Hey, A&E, you want to have kids like I tolds you to?....first you must sin and disobey me.

Aaron32

Well-known member
What God calls sin is sin. Humans will try to argue with God. That too is sin.
Fair enough. Please show me where God mentions the word "sin" in Genesis chapters 1-3.
It's possible that you're adding to God's word to justify your own narrative.
It's likely I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with you.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I never noticed the cherubim with flaming swords guarding the exit of the garden.

The quote also said....."

Says who? Must have?
That's common logic. You're making an argument from absence.

Full verse:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Do you have the evidence to prove something would have changed? Why would it? How would they know sin without the knowledge of good and evil? How would they know death and misery? In contrast, how would they know joy and righteousness or the love of God?
Sure, you could postulate that something could have changed, but case is valid that is Adam and Eve had taken no action, nothing would have changed.
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Super Member
Everything in context.

First, how can one morally sin without the knowledge of good and evil?
Adam and Eve had a "form" of the knowledge of Good and evil....they knew it was wrong to disobey God and eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Until they fell they didn't have the "form" viewed through "experience".

It would be like a child having the knowledge of a hot stove flame..but not actually experiencing the hot burning flame until they actually touched it.

I'm sure you can think of a few things that you know about but realy don't fully understand until you experience them.

As another example there is death. We all know about it but haven't experienced it as of yet. Even Eve knew about death (Gen 3:3) yet hadn't experienced it. Eve also knew it wasn't "good". Like the concept of death it was also possible to understand "good" as well as "evil" and both Adam and Eve knew of it.

Another example would be with Adam....as it was shown in Gen 2:18 it was not "good" for Adam to be alone. In this example "not good" isn't exactly evil but it show one of the nuances of "good" that Adam knew of prior to the fall.
This type of sinning isn't the same as iniquity, out of rebellion, this is a transgression - a broken trust. More on "transgression" here:
I don't think it really matter just what kind of sinning it was. They both disobeyed God by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Feel free to catogorize the sin as it's still sin.
Eve was beguiled by the adversary. Was she seriously deceived, or is that just her cover story?
I believe Eve was actually deceived....as paul tells us in 2 Cor 11:3 that she was... But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Adam was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but he knew he couldn't do that on his own,

True, Adam did need Eve as a partner.
so he was forced to choose which commandment to keep.
In being "forced" to keep a commandment....A&E had to choose which commandment to keep and sin by breaking the other?
God set that up???? Certainly not....this is why the mormon belief is Satanic.

Interestingly enough, Adam was not given the same commandment Moses was given - thou shalt have no other gods before me, and yet in a way, that's the real sin he was guilty of - listening to Eve over God.
As well as that Adam sinned by in effect making himself a god....over creator God.
God informed Adam exactly what would happen if he partook of the fruit, he gave Adam agency to choose. This is also where the importance of biblical translation comes into play. The NAS translates the command as "shalt", by the KJV translates it as "shalt not", and the hebrew (according to Biblehub) doesn't really indicate the "must" or "should" either way: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-17.htm
Semantics doesn't really enter into it.
There is no way God would have instructed Adam to sin and disobey Gods instructions so Adam could procreate.
This belief that God would have done that is Satanic in nature. That's the point the mormons fail to realize.
The moral take away, according to Paul, is that Adam did exactly what he should have done:
Eph 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; ...
God would have us love our wives by firt sinning?

Keep in mind the bible doesn't even hint at Adam and Even not having to have the ability to have children pre-fall while in the garden.
Teaching that to people is adding to scripture..which in itself is a form of sin.
While I agree with your sentiment, I believe this conclusion from the garden is wrong. Adam didn't have to gain anything. He was already given dominion over the earth.
He was commanded to multiply, but it's quite possible that he didn't know how to because of his ignorance, just as men are commanded to love God, and will be condemned if they don't. But men are not born with the knowledge to love God, they must be taught it (via the word), and they must receive it.
You had said"
"but it's quite possible that he didn't know how to because of his ignorance,"
I pretty much doubt that.
In any case, IF Adam did contrary to what he was supposed to, permitting the woman to be cast out, and Adam remaining the garden would that have been God's will? How do you make sense of Cor 11:11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Adam did do what was contrary to what God told him to do....do not eat...or else you and all of your progeny will pay the price.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
That's common logic. You're making an argument from absence.

Full verse:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
Here you are presenting an argument from sheer speculation. No where does the bible indicate Adam would of or had to have remained in the garden.

In effect it's using this speculation to justify Adams disobedience...which once again is Satanic....claiming eating from the tree was what God required despite telling A&E not to eat from the tree if they wanted to fullfill God telling them be fruitfull and multiply.
Do you have the evidence to prove something would have changed? Why would it? How would they know sin without the knowledge of good and evil?
As pointed out in a previous post....you can understand sin and then understand it on a different level by actually peforming the sin.
As an example you know murder is wrong...sin...yet you fully understand murder is wrong and have not murdered anyone.
How would they know death and misery? In contrast, how would they know joy and righteousness or the love of God?
Where does the bible say they were to know death and misery? The answer is it doesn't. Once again this concept is sheer speculation and adding to the bible to justify sin. This justification of sin is Satanic.

As to Joy and Righteousness I would assume they experienced that as demonstrated by walking with God in the cool of the evening.
Sure, you could postulate that something could have changed, but case is valid that is Adam and Eve had taken no action, nothing would have changed.
True, the fall and the need for a Savior would not have occurred.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Adam and Eve had a "form" of the knowledge of Good and evil....they knew it was wrong to disobey God and eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Until they fell they didn't have the "form" viewed through "experience".
You can't know "wrong" without first knowing good and evil.
They knew "if you eat the fruit you will die." Without knowing death, you'd never comprehend the value of life.
It would be like a child having the knowledge of a hot stove flame..but not actually experiencing the hot burning flame until they actually touched it.
Yes. And you tell them, and they do it anyway. Do you shame a child after they've done it and their hand is in pain. Hopefully not, by disobedience they learned the natural consequence of disobeying your counsel.
I'm sure you can think of a few things that you know about but realy don't fully understand until you experience them.
Yes, that's the point. Part of purpose of mortality is learning by experience. Do you agree, or is this where my beliefs start becoming Satanic?
As another example there is death. We all know about it but haven't experienced it as of yet. Even Eve knew about death (Gen 3:3) yet hadn't experienced it. Eve also knew it wasn't "good". Like the concept of death it was also possible to understand "good" as well as "evil" and both Adam and Eve knew of it.
And you may be able to blame Adam for miseducating Eve - Eve was told that if she even touched the fruit she would die, and once she touched it and didn't die, she might have had further reason to doubt Adam's understanding. That says a lot about receiving understanding directly from God, vs complying to the precepts of men.
However, in this case, Eve was innocent. Satan caused Eve to doubt God, and enticed her on the value of knowing good and evil.
Another example would be with Adam....as it was shown in Gen 2:18 it was not "good" for Adam to be alone. In this example "not good" isn't exactly evil but it show one of the nuances of "good" that Adam knew of prior to the fall.
So now your justifying that "not good" isn't evil. How do you define "evil"?
As stated in my post, sin can be transgression (breaking trust) or sin can be rebellion (iniquity). I would say "evil" leans more toward the "rebellion" side seeing as how we can unintentionally sin, but still be righteous in our hearts.
We don't know who the Lord was talking to when he said "18 ¶ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." I interpret it that he was talking to himself, or other members of the Godhead.
If he was talking to Adam he would have said "It is not good that you should be alone; I will make you an help meet for you."
So I reject your premise here.

I don't think it really matter just what kind of sinning it was. They both disobeyed God by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Feel free to catogorize the sin as it's still sin.
You just said "'not good' isn't exactly evil".
If "sin" is being defined as "breaking God's commandments which leads to death" I suppose that would be accurate.
But if "not good" isn't actually "evil" then you have to revoke that the Mormon understanding of the Garden and the Fall is "Satanic". You can't have it both ways.
I believe Eve was actually deceived....as paul tells us in 2 Cor 11:3 that she was... But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
I agree.
True, Adam did need Eve as a partner.

In being "forced" to keep a commandment....A&E had to choose which commandment to keep and sin by breaking the other?
God set that up???? Certainly not....this is why the mormon belief is Satanic.
No, Eve was deceived. She was taught by Adam.
Once Eve partook of the fruit, it was impossible for Adam to keep both commandments: 1) Don't eat of the tree 2)multiple and replenish.
That's why Satan thought he was so clever. Clearly, death was part of the plan. You can't understand life without the contrast of death. You can't understand rich without the contrast of poor. To understand truth you must understand the opposition of all things. Case in point, if we never saw a 3rd world country, would Americans really know what poverty looks like?
Is the Law of Moses Satanic because it's impossible to obey the whole Law?
As well as that Adam sinned by in effect making himself a god....over creator God.
Yes. That's why the lesson of the Garden is so useful, but Adam didn't see that at the moment, he was just trying to obey the commandments, but, like the Law of Moses, it was impossible.
Semantics doesn't really enter into it.
Sure it does.
"Should" means you'll pay the natural consequences if you disobey me.
"Must" is an absolute - You are deliberately rebelling against me and breaking everything if you disobey me.
God could have chosen not to curse Adam, and overlook Adam's transgression so that he would not willingly reject his own creation, but God would then cease to be God breaking his own law.
There is no way God would have instructed Adam to sin and disobey Gods instructions so Adam could procreate.
This belief that God would have done that is Satanic in nature. That's the point the mormons fail to realize.
No more Satanic than saying Jesus Christ is necessary because it's impossible to keep the Law given to the Israelites.
God would have us love our wives by firt sinning?
Sinning meaning "to choose death by breaking God's commandment" so that you won't be alone because it's "not good"? Yes.
Keep in mind the bible doesn't even hint at Adam and Even not having to have the ability to have children pre-fall while in the garden.
Teaching that to people is adding to scripture..which in itself is a form of sin.
You're implying that we're adding to scripture. But the Bible doesn't speak of the subject one way or another.
I don't see any evidence of Adam and Eve having children, or the ability to have children prior to the fall. A conclusion either way and making a judgment inserting into the scriptures would be a sin.
As a Mormon, I could say maybe that detail is a plain and precious truth removed by the great and abominable church causing men to stumble, because I don't believe Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, I believe it was authored by God's word through prophets.

You had said "but it's quite possible that he didn't know how to because of his ignorance"

I pretty much doubt that.
I guess all I can do is invite you to look of the fruits of that doubt.
Underestimating someone's ignorance when they sin, that permits us to follow in the steps of "the great accuser".
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is called "charity" - an attribute of divine nature.
Adam did do what was contrary to what God told him to do....do not eat...or else you and all of your progeny will pay the price.
And Adam willing paid the price, just as Jesus did, just as we all of Christ's disciples do "to lay down our lives" so that God's purposes can be accomplished.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
You can't know "wrong" without first knowing good and evil.
They knew "if you eat the fruit you will die." Without knowing death, you'd never comprehend the value of life.

Yes. And you tell them, and they do it anyway. Do you shame a child after they've done it and their hand is in pain. Hopefully not, by disobedience they learned the natural consequence of disobeying your counsel.

Yes, that's the point. Part of purpose of mortality is learning by experience. Do you agree, or is this where my beliefs start becoming Satanic?

And you may be able to blame Adam for miseducating Eve - Eve was told that if she even touched the fruit she would die, and once she touched it and didn't die, she might have had further reason to doubt Adam's understanding. That says a lot about receiving understanding directly from God, vs complying to the precepts of men.
However, in this case, Eve was innocent. Satan caused Eve to doubt God, and enticed her on the value of knowing good and evil.

So now your justifying that "not good" isn't evil. How do you define "evil"?
As stated in my post, sin can be transgression (breaking trust) or sin can be rebellion (iniquity). I would say "evil" leans more toward the "rebellion" side seeing as how we can unintentionally sin, but still be righteous in our hearts.
We don't know who the Lord was talking to when he said "18 ¶ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." I interpret it that he was talking to himself, or other members of the Godhead.
If he was talking to Adam he would have said "It is not good that you should be alone; I will make you an help meet for you."
So I reject your premise here.


You just said "'not good' isn't exactly evil".
If "sin" is being defined as "breaking God's commandments which leads to death" I suppose that would be accurate.
But if "not good" isn't actually "evil" then you have to revoke that the Mormon understanding of the Garden and the Fall is "Satanic". You can't have it both ways.

I agree.

No, Eve was deceived. She was taught by Adam.
Once Eve partook of the fruit, it was impossible for Adam to keep both commandments: 1) Don't eat of the tree 2)multiple and replenish.
That's why Satan thought he was so clever. Clearly, death was part of the plan. You can't understand life without the contrast of death. You can't understand rich without the contrast of poor. To understand truth you must understand the opposition of all things. Case in point, if we never saw a 3rd world country, would Americans really know what poverty looks like?
Is the Law of Moses Satanic because it's impossible to obey the whole Law?

Yes. That's why the lesson of the Garden is so useful, but Adam didn't see that at the moment, he was just trying to obey the commandments, but, like the Law of Moses, it was impossible.

Sure it does.
"Should" means you'll pay the natural consequences if you disobey me.
"Must" is an absolute - You are deliberately rebelling against me and breaking everything if you disobey me.
God could have chosen not to curse Adam, and overlook Adam's transgression so that he would not willingly reject his own creation, but God would then cease to be God breaking his own law.

No more Satanic than saying Jesus Christ is necessary because it's impossible to keep the Law given to the Israelites.

Sinning meaning "to choose death by breaking God's commandment" so that you won't be alone because it's "not good"? Yes.

You're implying that we're adding to scripture. But the Bible doesn't speak of the subject one way or another.
I don't see any evidence of Adam and Eve having children, or the ability to have children prior to the fall. A conclusion either way and making a judgment inserting into the scriptures would be a sin.
As a Mormon, I could say maybe that detail is a plain and precious truth removed by the great and abominable church causing men to stumble, because I don't believe Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, I believe it was authored by God's word through prophets.


I guess all I can do is invite you to look of the fruits of that doubt.
Underestimating someone's ignorance when they sin, that permits us to follow in the steps of "the great accuser".
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is called "charity" - an attribute of divine nature.

And Adam willing paid the price, just as Jesus did, just as we all of Christ's disciples do "to lay down our lives" so that God's purposes can be accomplished.
There is a lot said here...and I'm not going to refute it line by line.

The first thing the mormons need to do is show that Adam and Eve COULD NOT have children in their created unfallen state.
Next is to show why God would have them disobey Him by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil just so they could have children.

My point is mormons are satanic for suggesting and believing in this false theology.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Here you are presenting an argument from sheer speculation. No where does the bible indicate Adam would of or had to have remained in the garden.
I presented an argument from the Book of Mormon. It might be Nephi's speculation, or it may be Joseph Smith's speculation, but the reasoning is completely valid, but I can say for myself that I have received an unmistakable spiritual witness of it's truthfulness. I trust God over man's reasoning.
In effect it's using this speculation to justify Adams disobedience...which once again is Satanic....claiming eating from the tree was what God required despite telling A&E not to eat from the tree if they wanted to fullfill God telling them be fruitfull and multiply.
You're basically just restating your initial argument rather than refuting my accusation that you're making nan argument from absence.

You incongruence and speculation is in your own justification of "'not good' isn't necessarily evil."
You must explain how "not good" for man to be alone, is actually acceptable, using the bible alone.
You must prove that breaking the commandment is "evil" even though the scriptures never mention the word sin or "evil" in regards to Adam's action in Gen 1-3.
You must exegete the meaning of "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." without Adam actually "leaving" the Garden.

If you apriori reasoning is superior than mine, please prove it, using the Bible alone.
As pointed out in a previous post....you can understand sin and then understand it on a different level by actually peforming the sin.
As an example you know murder is wrong...sin...yet you fully understand murder is wrong and have not murdered anyone.
How can you know what sin is, if sin never entered the world? How?
Where exactly would that knowledge come from? We an learn by our own experience, and the experience of others. We can learn by inspired the words of scripture, etc. but A&E didn't have that. So where would they understand sin or righteous, to say nothing of how to BECOME righteous?
It is a reality that God set us up to fail, to force us to choose to "look and live".
It would also be a sin to imply God isn't all powerful and all things are done according to his will.

Where does the bible say they were to know death and misery? The answer is it doesn't.
2 Corinthians 1:6-7 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is steadfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

2 Corinthians 6:4-6 In everything we do, we show that we are true ministers of God. We patiently endure troubles and hardships and calamities of every kind. We have been beaten, been put in prison, faced angry mobs, worked to exhaustion, endured sleepless nights, and gone without food. We prove ourselves by our purity, our understanding, our patience, our kindness, by the Holy Spirit within us, and by our sincere love.
How can you love God, (the first and great commandment) if you never understand why, or how to, love God?
We love God because he first loved us? How can we understand God's love for us, if we never receive anything less than God's love?

Once again this concept is sheer speculation and adding to the bible to justify sin. This justification of sin is Satanic.
Nowhere is this belief of the necessity of opposition in all things, encouraging to, or condone, sin.
We can learn from the scriptures, or the experience of others. But Adam and Eve had neither of those.
I tell my kids continually how difficult life is, and what they should do to prepare for it. They'll never take me as serious as I'd like them to take me until they are actually faced with reality, as opposed to their theoretical understanding.

As to Joy and Righteousness I would assume they experienced that as demonstrated by walking with God in the cool of the evening.
Thank you for acknowledging this is an assumption.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Spoiled rich kids who are given everything on a silver platter still become miserable. I guess we won't know what it's like to live in paradise until after this life. Ironically enough we still have to "enter in by the way".
The Israelites who entered in the promised land, collectively immersed in God's law still didn't have the heart to truly love God.
We generally can't develop that until we are humbled, and we can't be humbled without some form of opposition.
True, the fall and the need for a Savior would not have occurred.
(y)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
There is a lot said here...and I'm not going to refute it line by line.

The first thing the mormons need to do is show that Adam and Eve COULD NOT have children in their created unfallen state.
Next is to show why God would have them disobey Him by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil just so they could have children.

My point is mormons are satanic for suggesting and believing in this false theology.
This is basically throwing in the towel. If my argument could easily be defeated you would have done so. You've certainly promoted this thread enough by linking to in other threads, it's interesting that you'd quit now if you were so certain that you had an iron-clad case.

So basically, you're restating your premise by making the opposing (unjustified) belief that Adam and Eve COULD have children. Ignoring the fact that God has, in fact, given us commandments that we could not obey on our own without His help.

You postulate your conclusion off your unjustified premise to justify your personal belief that Mormonism is Satanic.
When you want to actually prove your case objectively, don't stop now, please do so. I'm very interested to know where my reasoning becomes actually unbiblical and Satanic. Until then, please recognize the plausibility of your bias and blindness of what's actually true and false.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
I presented an argument from the Book of Mormon. It might be Nephi's speculation, or it may be Joseph Smith's speculation, but the reasoning is completely valid, but I can say for myself that I have received an unmistakable spiritual witness of it's truthfulness. I trust God over man's reasoning.
An argument from the Book of Mormon....That's not the Bible.
If the BoM supports God having A&E sin and fall so they can fulfill another commandment is still SATANIC.

Do you see why I'm having trouble accepting the mormon Satanic position? God who hates sin would not ever have you sin...especially to the point that A&E sinned by breaking God commandment...plunging mankind into a state where they will go to Hell unless redeemed...so they can fulfill another of Gods commandments.....That would be Satanic.
You're basically just restating your initial argument rather than refuting my accusation that you're making nan argument from absence.
You never defended mormonism from the charge of Satanism...you act as if the footings of Satan causing the fall was a good thing despite what the Bible says....Once again that's Satanism.
You incongruence and speculation is in your own justification of "'not good' isn't necessarily evil."
You must explain how "not good" for man to be alone, is actually acceptable, using the bible alone.
You must prove that breaking the commandment is "evil" even though the scriptures never mention the word sin or "evil" in regards to Adam's action in Gen 1-3.
LOL, seriously dude....the Bible spells out the consequences in chapter 3. I don't ave to "prove it...all you need to do is read the Bible.
You must exegete the meaning of "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." without Adam actually "leaving" the Garden.
Why?
Secondly, who said they would have had to spend their entire ....endless...life in the garden?
If you apriori reasoning is superior than mine, please prove it, using the Bible alone.

How can you know what sin is, if sin never entered the world? How?
Sin as a definition.
How did they know the apple tasted good before they ate it? You need a better logic to support your Satanic belief.
Where exactly would that knowledge come from?
We an learn by our own experience, and the experience of others. We can learn by inspired the words of scripture, etc. but A&E didn't have that. So where would they understand sin or righteous, to say nothing of how to BECOME righteous?
It is a reality that God set us up to fail, to force us to choose to "look and live".
It would also be a sin to imply God isn't all powerful and all things are done according to his will.
I don't now....how did Adam name the animals?
2 Corinthians 1:6-7 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is steadfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

2 Corinthians 6:4-6 In everything we do, we show that we are true ministers of God. We patiently endure troubles and hardships and calamities of every kind. We have been beaten, been put in prison, faced angry mobs, worked to exhaustion, endured sleepless nights, and gone without food. We prove ourselves by our purity, our understanding, our patience, our kindness, by the Holy Spirit within us, and by our sincere love.
How can you love God, (the first and great commandment) if you never understand why, or how to, love God?
We love God because he first loved us? How can we understand God's love for us, if we never receive anything less than God's love?
If Adam and Eve didn't fall we wouldn't need 2 Corinthians.....you do know that?
Nowhere is this belief of the necessity of opposition in all things, encouraging to, or condone, sin.
We can learn from the scriptures, or the experience of others. But Adam and Eve had neither of those.
I tell my kids continually how difficult life is, and what they should do to prepare for it. They'll never take me as serious as I'd like them to take me until they are actually faced with reality, as opposed to their theoretical understanding.


Thank you for acknowledging this is an assumption.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Spoiled rich kids who are given everything on a silver platter still become miserable. I guess we won't know what it's like to live in paradise until after this life. Ironically enough we still have to "enter in by the way".
The Israelites who entered in the promised land, collectively immersed in God's law still didn't have the heart to truly love God.
We generally can't develop that until we are humbled, and we can't be humbled without some form of opposition.

(y)
The bottom line...God would not have A&E break the commandment of not to eat from the tree...causing them to act against Him in disobedience so they could be fruitful and multiply, that is have children and live in joy.......that belief is Satanic.....brought on by the deceptive serpent.
Funny thing is the mormons have bought into and adopted that very lie.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
This is basically throwing in the towel. If my argument could easily be defeated you would have done so. You've certainly promoted this thread enough by linking to in other threads, it's interesting that you'd quit now if you were so certain that you had an iron-clad case.

Quit? You still haven't shown why God would have A&E break His commandment.....so they could fall, be cursed and kicked out of the garden so they could fulfill another of His commandments.

As I have said.....the mormon theology is Satanic.
So basically, you're restating your premise by making the opposing (unjustified) belief that Adam and Eve COULD have children. Ignoring the fact that God has, in fact, given us commandments that we could not obey on our own without His help.
OH MY!!!!....now your telling me God helped Adam and Eve sin? Besides being Satanic your theology is also sick.
You postulate your conclusion off your unjustified premise to justify your personal belief that Mormonism is Satanic.
I've demonstrated that mormonism is Satanic...as you being under the spell...I see how you would defend such an evil position.
When you want to actually prove your case objectively, don't stop now, please do so. I'm very interested to know where my reasoning becomes actually unbiblical and Satanic. Until then, please recognize the plausibility of your bias and blindness of what's actually true and false.
LOL....Dude, I've pointed out to you several times God would not have A&E sin so they could fulfill another commandment.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
An argument from the Book of Mormon....That's not the Bible.
Genetic fallacy.
If the BoM supports God having A&E sin and fall so they can fulfill another commandment is still SATANIC.
You insert the word sin, not the Bible.
If "sin" means "breaking a commandment" then according to your standard, Abraham should have dismissed the command to sacrifice his son, because murder is a sin.
Do you see why I'm having trouble accepting the mormon Satanic position?
Yes. Bias, false narrative, and circular reasoning as explained in my previous post.
God who hates sin would not ever have you sin...especially to the point that A&E sinned by breaking God commandment...
Isa. 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ="note8c">ways my ways, saith the Lord
plunging mankind into a state where they will go to Hell unless redeemed...so they can fulfill another of Gods commandments.....
Haven't you just described the "I" in Calvinism's s T.U.L.I.P.?
God put his people in many circumstances where they are reliant upon Him for deliverance.
You never defended mormonism from the charge of Satanism...
First you have to prove that's the case.
Your whole basis that it's Satanic is based on the unjustified belief that A&E could have kids before the fall.
you act as if the footings of Satan causing the fall was a good thing despite what the Bible says....Once again that's Satanism.
Some humans had to crucify Jesus in order for the Atonement to be fulfilled, and what did Jesus say? "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do" -Luke 23:24
A&E didn't know good & evil. Why the double standard?

LOL, seriously dude....the Bible spells out the consequences in chapter 3. I don't ave to "prove it...all you need to do is read the Bible.
I have, it says "cursed is the ground for thy sake"
Apperantly God sought the cursing beneficial to man.
Because the verse makes no sense if Adam didn't leave the garden.
Secondly, who said they would have had to spend their entire ....endless...life in the garden?
Another argument from absence.
Please show me the alternative plan if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, then I'll be happy to answer your question.
Sin as a definition.
Based on what reference could A&E define sin?
How did they know the apple tasted good before they ate it?
Eve didnt know. She was beguiled by Satan.
Adam didnt eat on the basis that is was desirable, he ate because he choose to obey the commandment to "cleave unto his wife" (Gen 2:24)
You need a better logic to support your Satanic belief.
Prove it wrong first, with something other than your unjustified opinion.
I don't now....
Exactly.
how did Adam name the animals?
Non-sequitur.
If Adam and Eve didn't fall we wouldn't need 2 Corinthians.....you do know that?
Yes. If David probably would not have written Psalm 32 had he not committed his sin, but what what the ultimate conclusion of that psalm?
The bottom line...God would not have A&E break the commandment of not to eat from the tree...causing them to act against Him in disobedience so they could be fruitful and multiply, that is have children and live in joy.......that belief is Satanic
Your empty for answers, nor can you prove your argument without resorting to your initial apriori reasoning. So now you first saying it bolder must somehow make it true.

.....brought on by the deceptive serpent.
Brought about by God placing them in the garden, that he designed.
Funny thing is the mormons have bought into and adopted that very lie.
What measure ye mete...
I'm the one who's actually using Biblical evidence to justify my opinion, and you keep going back to your opinion.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Quit? You still haven't shown why God would have A&E break His commandment.....
If you read the chapter from which you draw your argument, that should be a given.
so they could fall, be cursed and kicked out of the garden so they could fulfill another of His commandments.
Apperantly God cursed the land for Adams sake.
As I have said.....the mormon theology is Satanic.
Yes, I know what you've said. You've yet to show depth of understanding beyond your initial opinion.
OH MY!!!!....now your telling me God helped Adam and Eve sin?
Not at all, where did I say that?
Besides being Satanic your theology is also sick.
More opinion...shocker
I've demonstrated that mormonism is Satanic...
Yes, based on your own unjustified belief which includes your stated belief that "not good" isn't necessarily "evil". Thus, I take your opinion with a grain of salt.
as you being under the spell...I see how you would defend such an evil position.
Blaming the victim *tsk tsk*
LOL....Dude, I've pointed out to you several times God would not have A&E sin so they could fulfill another commandment.
Yes, you've repeated your opinion many times, and I've identified your multiple logical fallacies in trying to justify that opinion. Thank you for the discussion.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
You insert the word sin, not the Bible.
I didn't insert the word "sin" in Genesis..."Sin" describes what they did in Genesis. You can google the meaning if you like.
The "sin" of disobedience occurred when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....that is did as God told them not to do.
If "sin" means "breaking a commandment" then according to your standard, Abraham should have dismissed the command to sacrifice his son, because murder is a sin.
With Abraham things are much different...in the account presented in Gen 22 you will be able to notice that God instructed Abraham to do something...and with Adam in Genesis God instructed him to NOT do something.

Instruction to do:
Gen 22:2 “Take your son,” God said, “your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”

If you notice the Word of God in the bible...do not say....Abraham, You must not offer him there as a burnt offering.

The sin would have been for Abraham refusing to do what God instructed him to do whether it be to do or not to do.

Instruction to not do:
In Genesis we read.... Gen 2: 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

As we all know and recognize Adam disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite being told by God NOT to eat from that tree.

The mormons accept this sin as a good thing (which is satanic)...as they claim breaking this one command allows them to fulfill another command....that is to be fruitful and multiply ONLY once they have been banished from the garden of Eden.....despite there being nothing in scripture that shows they could not have children in their unfallen, created state while remaining in the garden.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Eve didnt know. She was beguiled by Satan.
Adam didnt eat on the basis that is was desirable, he ate because he choose to obey the commandment to "cleave unto his wife" (Gen 2:24)
There is no commandment to "cleave".....the bible only says "24 For this reason a man will"

The bible also doesn't say Adam had to first sin before he could via the fall...cleave to his wife.....The Satanic mormon belief does.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I didn't insert the word "sin" in Genesis..."Sin" describes what they did in Genesis. You can google the meaning if you like.
The "sin" of disobedience occurred when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....that is did as God told them not to do.
Fair enough:
Google - sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.​
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.​

So we could define sin as "disobedience". And I'd probably agree with that. That's not immoral or necessarily Satanic.
A child not listening to his parent to not touch a hot stove isn't acting out of rebellion, but may act out of curiosity.

But when you define sin in terms of morality, and drill down to the definition of those terms, it comes down to "good" and "bad" - a knowledge that Adam and Eve did not possess, A&E could not rebel because they didn't know good or bad.
In other words, God was saying, "you can eat of every tree, but if you want to die, eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but I don't recommend it."

With Abraham things are much different...in the account presented in Gen 22 you will be able to notice that God instructed Abraham to do something...and with Adam in Genesis God instructed him to NOT do something.

Instruction to do:
Gen 22:2 “Take your son,” God said, “your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”

If you notice the Word of God in the bible...do not say....Abraham, You must not offer him there as a burnt offering.

The sin would have been for Abraham refusing to do what God instructed him to do whether it be to do or not to do.
And given the evangelical reasoning of today, Abraham's friends would have Abraham doubt God was talking to him at all, because God already said murder was wrong, and God doesn't teach anything contrary to what he already told prior prophets.

Instruction to not do:
In Genesis we read.... Gen 2: 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
I've already talked about the significance of "must" verses "shall".
Violation of "must" implies rebellion, "shall" does not.

Ironically, as I've already stated, the Hebrew translation doesn't indicate "must" or "shall" either way.
So if reasoned that democracy determined "accrurate" translations, I took a survey aof the various translations offered on Biblehub, and this is what I found:

Must – total Count: 8

1. New International Version: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
2. Berean Standard Bible: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
3. Christian Standard Bible: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”
4. Holman Christian Standard Bible: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”
5. GOD'S WORD® Translation: But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die."
6. Good News Translation: except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day."
7. Majority Standard Bible: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
8. NET Bible: but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die."


Shall – total Count: 18

1. English Standard Version: 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.”
2. King James Bible: 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.
3. New King James Version: 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.”
4. New American Standard Bible: but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”
5. NASB 1995: 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.”
6. NASB 1977: 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 shall surely die.”
7. Legacy Standard Bible: but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it; for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
8. Amplified Bible: but [only] from the tree of the knowledge (recognition) of good and evil you shall not eat, otherwise on the day that you eat from it, you shall most certainly die [because of your disobedience].”
9. American Standard Version: 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.
10. Aramaic Bible in Plain English: And from the tree of knowledge of good and of evil you shall not eat from it, because in the day that you will eat from it, you will die the death.”
11. Brenton Septuagint Translation: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die.
12. Douay-Rheims Bible: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
13. English Revised Version: 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.
14. JPS Tanakh 1917: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.'
15. New American Bible: except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.
16. New Heart English Bible: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die."
17. Webster's Bible Translation: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.
18. World English Bible: but you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

Except/Do not – Total count: 5
1. New Living Translation: except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”
2. Contemporary English Version: except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
3. International Standard Version: but you are not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because you will certainly die during the day that you eat from it."
4. Literal Standard Version: but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it, for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.”
5. Young's Literal Translation: and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
As we all know and recognize Adam disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite being told by God NOT to eat from that tree.
Yes, Adam disobeyed God, absent the knowledge of "good" and "evil".
Adam was given a choice of knowledge & death, or innocence & life, and Adam chose death.
And again, there's nothing inherently Satanic about death, or knowledge.

The mormons accept this sin as a good thing (which is satanic)...
Mormons does not claim disobeying God as "good thing", only to the degree of your next point:
as they claim breaking this one command allows them to fulfill another command....that is to be fruitful and multiply
Yes. Multiplying, choosing family life, "cleaving unto you wife" and laying down your life for you wife and family is a very "good" thing.
ONLY once they have been banished from the garden of Eden.....
Of which we may now return and God had planned from the beginning....thanks to Jesus Christ.
despite there being nothing in scripture that shows they could not have children in their unfallen, created state while remaining in the garden.
And no evidence showing Adam and Eve of ever having children, or even being aware of the fact that they were naked.
The evidence simply isn't there to make a judgment either way. So whatever judgment you decide to make, simply acknowledge, it's based on an argument from absence.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
But when you define sin in terms of morality, and drill down to the definition of those terms, it comes down to "good" and "bad" - a knowledge that Adam and Eve did not possess,
As pointed out Adam and Eve did posses a certain level of knowing about good and evil...just as we do today.
We also must keep in mind possesing the knowledge is not the same as "experiencing".
I provided you with an example of the flame on a stove.....as children they know touching the flame will burn them. They have that knowledge.....but it isn't until they actually get burnt by the flame do they experience it.

In Gen 3:7 we are told of the instant knowledge that they gained....they now experienced the evil of it....as they knew it wasn't good. Gen 3:10 clearly indicates their experiance and the enhanced knowledge...as they were afraid and hid.
 
Top