiritual. We have witnesses to who saw Jesus after his resurrection. They saw him and interacted with him as a human person. Thus, why wouldn't a spiritual being not be able to show himself in a human form to humans? Nor enjoy what they enjoy, things like walking through paradise on a cool day. How does he even judge things that he created were good?

As for Exodus 33, how did God appear to Moses? He was already talking to him.

 

[james bond]

You do realise that wikipedia articles aren't written by him, whoever he is, do you?



Whatever man.
I see there is no point to try and talk some sense into you.

I think it's hilarious that you submit conservapedia (what's in a name...) as an unbiased alternative, LOL!

Just for the fun of it, let's compare articles on a few subjects:

big bang cosmology:
Big Bang theory - Conservapedia
Big Bang - Wikipedia

Note even only the difference in references and citations on the bottom.

Gerardus Mercator:
Gerardus Mercator - Conservapedia
Gerardus Mercator - Wikipedia

Not much to say... The conservapedia "article" consists of...... 9 (NINE) full sentences!
LOLOLOL!!!

The holocaust:
Holocaust - Conservapedia
The Holocaust - Wikipedia

Again, note the difference in references and citations on the bottom of the pages.

Germ theory of desease:
Germ theory of disease - Conservapedia
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia

The "references" of the conservapedia article are nothing short of HILARIOUS.
And so is the article. Seems as if conservapedia jumps at every opportunity to promote their religious preferences. How.... unsurprising.

Drums:
Drum - Conservapedia
Drum kit - Wikipedia


I mean, seriously............................................

Wow, you don't know that it's not Jimmy Wales who writes the stuff? Big dumb. He's the founder and former pornographer. It shows you do not read the links presented as evidence. More evidence for your ignorance.

Conservapedia is much more concise and unbiased. It really is hilarious that:

"Wikipedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia hosted and owned by the non-profit organization Wikimedia Foundation and financially supported by grants from left-leaning foundations plus an aggressive annual online fundraising drive.[1] Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publicly by both registered and anonymous editors,[2] mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.[3] As such, it tends to project a liberal—and, in some cases, even socialist, Communist, and Nazi-sympathising—worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality."

I hope you're not dumb enough to give money to that slimeball Wales and slimy outlet. It's not accepted in school papers as reference although one could read their links and use that as reference assuming it's from a valid credible source. That's what I use the big dumbs over there for. They just useful as tools for linking the references.

Wikipedia - Conservapedia
.

 

[BilliardsBall]

One can't make enough of Adam's sin. We became without God. Next, one of the things we must do is die now. Furthermore, we lost domain over the Earth to Satan.

Why would we eventually have rebelled in the Garden? That's a strange statement. There was only one command to obey. Not ten like today. I would've asked God to move the ToK to some remote location, as it does not violate his one command.

It's a strange statement to say people, who have free will, disobey God's commands (sometimes/eventually)?

 

[Harel13]

so where is this spiritual existence to be lived in your view?

No clue.

No mention of any kind of afterlife here

It's not an afterlife in the regular sense of the word. It's not what you refer to as "Heaven", where good people go after dying. We also have a version of that in Judaism. The World To Come will be after end-times. Heaven is rest-stop for (dead) good souls awaiting the end-times.

until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return."

These types of verses are interpreted as speaking about the physical body. The soul is eternal. It is, after all, a piece of God.

Where is "the world to come"?

Probably not on earth. Or if it is, it's on a different plane of existence, clearly inaccessible to us.

In the Jewish view, why did God bar the way to "the tree of life"?

No clue. I suggest you ask other Jews on RF. Try the Judaism DIR.

If God had wanted Adam to sin, why would he then punish him with death?

Bear in mind that there will probably always be some things about God that we'll never know.
I figure that the punishment, as I previously stated, is a push to start working. If you've only got a limited amount of time on earth, you'll start doing your best instead of lazing around all day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow, you don't know that it's not Jimmy Wales who writes the stuff? Big dumb. He's the founder and former pornographer. It shows you do not read the links presented as evidence. More evidence for your ignorance.

It doesn't matter at all who founded it or where the money for the launch came from.
It is irrelevant to how it operates, nore is it relevant to the quality of the content.

You're engaging in a ginormous fallacy if you claim otherwise.

Conservapedia is much more concise

I can see that. A full 9 sentences on Mercator. Congratz.

and unbiased.

I guess that's why its article on evolution theory is just creationist propaganda that does nothing but question established mainstream science and instead quotes one creationist crackpot after the other, ey?

"Wikipedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia hosted and owned by the non-profit organization Wikimedia Foundation and financially supported by grants from left-leaning foundations plus an aggressive annual online fundraising drive.[1] Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publicly by both registered and anonymous editors,[2] mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.[3] As such, it tends to project a liberal—and, in some cases, even socialist, Communist, and Nazi-sympathising—worldview, which is totally at odds with conservative reality and rationality."

Another example of the creationist propaganda machine behind it. It even has a whole page on its "guideline" section dedicated to badmouthing wikipedia. Just like its creationist peers, where they have whole sections badmouthing the scientific enterprise.

Same playbook.

I hope you're not dumb enough to give money to that slimeball Wales and slimy outlet. It's not accepted in school papers as reference although one could read their links and use that as reference assuming it's from a valid credible source. That's what I use the big dumbs over there for. They just useful as tools for linking the references.

Wikipedia - Conservapedia
.

There you go. Great example of how they feel like they should attack their competition. Because they can't compete on content.

I gave you some examples of random subjects on both sites. I think it's quite clear from those examples alone where one will find the better quality intel.

But whatever. Like I said, it's clear that it's a waste of time to try and talk some sense into you.