Did the Nature of Sin Change with the Fall? (mental sin)

[Pavel Mosko]

This is a quirky inconsistency that might be the result of theological / Revelation development in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That I've thought about every so often when thinking about Sin etc.


Genesis 2:17-18

17 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.”

There is nothing in the passage about such things as touching it, or even fantasizing about it. Eve later on when talking to the Serpent mentions about not touching it, and their are a number of theories we might have for that. 1) Some people have speculated that was Eve somehow expanding on what God said, essentially "going above the line" of scripture figuratively speaking 2) Maybe Adam told her not to do that as a kind of Rabbinic fence, or 3) maybe God somehow expanded on verse 1 in one of those walks he use to take with Adam in the cool of the Garden.

But in theory based on that original scripture and how the later narrative is with the Serpent it looks like things are pretty much about actually eating the proverbial fruit, which incidentally in Middle Eastern culture/tradition is a fig and not an apple. So basically Eve could spend multiple occasions lusting after the fruit, touching it etc. but not actually eating it, and no Fall etc. the bomb does not go off so to speak till that first bite.


I however find the Garden of Eden scenario very interesting compared to when Jesus talks about sin: as far as lust, anger even greed goes. Where the mental life is very important to the point of being equated with completing the physical deed.


So what is your thoughts on this..? Do you think this is something 1) that changed with the Fall, 2) A result of theological development / Revelation, 3) The New Testament take on mental sin was true for the pre-Fall, but the situation is maybe unclear because of the genre, vocabulary or some other aspect of bronze age near eastern antiquity? Why and/or how? etc.

Do you have any other random thoughts on the topic?

 

[Sabertooth]

Where the mental life is very important to the point of being equated with completing the physical deed.

I think that you are over-thinking it. Sure, adulterous lust equals adultery and unwarranted anger equals murder, but so many other things are just temptation (that we must flee).

I remember when going through puberty thinking that certain women were "hot," but still not knowing what to do with one. If someone would have told me prematurely, I wouldn't have believed them. It would have sounded too immodest to be true. (One of my daughters reacted the same way to the idea, but now she is married and a mother of two.)

I don't think that Eve plotted to sin like a person who knew what they were doing. I believe that the person who engages in adulterous lust knows how to pursue (illicit) sex and chooses to do so. I believe that it is more than just a passive reaction to somebody's appeal to our sex drive (a source of so much unnecessary guilt in young men).

 

[childeye 2]

This is a quirky inconsistency that might be the result of theological / Revelation development in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That I've thought about every so often when thinking about Sin etc.


Genesis 2:17-18

17 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.”

There is nothing in the passage about such things as touching it, or even fantasizing about it. Eve later on when talking to the Serpent mentions about not touching it, and their are a number of theories we might have for that. 1) Some people have speculated that was Eve somehow expanding on what God said, essentially "going above the line" of scripture figuratively speaking 2) Maybe Adam told her not to do that as a kind of Rabbinic fence, or 3) maybe God somehow expanded on verse 1 in one of those walks he use to take with Adam in the cool of the Garden.

But in theory based on that original scripture and how the later narrative is with the Serpent it looks like things are pretty much about actually eating the proverbial fruit, which incidentally in Middle Eastern culture/tradition is a fig and not an apple. So basically Eve could spend multiple occasions lusting after the fruit, touching it etc. but not actually eating it, and no Fall etc. the bomb does not go off so to speak till that first bite.


I however find the Garden of Eden scenario very interesting compared to when Jesus talks about sin: as far as lust, anger even greed goes. Where the mental life is very important to the point of being equated with completing the physical deed.


So what is your thoughts on this..? Do you think this is something 1) that changed with the Fall, 2) A result of theological development / Revelation, 3) The New Testament take on mental sin was true for the pre-Fall, but the situation is maybe unclear because of the genre, vocabulary or some other aspect of bronze age near eastern antiquity? Why and/or how? etc.

Do you have any other random thoughts on the topic?

I don't believe they even thought about eating the fruit so long as they were convinced that they would die. The scriptures show that the tempter was subtle and cunning. It can be deduced that Eve was an easy target.

 

[Halbhh]

This is a quirky inconsistency that might be the result of theological / Revelation development in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That I've thought about every so often when thinking about Sin etc.


Genesis 2:17-18

17 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.”

There is nothing in the passage about such things as touching it, or even fantasizing about it. Eve later on when talking to the Serpent mentions about not touching it, and their are a number of theories we might have for that. 1) Some people have speculated that was Eve somehow expanding on what God said, essentially "going above the line" of scripture figuratively speaking 2) Maybe Adam told her not to do that as a kind of Rabbinic fence, or 3) maybe God somehow expanded on verse 1 in one of those walks he use to take with Adam in the cool of the Garden.

But in theory based on that original scripture and how the later narrative is with the Serpent it looks like things are pretty much about actually eating the proverbial fruit, which incidentally in Middle Eastern culture/tradition is a fig and not an apple. So basically Eve could spend multiple occasions lusting after the fruit, touching it etc. but not actually eating it, and no Fall etc. the bomb does not go off so to speak till that first bite.


I however find the Garden of Eden scenario very interesting compared to when Jesus talks about sin: as far as lust, anger even greed goes. Where the mental life is very important to the point of being equated with completing the physical deed.


So what is your thoughts on this..? Do you think this is something 1) that changed with the Fall, 2) A result of theological development / Revelation, 3) The New Testament take on mental sin was true for the pre-Fall, but the situation is maybe unclear because of the genre, vocabulary or some other aspect of bronze age near eastern antiquity? Why and/or how? etc.

Do you have any other random thoughts on the topic?

At first...walking/living in trust towards God, at first Adam was living in 'faith' in a sense: walking in the spirit in effect.

Sin was unlikely in that condition.

Falling to the temptation that broke that -- that moment of beginning to distrust God, to break faith -- was the fall.

While we learn there was no sin counted before the Law:

Romans 5:13 For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

While the Law in full essence is Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

It would seem likely that there was some not-following of this (thus smaller sin) before the major sin that Cain did towards Abel, but even long before that it seems that the first sin was that moment Adam and Eve distrusted God, because they did this without any truly excusing cause it seems -- though one can argue that all will sin eventually because we have true autonomy, and it's only a matter of time. Wonderfully God foresaw the need for a savior before all of this.

 

[Running2win]

12Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

I don't think it has changed, IMO. According to James this is how it works. ^^^ Since Eve was in the transgression, she was the one lusting after the fruit- and was probably thinking all those things listed going on in her brain to rationalize her choice. Whereas Adam was lusting after Eve and decided (knowing full well what he was doing) followed Eve and ate. There seems to be a process and incubation period of being "carried away", then an enticement, then we have a choice to make: sin or not.

3For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

 

[Eloy Craft]

This is a quirky inconsistency that might be the result of theological / Revelation development in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That I've thought about every so often when thinking about Sin etc.


Genesis 2:17-18

17 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.”

There is nothing in the passage about such things as touching it, or even fantasizing about it. Eve later on when talking to the Serpent mentions about not touching it, and their are a number of theories we might have for that. 1) Some people have speculated that was Eve somehow expanding on what God said, essentially "going above the line" of scripture figuratively speaking 2) Maybe Adam told her not to do that as a kind of Rabbinic fence, or 3) maybe God somehow expanded on verse 1 in one of those walks he use to take with Adam in the cool of the Garden.

But in theory based on that original scripture and how the later narrative is with the Serpent it looks like things are pretty much about actually eating the proverbial fruit, which incidentally in Middle Eastern culture/tradition is a fig and not an apple. So basically Eve could spend multiple occasions lusting after the fruit, touching it etc. but not actually eating it, and no Fall etc. the bomb does not go off so to speak till that first bite.


I however find the Garden of Eden scenario very interesting compared to when Jesus talks about sin: as far as lust, anger even greed goes. Where the mental life is very important to the point of being equated with completing the physical deed.


So what is your thoughts on this..? Do you think this is something 1) that changed with the Fall, 2) A result of theological development / Revelation, 3) The New Testament take on mental sin was true for the pre-Fall, but the situation is maybe unclear because of the genre, vocabulary or some other aspect of bronze age near eastern antiquity? Why and/or how? etc.

Do you have any other random thoughts on the topic?

The nature of sin didn't change but our relationship to sin changed. So that would be experienced as sin changed. Sin before the fall was something to avoid and that's it. Before the fall our body happily served our will. After the fall it became a body of death. Human flesh would die like the flesh of other animals. The flesh of other animals obey the law of survival.

Human bodies before the fall didn't need to survive so all the involuntary urges and movements of the body were unknown. It was the movements of the body that informed Adam and Eve of their fallen state. Their bodies now made visible their sin and caused them to feel shame. The bodies shift from life to death was immediate. Many people think that the death sentence was unnoticeable at first. Not so. The human body was changed profoundly and immediately. The law of death which our bodies are now driven to obey oppose the Law of God that fulfills us as humans. Because of the ontological shift from life to death sin before the fall was to do what God said to not do. Don't do it and life goes it's merrie way forever. After the fall our entire being became immersed in sin because death awakened a law in our flesh. The law of sin and death.

 

[Sabertooth]

Human flesh would die like the flesh of other animals. The flesh of other animals obey the law of survival.

There was no predation before the fall.

 

[Eloy Craft]

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

Got to be careful here. Adam wasn't deceived by Satan. Simply because he wouldn't give Satan an ear. But he listened to the voice of his wife and bit hook line and sinker the same deception. They had no built in defense , no coping mechanism to strain out the lies like we do. They had never heard anything that they shouldn't believe. Their holy tendency was to believe immediately to say yes to love immediately. They were unable to not believe once they heard. They had no defenses. They had never heard anything that wasn't meant to be believed before so their listening meant believing. To "listen to the voice of" in biblical language is a reference to believing somone charged with delivering truth from above. When Adam listened to the voice of his wife he was no longer the prophet of God to man. Eve replaced him as a new oracle of a new God. God's order was completely turned upside down. Here we have the mother of all harlots. She sits on her throne and doesn't lack for a husband and will never be in mourning. That means she will never be barren.

 

[Eloy Craft]

There was no predation before the fall.

Do you believe animals didn't die before the fall? Death is natural to animals. God created lions with some biig sharp teeth just in case man sinned? The bible doesn't teach that there was no predation before the fall. God hardwired futility and decay into creation in the hope that when man became a complete child of God and enter eternal life body and soul all creation would be lifted out of the law of death. But alas we sinned and the dignity that God endowed man with is left unrevealed until Christ. Peace.

 

[Running2win]

The nature of sin didn't change but our relationship to sin changed. So that would be experienced as sin changed. Sin before the fall was something to avoid and that's it. Before the fall our body happily served our will. After the fall it became a body of death. Human flesh would die like the flesh of other animals. The flesh of other animals obey the law of survival.

Human bodies before the fall didn't need to survive so all the involuntary urges and movements of the body were unknown. It was the movements of the body that informed Adam and Eve of their fallen state. Their bodies now made visible their sin and caused them to feel shame. The bodies shift from life to death was immediate. Many people think that the death sentence was unnoticeable at first. Not so. The human body was changed profoundly and immediately. The law of death which our bodies are now driven to obey oppose the Law of God that fulfills us as humans. Because of the ontological shift from life to death sin before the fall was to do what God said to not do. Don't do it and life goes it's merrie way forever. After the fall our entire being became immersed in sin because death awakened a law in our flesh. The law of sin and death.

Hey, Thanks for that! I've been thinking along them lines for awhile now. Yes, the moment they sinned they "felt" a change in the flesh.

The test also came when God put one prohibition one them. So that was pretty well the only "law" there was.

There is a mystery here too how this all came about, because they were sinless. I think it has to do with the "earthy" nature of Adams body, and they were created beings, IMO.

Whereas Christ was in a earthy body, without a sin nature, but also with a Divine nature, so He would not "want" things of the Earth as we do. His spiritual, Godly nature made Him only want to obey the Father without question- even though it was still very hard just before before the cross.

So when we get our resurrection bodies, they will only want things pertaining to the Spirit, as Jesus did. IMO. That is how we will remain sinless: New spiritual body-opposed to an earthy one, regenerated soul-born again, connection to the Holy Spirit in our spirit= perfection!

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” f ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we g bear the image of the heavenly man.

 

[Running2win]

Do you believe animals didn't die before the fall? Death is natural to animals. God created lions with some biig sharp teeth just in case man sinned? The bible doesn't teach that there was no predation before the fall. God hardwired futility and decay into creation in the hope that when man became a complete child of God and enter eternal life body and soul all creation would be lifted out of the law of death. But alas we sinned and the dignity that God endowed man with is left unrevealed until Christ. Peace.

I don't agree. Death came through Adams fall, and the curse was applied to all the creation-Rom 8. If you read after the flood, Noah was allowed to eat animals. In the first world they were veggie eaters, as was mankind. But most likely man slaughtered and ate animals then, that is why they were so wicked and just about everyone was against God and His commands. There was no fear of man for a defense either.

 

[Running2win]

Got to be careful here. Adam wasn't deceived by Satan. Simply because he wouldn't give Satan an ear. But he listened to the voice of his wife and bit hook line and sinker the same deception. They had no built in defense , no coping mechanism to strain out the lies like we do. They had never heard anything that they shouldn't believe. Their holy tendency was to believe immediately to say yes to love immediately. They were unable to not believe once they heard. They had no defenses. They had never heard anything that wasn't meant to be believed before so their listening meant believing. To "listen to the voice of" in biblical language is a reference to believing somone charged with delivering truth from above. When Adam listened to the voice of his wife he was no longer the prophet of God to man. Eve replaced him as a new oracle of a new God. God's order was completely turned upside down. Here we have the mother of all harlots. She sits on her throne and doesn't lack for a husband and will never be in mourning. That means she will never be barren.

Yeah, for sure! Women are "idols" in most men's eyes. Many use their beauty and sex for advantage. Only a truly Godly woman does not. And sure, they didn't really know what good and evil entailed to the fullest extent. But they knew enough.

 

[The Righterzpen]

So what is your thoughts on this..? Do you think this is something 1) that changed with the Fall, 2) A result of theological development / Revelation, 3) The New Testament take on mental sin was true for the pre-Fall, but the situation is maybe unclear because of the genre, vocabulary or some other aspect of bronze age near eastern antiquity? Why and/or how? etc.

Well, the first reality we have to start with is that Satan fell before Adam and Eve did. Note they were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sin existed before they were aware of it, because Satan was sinning before they did.

But because Adam and Eve were those created in God's image; the consequence of sin did not become evident in creation until they (specifically Adam) ate the fruit.

Now Eve's miscounting of the command?

That answer is probably buried in the Hebrew of those verses somewhere. (Or at least more so than what I recognize on the surface?) I think the beginning of your answer starts with "The serpent was more subtle..."

"Subtle" here is most often translated "prudent". It's used a lot in Proverbs indicating someone who learns to be calculating through observation. They are always "on the thought". So to speak. "The prudent man sees the danger and hides himself". He is one who learns to read the environment by taking note of how people or entities are interacting. This trait was apparently inherent by the way this creature operated in the garden. Eve is noticing this. And this serpent responds to her observation.

We see this in "the serpent said to the woman...." He "responds as he notices the attention he's getting.

Now the one who really answers her is Satan; (the "voice") behind this creature called the serpent, was crafting how to engage Eve in this conversation.

Notice Eve too lacks some clarity of the tree she's speaking of. She doesn't say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She says the tree in the middle of the garden. We assume she's referencing the correct tree, for we have no evidence that God told them not to eat of the tree of life.

Yet I discovered something later on while doing another Bible study that I found very interesting. The river of life ran under the tree of life. (We see this in Revelation in the New Jerusalem.) When Moses struck the rock in the wilderness water came out. (This was right near Sini. I was doing some digging around and I came to the conclusion that's probably where the Tree of Life had been (in the bygone era of earth).

Now Aaron died on Mt. Hor (The law that pronounces you dead for your disobedience.) That was some distance from Sini. (I want to say over by the entrance to Canna?) Was Mt. Hor the "original" location of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

So I've looked this up now a few times in a couple of different references and it's quite clear that the Tree of Life is in the middle of the garden but then we have (sort of) as a "side note" mention of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word order mentions the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden "and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Now assuming Eve knows the difference between the two trees? Yet I find the depiction of the location in the Hebrew doesn't seem quite so clear?

Eve says "God says we not to eat it" While again "and" (we shouldn't touch it) is sort of tacked on as an after thought. followed by "lest we die". So arises again the question of what does this "and" really mean? Is it "this and that" or is it "this; but then I say...." We see a similar thing with Paul "The Lord commands, but I say...." and he gives a piece of advice.

So the accusation of whether or not Eve was actually adding on to what God was saying is a bit ambiguous too. In that sense to say "God says; and it's not a good idea to.... (person states opinion)" Isn't morally wrong from an "advice" perspective. Granted the advice might not be too good, as turned out to be the case with Eve when she realized touching the fruit wasn't going to kill her. Thus the shades of doubt clouding her judgement of the deception she was being fed.

So I don't know if that answers your question; but clearly there is sin present in the creation before Adam and Eve commit it themselves.

Another "rung in the ladder" was also that Adam and Eve were told to "keep" the garden. Which means they were suppose to guard it. They weren't doing a really good job of that.

Then we have God confronting Cain before he kills Able. God asks Cain why he's upset. Is it not true that if you obey, you will be blessed too? Watch yourself though because sin crouches at your door.

Then Jesus's admonition against "sinful thoughts". There appears to be some grey area here where thought led astray turns into sinful thought, turns into sinful action. And my hypothesis is that the delineating factor has to do with the decision to act. There comes a point we cross over the line of the thought process that leads to the action. So therefore the definition of sin comes in the decision making process; which obviously proceeds the action.

This would also fit into James 1:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[Running2win]

Well, the first reality we have to start with is that Satan fell before Adam and Eve did. Note they were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sin existed before they were aware of it, because Satan was sinning before they did.

But because Adam and Eve were those created in God's image; the consequence of sin did not become evident in creation until they (specifically Adam) ate the fruit.

Now Eve's miscounting of the command?

That answer is probably buried in the Hebrew of those verses somewhere. (Or at least more so than what I recognize on the surface?) I think the beginning of your answer starts with "The serpent was more subtle..."

"Subtle" here is most often translated "prudent". It's used a lot in Proverbs indicating someone who learns to be calculating through observation. They are always "on the thought". So to speak. "The prudent man sees the danger and hides himself". He is one who learns to read the environment by taking note of how people or entities are interacting. This trait was apparently inherent by the way this creature operated in the garden. Eve is noticing this. And this serpent responds to her observation.

We see this in "the serpent said to the woman...." He "responds as he notices the attention he's getting.

Now the one who really answers her is Satan; (the "voice") behind this creature called the serpent, was crafting how to engage Eve in this conversation.

Notice Eve too lacks some clarity of the tree she's speaking of. She doesn't say the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She says the tree in the middle of the garden. We assume she's referencing the correct tree, for we have no evidence that God told them not to eat of the tree of life.

Yet I discovered something later on while doing another Bible study that I found very interesting. The river of life ran under the tree of life. (We see this in Revelation in the New Jerusalem.) When Moses struck the rock in the wilderness water came out. (This was right near Sini. I was doing some digging around and I came to the conclusion that's probably where the Tree of Life had been (in the bygone era of earth).

Now Aaron died on Mt. Hor (The law that pronounces you dead for your disobedience.) That was some distance from Sini. (I want to say over by the entrance to Canna?) Was Mt. Hor the "original" location of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

So I've looked this up now a few times in a couple of different references and it's quite clear that the Tree of Life is in the middle of the garden but then we have (sort of) as a "side note" mention of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word order mentions the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden "and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Now assuming Eve knows the difference between the two trees? Yet I find the depiction of the location in the Hebrew doesn't seem quite so clear?

Eve says "God says we not to eat it" While again "and" (we shouldn't touch it) is sort of tacked on as an after thought. followed by "lest we die". So arises again the question of what does this "and" really mean? Is it "this and that" or is it "this; but then I say...." We see a similar thing with Paul "The Lord commands, but I say...." and he gives a piece of advice.

So the accusation of whether or not Eve was actually adding on to what God was saying is a bit ambiguous too. In that sense to say "God says; and it's not a good idea to.... (person states opinion)" Isn't morally wrong from an "advice" perspective. Granted the advice might not be too good, as turned out to be the case with Eve when she realized touching the fruit wasn't going to kill her. Thus the shades of doubt clouding her judgement of the deception she was being fed.

So I don't know if that answers your question; but clearly there is sin present in the creation before Adam and Eve commit it themselves.

Another "rung in the ladder" was also that Adam and Eve were told to "keep" the garden. Which means they were suppose to guard it. They weren't doing a really good job of that.

Then we have God confronting Cain before he kills Able. God asks Cain why he's upset. Is it not true that if you obey, you will be blessed too? Watch yourself though because sin crouches at your door.

Then Jesus's admonition against "sinful thoughts". There appears to be some grey area here where thought led astray turns into sinful thought, turns into sinful action. And my hypothesis is that the delineating factor has to do with the decision to act. There comes a point we cross over the line of the thought process that leads to the action. So therefore the definition of sin comes in the decision making process; which obviously proceeds the action.

This would also fit into James 1:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Nice! IMO, the Heavenly Jerusalem was probably sitting down on the earth (the holy mountain of God) Ezek 28. This is where we know of Satan's sin and what he is too.

It was probably of similar shape of a pyramid or stepped pyramid. The tower of Babble was man trying to copy what was in oral history then-and reach up to Heaven where it went and God lives.

It will set down on earth again one day and redeemed people will be able to enter into the garden again.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Nice! IMO, the Heavenly Jerusalem was probably sitting down on the earth (the holy mountain of God) Ezek 28. This is where we know of Satan's sin and what he is too.

Yeah, have you ever gone through that passage and looked at the Hebrew? It's pretty fascinating.

If you want to look at some of what I've found; here's a link.

Bible Study: Theory on Angels, Ghosts & Extra-Terrestrial Life Chapter 8: Satan - Part 1, a bible fanfic | FanFiction

As far as the heavenly Jerusalem "sitting down on earth"?

Whether or not that "could have happened" I guess would depend on whether or not the heavenly Jerusalem is "incorruptible / glorified state" and what would have been true concerning the possibility of the presence of God in glory being on earth prior to the fall?

I've had this conversation with @Pavel Mosko before about God's presence in the garden as a theophonic figure. Post fall appearance of theophanies on earth always appear as clothed human male forms. (All angels appear this way too.)

Prior to the fall though; what did Adam and Eve actually see of God? Assuming the possibility of a glorified presence prior to their fall may not have manifested as a particularly recognizable form. Genesis speaks of Adam and Eve hearing "the voice of God".

And yet wouldn't it be interesting (and totally consistent with Adam and Eve's condition) if the first theophany seen post fall would have been what Jesus would actually look like when He came in the flesh?

And obviously at that point wearing clothing because Adam and Eve are actually provided animal skins by God. Which would have required a physical presence to slaughter, skin and burn these animals.

Which would have been interesting too because Adam most likely would have recognized his own likeness in the theophany. Did Adam resemble Jesus; who in turn resembled Adam? That's a good possibility, considering all the genetic potential or races and nations who would come later existed in Adam's genome. Then if you look at who's in the human line of Christ, you get the racial gambit; thus Jesus would have resembled a racially mixed individual.

So... yeah; interesting things to ponder.

Also, (granted that the flood makes permanent changes to the land mass of earth); I find it intriguing that where Eden probably was, is now a desert; and where the Tree of Life probably was; is now totally void of life.

It was probably of similar shape of a pyramid or stepped pyramid. The tower of Babble was man trying to copy what was in oral history then-and reach up to Heaven where it went and God lives.

Well that's an interesting thought too. Although we don't have any indication of a "city" in Eden. Were there "building structures"? That's a good question. Somewhere post flood talks about which descendants of which of Noah's sons were the first to build cities. Yet I'm sure people prior to the flood built some manner of community establishments too.

We do know the "pyramid shape" was very important as a "religious building"; because we see examples of it across all ancient civilizations. Whereas the instructions given for the temple were definitely not a pyramid.

So, I think looking at Revelation; it describes the New Jerusalem basically as a cube. Which was the basic shape of the temple and its components.

So interesting comparison between "human" invented pyramids and a cube shaped temple and city.

Which brings up another possibility???

Did the pyramid shape come from "the Nephilim incident" seeing how human beings got certain revelation from the demonic world and pyramids are all associated with pagan religion (which in many cases involved human sacrifices).

Interesting! There is a lot there to piece together.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I've had this conversation with @Pavel Mosko before about God's presence in the garden as a theophonic figure. Post fall appearance of theophanies on earth always appear as clothed human male forms. (All angels appear this way too.)

Yeah I've done some more studies on that sort of thing, but more on the origins of Trinitarianism in the Old Testament. Maybe I will do a thread on it in the very near future.

 

[Sabertooth]

Did the pyramid shape come from "the Nephilim incident" seeing how human beings got certain revelation from the demonic world and pyramids are all associated with pagan religion (which in many cases involved human sacrifices).

Though there may be a supernatural aspect, too, it is easier for men to build a pyramidic tower with stability (see Eiffel Tower) than a cubic one. The New Jerusalem "cube" seems to require supernatural reinforcement in order to stand.

 

[Running2win]

Though there may be a supernatural aspect, too, it is easier for men to build a pyramidic tower with stability (see Eiffel Tower) than a cubic one. The New Jerusalem "cube" seems to require supernatural reinforcement in order to stand.

Here's a pretty good book. Looks at we we think we know about what the Heavenly city and gives another possibility that I believe may be right. The section on the measurements of the city is probably the most interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Earth-Heaven-Like-Jerusalem/dp/1516815130

 

[Eloy Craft]

Hey, Thanks for that! I've been thinking along them lines for awhile now. Yes, the moment they sinned they "felt" a change in the flesh.

The test also came when God put one prohibition one them. So that was pretty well the only "law" there was.

There is a mystery here too how this all came about, because they were sinless. I think it has to do with the "earthy" nature of Adams body, and they were created beings, IMO.

Whereas Christ was in a earthy body, without a sin nature, but also with a Divine nature, so He would not "want" things of the Earth as we do. His spiritual, Godly nature made Him only want to obey the Father without question- even though it was still very hard just before before the cross.

So when we get our resurrection bodies, they will only want things pertaining to the Spirit, as Jesus did. IMO. That is how we will remain sinless: New spiritual body-opposed to an earthy one, regenerated soul-born again, connection to the Holy Spirit in our spirit= perfection!

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” f ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we g bear the image of the heavenly man.

You're Welcome!!!
I agree. As it pertains to the forbidden fruit.We did think differently. In the place of "I" in our heart and minds was "other". There was no ego.imo Also, Neither one of them had ever confronted a lie. Everything they ever heard was something to believe. They didn't have the defense mechanism's we do now. Communication with the angels was a door that closed. We knew which to not talk to before the fall. And if you imagine a population of descendants, if they didn't sin that is, you might get glympse of what God intended. Earthly lives had to end ......they didn't end in death. I could go on on....Grace and Peace

 

[Oaktree125]

Hi! It has been my personal understanding that God presents A&E with the education of what to do and not to do in the the form of a single, simple, straightforward rule. They are in their innocence and require teaching. Satan comes along and adds to the information and creates choices. Adam and Eve chose to listen to him and not believe in the consequences even though Satan offered no other content to their lives. Up to now God has been their sole source. Why they choose what they choose is a mystery. By doing so they gain knowledge as evidenced by hiding their nakedness. Now apparently , Scripture conveys, something is on the inside telling us -not strictly God on the outside. The fruit replaced God's necessary outward , relationship- oriented communication as to their education. Now they know inherently- and my best educated guess is that that is why Jesus says later that mentally sinning is the same-- because we took the knowledge onboard where it wasnt before, however not doing what God tells us is always sin. Thus that obedience is required in His Only Son. We didnt need to know what evil was inherently because we only needed to do what God said because only God is good. evil gained a foot hold in our minds. IMO Satan attacked our personal individuality where God allows us free will . God was never going to teach anything evil and by omission -in the fullness of the knowledge of good -we can identify what isnt what we know and therefore not good(deduction from completeness).