My Exegesis of Eph 2:8-9

kpasa

Member
I always enjoyed reading your comments. Hope things are going well for you. As well as can be expected during these times.
We (three generations of my family & I) have moved to the Ozarks of NW AR to a small farm and I especially thank God for the and am loving it. How are things going with you and yours?
 

e v e

Super Member
Before the fall Adam walked with God. It's not a big deal.
Something was different when Adam sinned, and that is when he hid from God - not before -

because he betrayed God.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Before the fall Adam walked with God. It's not a big deal.
Something was different when Adam sinned, and that is when he hid from God - not before -

because he betrayed God.
Very good until u chose the word betrayed. Wrong word, IMO. Disobeyed God works much better. You can't betray an all-knowing being.
 

e v e

Super Member
Very good until u chose the word betrayed. Wrong word, IMO. Disobeyed God works much better. You can't betray an all-knowing being.
By betrayal I meant hurting too.

God is not impervious and unfeeling. He loves and can be affected by the other and what they do. Disobeyed doesn’t convey that - though adam did disobey.

betray (v.)​

early 13c., "prove false, violate by unfaithfulness;"

no?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
By betrayal I meant hurting too.

God is not impervious and unfeeling. He loves and can be affected by the other and what they do. Disobeyed doesn’t convey that - though adam did disobey.

betray (v.)​

early 13c., "prove false, violate by unfaithfulness;"

no?
The word implies an element of subversion. Like revealing a secret or exposing a person to harm by letting someone in through the back door.

The word is your invention so digging up an old meaning seems irrelevant.

God isn't unfeeling unless one goes by a traditional definition of God who is without feeling or "passion". But why would God be hurt by something that He planned?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
We (three generations of my family & I) have moved to the Ozarks of NW AR to a small farm and I especially thank God for the and am loving it. How are things going with you and yours?

That sounds great. I‘m doing well. Had been taking care of my dad for quite a while, but he has passed, so now I’ll be moving on to new adventures.
 

e v e

Super Member
The word implies an element of subversion. Like revealing a secret or exposing a person to harm by letting someone in through the back door.

The word is your invention so digging up an old meaning seems irrelevant.

God isn't unfeeling unless one goes by a traditional definition of God who is without feeling or "passion". But why would God be hurt by something that He planned?
He didn’t plan it or want it... is my understanding. it was devastatingly bad that adam chose to do that and forgot about eden. adam lost his soul... listening to the Self instead of God. God wouldn’t plan for a soul to be alienated from Him?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Yep...

When Mormons are asked to explain what Eph. 2:8-9 means, and they immediately run off to Genesis, or Matthew, or John, it is pretty obvious that have no clue what "exegesis" actually is.
OR they run off to 1 Peter, when asked what Jesus actually said saved the woman, in Luke 7:50. ACTUALLY SAID. In that one verse.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I have been on the forum before as desertscout and ken pasano and have been gone for a while. I came out of retirement to help during this covid crisis, plus it is winter and things are slow on the farm. I'm also an ex-Mormon who attended a Mormon temple during the time that the totally demonic signs, tokens, and "penalties" were practiced. Mormonism removed the penalties, but kept the demonic signs and tokens up to the time that I quit visiting CARM.

The forum has changed a few times since then, so I just re-registered recently. When I was a Mormon, I did a topical study where I catalogued certain topics found throughout the BoM, and eventually realized that many of the teachings in priesthood and Sunday school manuals, along with the teachings of Mormon leaders in the wards and nationally didn't agree with some the teachings in the BoM. Other Mormon standard works (eg. POGP) don't agree with the BoM either. The short of it is; that I soon came out of the perversions that Mormonism was attempting to impose on the true Gospel that the real Christ Jesus taught to His Apostles/Church, and that the gods and gospel of Mormonism was not a restoration, but a vile perversion, proven further by an appeal to early historical Christian writers.
How much have you read The Joseph Smith Inspired "translation"?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
He didn’t plan it or want it...
Ok. Let's not forget that God is all-knowing. If God knew that they were going to eat of that tree, then placing it there anyway is planning it. I'm not going to discuss whether or not he wanted it, but the evidence suggests that he planned it.
it was devastatingly bad that adam chose to do that
How was it devastating? The tree is only one part of God's plan. The other part was that He had designated a Savior before Adam and Eve ever existed. Why would they need a Savior if they never fell?
forgot about eden
I don't know where you get the idea that Adam forgot about the garden of Eden.
adam lost his soul...
No. He didn't. He lost access to Heaven and Jesus fixed that -- AS PLANNED.
listening to the Self instead of God.
No. He listened to Eve and thank goodness he did because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
God wouldn’t plan for a soul to be alienated from Him?
Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. That's exactly what he planned. In fact, that's exactly what he said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".

It is clear from this passage that it was God's intention that Adam would leave the garden and become his own entity with his wife. We do not know what our character is unless we sever the ties of those who raised us. While under the direct influence of heaven, no one would ever do anything evil. This separation from the source of all that is good is necessary to find out who we really are.
 

e v e

Super Member
Ok. Let's not forget that God is all-knowing. If God knew that they were going to eat of that tree, then placing it there anyway is planning it. I'm not going to discuss whether or not he wanted it, but the evidence suggests that he planned it.

How was it devastating? The tree is only one part of God's plan. The other part was that He had designated a Savior before Adam and Eve ever existed. Why would they need a Savior if they never fell?

I don't know where you get the idea that Adam forgot about the garden of Eden.

No. He didn't. He lost access to Heaven and Jesus fixed that -- AS PLANNED.

No. He listened to Eve and thank goodness he did because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. That's exactly what he planned. In fact, that's exactly what he said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".

It is clear from this passage that it was God's intention that Adam would leave the garden and become his own entity with his wife. We do not know what our character is unless we sever the ties of those who raised us. While under the direct influence of heaven, no one would ever do anything evil. This separation from the source of all that is good is necessary to find out who we really are.
a) please tell me where He did that placing and creating of that tree of knowledge of good and evil, explicitly and literally. I’ve now looked at hebrew and almost every translation I could find (so i could reply to you). Here is nasb for gen2. It only says those two trees were there. Why phrase that way?

Out of the ground the Lord God caused every tree to grow that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

b) i don’t know of any verse in scripture saying He planned the fall?? the only thing I know of was a response to adam so to undo the damage adam has done... legally by the cross, and defacto by the Change soon. Is there a verse in lds texts saying he had a plan for adam to fall?

c) If adam had not disobeyed everything God said would happen would have...including that many souls would be born in eden (the term soul in hebrew - npsh - is synonym to the term body in hebrew). no death, pain or mortality were needed for souls to be born and come to Him. Adam was given dominion ... executive rule, so he was smart enough to obey and to speak the names of the animals.

d) Why is doing learning evil necessary?
Why was not trusting and obeying God enough?

The Good of eden (life) is beyond the good-evil dualism of that tree (death). The whole tree of knowledge is rotten and its goods were not eden’s Good. The tree is death.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
Ok. Let's not forget that God is all-knowing. If God knew that they were going to eat of that tree, then placing it there anyway is planning it. I'm not going to discuss whether or not he wanted it, but the evidence suggests that he planned it.

How was it devastating? The tree is only one part of God's plan. The other part was that He had designated a Savior before Adam and Eve ever existed. Why would they need a Savior if they never fell?

I don't know where you get the idea that Adam forgot about the garden of Eden.

No. He didn't. He lost access to Heaven and Jesus fixed that -- AS PLANNED.

No. He listened to Eve and thank goodness he did because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Sorry, but the writing is on the wall. That's exactly what he planned. In fact, that's exactly what he said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh".

It is clear from this passage that it was God's intention that Adam would leave the garden and become his own entity with his wife. We do not know what our character is unless we sever the ties of those who raised us. While under the direct influence of heaven, no one would ever do anything evil. This separation from the source of all that is good is necessary to find out who we really are.
PS to my last point, d.

A parallel of the two trees, as life and death.....

His gorgeous law versus the law of sin. Adam chose to obey sin.

Thinking of Romans 8:2, nasb

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (contrast of two laws; Christ annulled the law - yes ——- of sin and death.)

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

(See bolded line 7. What?)

Here in the lines above quoted is a perfect contrast of God who is life, and His law and His tree of life versus the other tree, of death, and its law of sin and flesh which is carnal and not subject to God. The tree adam ate of was of that carnal mind.
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
a) please tell me where He did that placing and creating of that tree of knowledge of good and evil, explicitly and literally.
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, Gen 2:8
I’ve now looked at hebrew and almost every translation I could find (so i could reply to you). Here is nasb for gen2. It only says those two trees were there. Why phrase that way?
That's not much of a garden if it only had two trees, but regardless, God planted it.
b) i don’t know of any verse in scripture saying He planned the fall??
It's common sense. There are two ways it could go. 1) Adam didn't do what he was supposed to do and God had to recover or 2) Adam did what he was supposed to do and God planned it. The first instance indicates that God doesn't know anything and is reacting to what we do. I find that absurd, but it does appear that many critics accept it. Do you?
the only thing I know of was a response to adam so to undo the damage adam has done
a response or a reaction. I appears that you believe God is guessing. He's not sure what he's doing.
Is there a verse in lds texts saying he had a plan for adam to fall?
2 Nephi 2:25: "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." And while this is a fact, it's also doctrine. If it wasn't for Adam's fall, we would not exist. That alone is a plus.
If adam had not disobeyed everything God said would happen would have...including that many souls would be born in eden (the term soul in hebrew - npsh -
There's no evidence of that. It's possible, I guess, but what you don't seem to understand is that Adam could die if he chose to. Any of his offspring (assuming he could have children in the garden) would also be able to die if they wanted to. The tree was there and all they had to do was eat. The problem, as I see it, is that their role was limited to tending a garden for eternity. Granted that garden might have been a whole world, but still, it was limited to that world and they could die. Their knowledge was limited. We know it was limited because they didn't know good and evil. The reality of it was, they were like really intelligent animals in a zoo.

Our scriptures state that there was no opposition in the garden environment. They couldn't know good because they didn't know evil. They couldn't know joy because they knew no pain, etc.

I have to wonder what Eve was thinking when she decided to eat the fruit. I don't think suggesting that I could be like God knowing good and evil would be enough for me to eat the fruit. We assume it was ambition but that seems absurd when you know you're going to die because you ate the fruit... that has to be an ambition killer. Something in her mind convinced her it to do it. As I mentioned in other threads, I believe Adam and Eve had heavenly parents and were born, not created from a lump of clay. This implies that they had a history before they were placed in the garden as man and wife and I believe they were taught everything there is to know about the gospel. What she hadn't connected before Lucifer tried to get her to eat from the tree, was that she was part of the gospel plan which meant she had to leave the garden in order to put the gospel plan into effect.

That's what I believe. I can't prove it. As far as I know, there isn't any source that tells us exactly what Eve was thinking, but I can't buy into the ambition idea. It truly was a dead end so eating the fruit doesn't seem to be an ambitious thing to do.
d) Why is doing learning evil necessary?
Why was not trusting and obeying God enough?
Why is learning evil necessary? It is as necessary as is learning good. If you don't know what one is from the other, then choosing one over the other isn't possible. Like an animal, they could be trained to do good things, but that is about as effective as saying "good boy" when your dog does something you deemed was good, but the dog has no idea that it's good. What he knows is that he'll get approval and possibly a treat. Without knowing one from the other, our choices would be irrelevant. Adam didn't choose to eat the fruit for any evil purpose. He didn't know good from evil when he did it.
The Good of eden (life) is beyond the good-evil dualism of that tree (death).
That's easy for you to say, but for Adam, he wouldn't have known any of that.
The whole tree of knowledge is rotten and its goods were not eden’s Good. The tree is death.
Well, I don't know about rotten. God has that knowledge and He's not rotten and he's not death.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
That is irrelevant.

There is nothing resembling proper exegesis in any post from any Mormon.

It is kinda like the Mormon curelomons or "useful North American elephants. They don't exist, so why say that they do?
Repeating the same verses and talking points over and over again isn't "exegesis"--is it?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
His gorgeous law versus the law of sin. Adam chose to obey sin.
No. He didn't. No matter what Adam did he had to make a choice. Either choice would have resulted in disobedience. If he chose to eat the fruit he would have had to disobey God who told him not to eat the fruit. If he chose not to eat the fruit then he would have had to disobey God in being joined with his wife. What God has put together let no man put asunder. Eve's choice forced Adam to make a choice.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Well let's take a look at some of this.....

BOJ quoted Eve and responded:
e v e said:
I’ve now looked at hebrew and almost every translation I could find (so i could reply to you). Here is nasb for gen2. It only says those two trees were there. Why phrase that way?
That's not much of a garden if it only had two trees, but regardless, God planted it.

The actual scripture says this:
Gen 2:8-9

The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I reading the actual scripture we see there are more than two trees in the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil and tree of life are two of those trees. The garden was not limited to just two trees.

Here is the next interchange between eve and BOJ:
BOJ wrote:

It's common sense. There are two ways it could go. 1) Adam didn't do what he was supposed to do and God had to recover or 2) Adam did what he was supposed to do and God planned it. The first instance indicates that God doesn't know anything and is reacting to what we do. I find that absurd, but it does appear that many critics accept it. Do you?
e v e said:
the only thing I know of was a response to adam so to undo the damage adam has done
a response or a reaction. I appears that you believe God is guessing. He's not sure what he's doing.
e v e said:
Is there a verse in lds texts saying he had a plan for adam to fall?
2 Nephi 2:25: "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." And while this is a fact, it's also doctrine. If it wasn't for Adam's fall, we would not exist. That alone is a plus.

Mormon theology and temple script stories acted out show the fall was a good thing. Christians believe otherwise. BOJ's logic is flawed. Adam didn't obey the one command God had given him. He and Eve walked in perfect joy and happiness in the garden God created. While God foreknew what Adam and Eve would do, he did not "plan it" for them to sin. They, as did Satan, did that of their own free will. Because God is God, He had a plan to fix that as He knows the end from the beginning.

Here is how the NIV translates the verses in Isaiah regarding God's foreknowledge.

I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come
.
(Isaiah 46:9-10 NIV)


The NLT says it this way:
Isa 46:9-10

For I alone am God!
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 Only I can tell you the future

before it even happens.

The verse in 2 Nephi is truly a construct of Joseph Smith's mind. Men already were because God created man "out of the dust of the earth" and woman out of Adam's rib. BOJ simply then assumes there would have been no children born to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned. Scripture does not say that. Scripture is actually silent on that point.

And then BOJ writes this:

As I mentioned in other threads, I believe Adam and Eve had heavenly parents and were born, not created from a lump of clay. This implies that they had a history before they were placed in the garden as man and wife and I believe they were taught everything there is to know about the gospel. What she hadn't connected before Lucifer tried to get her to eat from the tree, was that she was part of the gospel plan which meant she had to leave the garden in order to put the gospel plan into effect.

That's what I believe. I can't prove it.
There is nothing like assumptions Mormons make to build and accept a false narrative. and Eve was made from Adam's rib, not a lump of clay. Mormons do not appear to carefully read the scriptures. Of course BOJ can't prove it. BOJ doesn't believe the scriptures either when it contradicts his personal beliefs. However, we who rely upon the scriptures can make our case.

What does the scripture say?

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
(Gen. 2:7-8 NKJV)


But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

"This is now bone of my bones

And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,

Because she was taken out of Man."

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

(Gen. 2:20-25 NKJV)


There was no pre-mortal life. No heavenly parents. They had no other history. It is all assumptions and beliefs Mormons cannot defend or prove as BOJ said in his own post. Scripture is clear. The Mormon belief is non-biblical and ludicrous.

In this exchange between eve and BOJ we have this:
e v e said:
If adam had not disobeyed everything God said would happen would have...including that many souls would be born in eden (the term soul in hebrew - npsh -
BOJ said:
There's no evidence of that. It's possible, I guess, but what you don't seem to understand is that Adam could die if he chose to. Any of his offspring (assuming he could have children in the garden) would also be able to die if they wanted to. The tree was there and all they had to do was eat. The problem, as I see it, is that their role was limited to tending a garden for eternity. Granted that garden might have been a whole world, but still, it was limited to that world and they could die. Their knowledge was limited. We know it was limited because they didn't know good and evil. The reality of it was, they were like really intelligent animals in a zoo.
Nice to know the Mormon here thinks so little of God's masterpiece of creation which is man. An intelligent animal in the zoo. amazing.

And finally, BOJs statement here:

No. He didn't. No matter what Adam did he had to make a choice. Either choice would have resulted in disobedience. If he chose to eat the fruit he would have had to disobey God who told him not to eat the fruit. If he chose not to eat the fruit then he would have had to disobey God in being joined with his wife. What God has put together let no man put asunder. Eve's choice forced Adam to make a choice.
Once again the Mormon displays the uncanny inability to see what scripture actually says and then says what it doesn't say.

The words "what God has put together..." were not found in Genesis spoken by God. They were spoken by Jesus is Matthew 19: and Mark 10:9 explaining DIVORCE. There was no divorce in the garden. The Mormon is making a false assumption that Adam would disobey God regardless of his choice.

Here is what the scripture actually says:


So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
(Genesis 3:6-7 NKJV)

The scripture says Eve's eyes were not opened after she ate of the forbidden tree. However after Adam ate, BOTH their eyes were opened. God gave the command to Adam. I postulate he shared that with Eve but the command was given to Adam. It was only after Adam ate, their eyes were opened and realized things were different. We have no record of what God would have done had Adam not eaten of the tree's fruit. Mormons build doctrines out of assumptions, inferences and speculation.

This is why God's written word is critical when comparing teachings. This is why the Bereans were commended. God's biblical word is the standard by which all doctrines are judged. The Mormon scriptures and doctrines fail this test time after time.
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Well let's take a look at some of this.....

BOJ quoted Eve and responded:
That's not much of a garden if it only had two trees, but regardless, God planted it.

The actual scripture says this:
Gen 2:8-9

The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I reading the actual scripture we see there are more than two trees in the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil and tree of life are two of those trees. The garden was not limited to just two trees.
Wow. That was so impressive. I'm not sure what your point is. E v e is right, there are only two trees mentioned in that passage, but that's not really important. If you had been following e v e's posts over the last several years, you'd know that she believes that Satan snuck in and planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil. My response was simply that whatever tree was there, God planted it. I don't know if you got that, but it doesn't appear that you did.

I see that you multiplied a lot of words in your post, so I'll try to pay close attention to what you have to say. So far, it's just wasted space as far as I can tell.
BOJ wrote:

It's common sense. There are two ways it could go. 1) Adam didn't do what he was supposed to do and God had to recover or 2) Adam did what he was supposed to do and God planned it. The first instance indicates that God doesn't know anything and is reacting to what we do. I find that absurd, but it does appear that many critics accept it. Do you?
a response or a reaction. I appears that you believe God is guessing. He's not sure what he's doing.
2 Nephi 2:25: "25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." And while this is a fact, it's also doctrine. If it wasn't for Adam's fall, we would not exist. That alone is a plus.

Mormon theology and temple script stories acted out show the fall was a good thing.
Up to this point, still nothing but wasted space.
Christians believe otherwise. BOJ's logic is flawed. Adam didn't obey the one command God had given him. He and Eve walked in perfect joy and happiness in the garden God created. While God foreknew what Adam and Eve would do, he did not "plan it" for them to sin.
Bzzzzt!! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
It looks to me that your logic is flawed. God knew what would happen and yet he still planted the tree in the garden and you think it wasn't his plan all along? If I know with perfect clarity that your going to do something and I put it there anyway, then the plan is, you're going to do it. It wasn't an accident that God planted that tree there. He didn't forget what he foreknew.

God didn't give "one command" for Adam to obey.
The first command was, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it" Gen 1:28.
The second command is implied, "So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy" Gen 2:3
Some might see this next passage as being related to the first command, "God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." Gen 2:15
Then comes the command that you think is the only command, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 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." Gen 2:16-17
This is the first commandment that had a consequence added to it.
Some may see this next command as being related to the first command also, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Gen 2:24

We can toss out the 7th-day command because it really isn't related to our discussion. Most people recognize the command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" to be related to holding fast to one's wife, they becoming one flesh. So Adam has two commandments that he has been given to follow.

So, it isn't as simple as you are trying to make it with your simple statement that "Adam disobeyed the one command God gave him". It doesn't take a genius to realize that the instant Eve ate the forbidden fruit, it place Adam between a rock and a hard place. 1. He had to make a decision. 2. No matter which decision he made, it would conflict with one of the two commands God gave him. If he didn't eat the fruit, he would have been separated from his wife who he was supposed to "hold fast to" and without his wife, he could not be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. If he ate the fruit, he would die.

I hope you can see the problem there. I'm not sure if the lens you wear prevents you from seeing the obvious, but there is a problem.
[God] had a plan to fix that as He knows the end from the beginning.
Hmmm. Make up your mind. DId God have a plan or not? I'll try to make this easier for you. Did God have a plan before Adam ate the fruit or did he have a plan after Adam ate the fruit? If it was before, then God planned for Adam to eat the fruit. if it was after, then God was reacting to what Adam did and didn't have a plan. So, which is it?

So far, it appears that it is your logic that is flawed, not mine.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
BOJ simply then assumes there would have been no children born to Adam and Eve if they had not sinned. Scripture does not say that. Scripture is actually silent on that point.
Your scriptures are silent on that point. Ours are not. I'm not making an assumption. I'm stating what I believe and I'm backing it up with my scriptures. Now, if you have nothing to refute it, your only argument is based on your opinion which means your argument is baseless.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
There is nothing like assumptions Mormons make to build and accept a false narrative.
Do you mean like the assumption you made that Adam and Eve could have children in the garden of Eden? When you do it, it's not a false narrative. When we do it, it is. Got it. :rolleyes:

But to be clear, I specified that it's what I believe. I built no argument out of it.
Of course BOJ can't prove it. BOJ doesn't believe the scriptures either when it contradicts his personal beliefs. However, we who rely upon the scriptures can make our case.
It seems to me that you all don't know when to take things literally and when to take them figuratively. The same verses that claim that God created the earth in 6 days, aren't literal, are they? You all accept that those may be figurative, but think that making a man out of dirt or out of a rib is literal. The way you all interpret scripture baffles me. It seems as though you make it up as you go and sometimes even switch... this time it will be literal but next time it will be figurative. It all depends on which way the wind is blowing - or might as well.

At least, I know when I can't prove what I say and don't attempt to offer it as doctrine. I believe that Adam was born, not made from dirt. Genesis is mostly figurative, not literal. The first description of creating man didn't say anything about dirt or ribs or a not finding a companion for Adam. Both were created at the same time and given a charge. The second time around there was no six days, the earth was already here with no vegetation on it and it all happened at one time. The earth was watered and poof there was everything Adam needed, but no helper. Which are we supposed to believe? On the surface, it seems that the second time around, creation was assumed or incidental, but it was more about Adam having a helper, a wife. Sure, Adam was made from dirt, but we're all made from dirt. That, to me is simply a metaphor for birth and the rib action is a metaphor for marriage. But I've said all this before. I've said all this before on the previous boards, I'm just repeating it here for continuity's sake and for those reading.

Adam and Eve were born, not made from a lump of clay. Being formed from the dust of the ground is a metaphor for birth. We are all formed from the dust of the ground. The rib story is a metaphor for marriage. It's that simple.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
There was no pre-mortal life. No heavenly parents.
This is just a baseless opinion that is true only because you say so. Prove there was no pre-mortal life. Prove there were no heavenly parents. :rolleyes:

Nice to know the Mormon here thinks so little of God's masterpiece of creation which is man. An intelligent animal in the zoo. amazing.
LOL. That's all you could come up with?
Once again the Mormon displays the uncanny inability to see what scripture actually says and then says what it doesn't say.

The words "what God has put together..." were not found in Genesis spoken by God.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Where did I say that God said it in Genesis? I reiterated my claim in my responses to you false claim that Adam had only one command to obey.
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
(Genesis 3:6-7 NKJV)

The scripture says Eve's eyes were not opened after she ate of the forbidden tree. However after Adam ate, BOTH their eyes were opened. God gave the command to Adam. I postulate...
Here we go... :ROFLMAO:
he shared that with Eve but the command was given to Adam. It was only after Adam ate, their eyes were opened and realized things were different.
Well, that doesn't make any sense at all, but what I think you're saying is that they were both eating the fruit at the same time. Satan didn't really beguile Eve. Satan beguiled both of them at the same time. There's no relevance to verse 6 because what was important was when their eyes were opened, not when they ate the fruit.

I postulate that your postulation is a bit of a stretch. Clearly, the woman ate first. Her reason for eating was spelled out in verse 6 though it doesn't make much sense why that would be significant to the reason she decided to eat it. The fact remains that Adam had no such consideration, none is given. But we do know that there were two commandments and no matter what Adam did, one of those two commandments would have to be broken. Adam's choice was which one.
We have no record of what God would have done had Adam not eaten of the tree's fruit.
We don't know how long Adam was in the garden, but it seems to me that nothing would have happened if he hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit, but we do know one thing. He wouldn't have obtained knowledge of good and evil.
 
Top