Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 275 by onewithhim]
For Christians all sin is deliberate sin. John was indicating that anyone who claimed to.be without sin before accepting Christ was lying. How else would they know who the children of the devil where if they to could live completely righteous lives? You seem to enjoy adding words to the texts. Who gave you this'll authority to add to God's word?

You are adding to the scripture. Some might call it "twisting." John did not say "before accepting Christ."

All sin is NOT deliberate. Deliberate sin is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway, with impunity. E.g., a person might say, "I know having sex with my neighbor's wife is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway!" Sin that is not deliberate is the sin we inherited from Adam. Sometimes we don't even realize we have sinned.

.

[William]

[Replying to post 275 by onewithhim]
For Christians all sin is deliberate sin. John was indicating that anyone who claimed to.be without sin before accepting Christ was lying. How else would they know who the children of the devil where if they to could live completely righteous lives? You seem to enjoy adding words to the texts. Who gave you this'll authority to add to God's word?

You are adding to the scripture. Some might call it "twisting." John did not say "before accepting Christ."

All sin is NOT deliberate. Deliberate sin is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway, with impunity. E.g., a person might say, "I know having sex with my neighbor's wife is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway!" Sin that is not deliberate is the sin we inherited from Adam. Sometimes we don't even realize we have sinned.

.

Well then - wasn't it inevitable that Adam would sin?

What does that say about the usefulness of his incorruptible body? Of what purpose is an incorruptible body when the consciousness which is using it, is corruptible?

So The Lord God creates an incorruptible form and then places a corrupt consciousness within it.

The results would be plainly predictable.

[onewithhim]

I was thinking about this subject. Some depict the outcome differently from others.

Why is this so?

It occurs to me that it is based upon personal preference.

Perhaps examining the similarities one might better get a handle on what is what.

Is the .New Earth in this physical universe or some alternate one?

It is in this physical universe, just where God originally created it to be.

"This is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, the true God, the Former of the earth, the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it to be inhabited: 'I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.'" (Isaiah 45:18)

"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Well at least with that we can understand what would have to be involved in achieving such a thing within this physical universe.

Also, the physical universe must therefore have no end to it because how can one live forever in a place which is finite?
Add to that, what kind of bodies would be required in order for the individual consciousness to remain within the universe forever?

They wouldn't be biological, knowing what we do about how the universe affects biological life forms.

Indeed, even mechanical forms would eventually stop working, even that they would be far more hardy than flesh and blood.

And then of course, blood would be a thing of the past as well.

Certainly bodies would be biological....physical.

But we already are well aware of the properties of the universe in relation to biological forms. Biological forms do not survive forever.

Wasn't Adam created with a body like ours (but perfect)?

Adam died. Also - this tends to suggest that an imperfect consciousness had the use of a perfect form and that the word perfect is being used in this context to denote an incorruptible form.

He was designed and intended by God to live forever.

But he died. Also, why do you think it was Gods intention for Adam to live in his body in this universe forever?

Can't God see to it that our bodies will never stop working?

How?

Obviously biological bodies don't survive the experience. As I said, even sophisticated machined bodies cannot last forever. Even the universe itself cannot last forever.

So how will this God 'see to it' then? Any ideas?

Do I have any ideas? Only that God knows how to see to it.

Adam could have lived forever if he hadn't disobeyed Jehovah. He'd still be here now. He only died because he chose to be independent of God & showed Him so by taking the fruit off God's one tree.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[William]

I was thinking about this subject. Some depict the outcome differently from others.

Why is this so?

It occurs to me that it is based upon personal preference.

Perhaps examining the similarities one might better get a handle on what is what.

Is the .New Earth in this physical universe or some alternate one?

It is in this physical universe, just where God originally created it to be.

"This is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, the true God, the Former of the earth, the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it to be inhabited: 'I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.'" (Isaiah 45:18)

"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4)

Well at least with that we can understand what would have to be involved in achieving such a thing within this physical universe.

Also, the physical universe must therefore have no end to it because how can one live forever in a place which is finite?
Add to that, what kind of bodies would be required in order for the individual consciousness to remain within the universe forever?

They wouldn't be biological, knowing what we do about how the universe affects biological life forms.

Indeed, even mechanical forms would eventually stop working, even that they would be far more hardy than flesh and blood.

And then of course, blood would be a thing of the past as well.

Certainly bodies would be biological....physical.

But we already are well aware of the properties of the universe in relation to biological forms. Biological forms do not survive forever.

Wasn't Adam created with a body like ours (but perfect)?

Adam died. Also - this tends to suggest that an imperfect consciousness had the use of a perfect form and that the word perfect is being used in this context to denote an incorruptible form.

He was designed and intended by God to live forever.

But he died. Also, why do you think it was Gods intention for Adam to live in his body in this universe forever?

Can't God see to it that our bodies will never stop working?

How?

Obviously biological bodies don't survive the experience. As I said, even sophisticated machined bodies cannot last forever. Even the universe itself cannot last forever.

So how will this God 'see to it' then? Any ideas?

Do I have any ideas?

Yes. Do you?

Only that God knows how to see to it.

That's not really an idea. Have you not thought about how God would 'see to it'?
Would it require the bringing of an incorruptible substance into this universe from another universe? Is that a possible option?

Adam could have lived forever if he hadn't disobeyed Jehovah. He'd still be here now. He only died because he chose to be independent of God & showed Him so by taking the fruit off God's one tree.

Yes, well going by that story, the tree in question was one which gave Adam the ability to discern between good and evil. He did not intentionally sin, but even so, he then had to vacate his incorruptible body and be given a corruptible one...but no! - That is not how the story goes...apparently the body went from being incorruptible to corruptible.

Thus, Adams actions - even done without evil intent - produced something which was so powerful that it could make his incorruptible body change to a corruptible one.
From what the story says, the thing which was created which in turn had the power to do this was Adams beliefs.
But can the power of belief be enough to make an actual body change its inherent attributes so dramatically as to go from a state of non-corruptibility to a state of corruption?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

On what?

YOU can agree to disagree with me all you wish, does not mean that what I am saying is disagreeable.
Are you conceding?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 281 by onewithhim]
A person could be forgiven of all past sins and been perfectly sinless after accepting Christ and if they made the statement mentioned in this text they would be lying and thereby have committed a sin. Of course they had sinned before coming to Christ.

1 John 1:10
If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

have I twisted the text? It makes perfect sense for the author to later add.

1 John 3:6New International Version (NIV)

6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

. Notice how the texts fit together seamlessly. Yes they had sinned but through the Spirit they would be kept from defiling Christ's sacrifice that had paid for that sin.

Acts 13:38-39New International Version (NIV)

38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

How can a Christian insist they have sinned unknowingly? Paul claims for Christianity the promise of the new covenant.

Hebrews 8:7-13New International Version (NIV)

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[a]:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.�
13 By calling this covenant “new,� he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

What else did God promise to do?

Jeremiah 32:38-40New International Version (NIV)

38 They will be my people, and I will be their God. 39 I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. Ezekiel 36:26-28New International Version (NIV)

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 275 by onewithhim]
For Christians all sin is deliberate sin. John was indicating that anyone who claimed to.be without sin before accepting Christ was lying. How else would they know who the children of the devil where if they to could live completely righteous lives? You seem to enjoy adding words to the texts. Who gave you this'll authority to add to God's word?

You are adding to the scripture. Some might call it "twisting." John did not say "before accepting Christ."

All sin is NOT deliberate. Deliberate sin is knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway, with impunity. E.g., a person might say, "I know having sex with my neighbor's wife is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway!" Sin that is not deliberate is the sin we inherited from Adam. Sometimes we don't even realize we have sinned.

.

Well then - wasn't it inevitable that Adam would sin?

What does that say about the usefulness of his incorruptible body? Of what purpose is an incorruptible body when the consciousness which is using it, is corruptible?

So The Lord God creates an incorruptible form and then places a corrupt consciousness within it.

The results would be plainly predictable.

You ask, "Wasn't it inevitable that Adam would sin?" The answer is, "NO."

Jehovah has, at times, exercised His freedom of choice to refrain from knowing what the results of some action will be. He could not SINCERELY offer Adam eternal life if He knew what Adam would do. He would have had to speak to Adam with a fake face, so to speak. No, He genuinely gave Adam a choice as to what he would do.

You seem to think that Adam would have rebelled, beyond doubt. Why is it that most people today say, "How could he do such a stupid thing?" It was not inevitable. He chose gullible Eve and his own independence over love of God. You or I might not take that course.

When Jehovah created Adam, He did not "place a corrupt consciousness" within him. Adam was perfect, according to God's specifications.

"The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He." (Deut.32:4, NASB)


.

[onewithhim]

quote]He was designed and intended by God to live forever.

Adam could have lived forever if he hadn't disobeyed Jehovah. He'd still be here now. He only died because he chose to be independent of God & showed Him so by taking the fruit off God's one tree.

Yes, well going by that story, the tree in question was one which gave Adam the ability to discern between good and evil. He did not intentionally sin, but even so, he then had to vacate his incorruptible body and be given a corruptible one...but no! - That is not how the story goes...apparently the body went from being incorruptible to corruptible.

Thus, Adams actions - even done without evil intent - produced something which was so powerful that it could make his incorruptible body change to a corruptible one.
From what the story says, the thing which was created which in turn had the power to do this was Adams beliefs.
But can the power of belief be enough to make an actual body change its inherent attributes so dramatically as to go from a state of non-corruptibility to a state of corruption?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

On what?

YOU can agree to disagree with me all you wish, does not mean that what I am saying is disagreeable.
Are you conceding?

Uh, no, the tree in question did not give Adam the "ability to discern good from evil." He was already versed in such things. You ASSUME that the tree was as you say. The scripture says "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is no absolute definition of that tree, aligning it with the attainment of that knowledge. It could also mean---and I believe this view of it---that the tree REPRESENTED the offering to Adam of the CHOICE as to whether or not he would stick with God's own standards of good and evil, or go with his own standards.

Adam intentionally sinned. Otherwise he would not have been punished. And yes, his body went from being perfect and eternal to corrupt. Have you ever heard of DNA? Just a slight adjustment could render its host totally different.

What you are saying is indeed disagreeable, because I disagree. I have shown you why I don't agree, but you dismiss whatever I say. Therefore we have a stalemate.



.

[William]

Adam could have lived forever if he hadn't disobeyed Jehovah. He'd still be here now. He only died because he chose to be independent of God & showed Him so by taking the fruit off God's one tree.

Yes, well going by that story, the tree in question was one which gave Adam the ability to discern between good and evil. He did not intentionally sin, but even so, he then had to vacate his incorruptible body and be given a corruptible one...but no! - That is not how the story goes...apparently the body went from being incorruptible to corruptible.

Thus, Adams actions - even done without evil intent - produced something which was so powerful that it could make his incorruptible body change to a corruptible one.
From what the story says, the thing which was created which in turn had the power to do this was Adams beliefs.
But can the power of belief be enough to make an actual body change its inherent attributes so dramatically as to go from a state of non-corruptibility to a state of corruption?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

On what?

YOU can agree to disagree with me all you wish, does not mean that what I am saying is disagreeable.

What you are saying is indeed disagreeable, because I disagree. I have shown you why I don't agree, but you dismiss whatever I say. Therefore we have a stalemate.

Don't be too hasty there onewithhim - I am only trying to ascertain where you are coming from with your belief system and when someone says 'we shall agree to disagre' I take it that they do not wish to interact on the subject anymore, because they feel there is no reconciling to be done on the matter of an apparent disagreement.

Are you conceding?

Uh, no,...

Okay...

...the tree in question did not give Adam the "ability to discern good from evil." He was already versed in such things.

What makes you think that this is the case? Do you think that the voice in the garden instructed him on the differences and that he - by that, was able to then have a sense of what good and evil were?
The story seems to say otherwise...

You ASSUME that the tree was as you say. The scripture says "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is no absolute definition of that tree, aligning it with the attainment of that knowledge.

Well to be fair, the story implies as much. There is some kind of attachment between the FRUIT of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." and - in eating that, the connection between knowing the difference.

In that knowing, the actions of the pair THEN determine the consequence. Prior to that, the actions are based upon ignorance and innocence.

It could also mean---and I believe this view of it---that the tree REPRESENTED the offering to Adam of the CHOICE as to whether or not he would stick with God's own standards of good and evil, or go with his own standards.

All that this says is that Adam had instructions but couldn't possibly know the outcomes of actions other than as second hand knowledge.
That might be useful to the GOD, but is not so useful to any human living in this universe, on this planet - having to deal with the wild side of living as it were. Specifically, being within the nurturing nest of a paradise garden is not the best way to prepare for the greater reality of what lay outside those parameters.

Adam intentionally sinned. Otherwise he would not have been punished.

I can see how you would come to this conclusion, based on you interpretations of the story.
But the story implies that both were ignorant until after the fact. If the pair truly knew the difference between good and evil, why were they not self conscious re their nakedness?

Simply put, the metaphor seems to be about the replacing of the innocence of ignorance, with knowledge and this was important to the God in relation to his agenda.

'Punishment' was necessary in order to instill the required fear the God wanted Adam to have in him, so that - through this emotion, the God could control Adam (and Adams decedents) in a particular manner which offered the best chance of that Gods agenda being carried out...over the face of the entire Earth.

How would it be to have a multitude of subservient creatures all simply nodding their heads in agreement and doing what they were told without question?

From the Gods perspective, this would not do because it left the whole relationship rather shallow and one-sided - kind of like having some type of obedient robot which you couldn't even hope to have a decent conversation with.

And yes, his body went from being perfect and eternal to corrupt.

Why would any GOD wish to place an imperfect consciousness within a perfect form within an imperfect universe?

(You have yet to address that part of my argument.)

Have you ever heard of DNA? Just a slight adjustment could render its host totally different.

So now you are suggesting that the host (form) - now imperfect, is the more practical one for the imperfect consciousness using it in the imperfect universe?

Were there any other tweaks of DNA performed on the other animals (apart from the serpent obviously) or were these animals all in corrupt forms already?

In other words, was the imperfect consciousness called 'Adam' in a perfect body in an otherwise imperfect universe...therefore, the only thing perfect about any thing, was the body Adam was within?

If your argument is to imply that all was perfect, then you are saying that the universe we currently are experiencing is NOT the one in which Adam originally was within.

See?

There are a few holes in your belief systems which require explaination.

[onewithhim]

...the tree in question did not give Adam the "ability to discern good from evil." He was already versed in such things.

What makes you think that this is the case? Do you think that the voice in the garden instructed him on the differences and that he - by that, was able to then have a sense of what good and evil were?
The story seems to say otherwise...

You ASSUME that the tree was as you say. The scripture says "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is no absolute definition of that tree, aligning it with the attainment of that knowledge.

Well to be fair, the story implies as much. There is some kind of attachment between the FRUIT of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." and - in eating that, the connection between knowing the difference.

In that knowing, the actions of the pair THEN determine the consequence. Prior to that, the actions are based upon ignorance and innocence.

It could also mean---and I believe this view of it---that the tree REPRESENTED the offering to Adam of the CHOICE as to whether or not he would stick with God's own standards of good and evil, or go with his own standards.

All that this says is that Adam had instructions but couldn't possibly know the outcomes of actions other than as second hand knowledge.
That might be useful to the GOD, but is not so useful to any human living in this universe, on this planet - having to deal with the wild side of living as it were. Specifically, being within the nurturing nest of a paradise garden is not the best way to prepare for the greater reality of what lay outside those parameters.

Adam intentionally sinned. Otherwise he would not have been punished.

I can see how you would come to this conclusion, based on you interpretations of the story.
But the story implies that both were ignorant until after the fact. If the pair truly knew the difference between good and evil, why were they not self conscious re their nakedness?

Simply put, the metaphor seems to be about the replacing of the innocence of ignorance, with knowledge and this was important to the God in relation to his agenda.

'Punishment' was necessary in order to instill the required fear the God wanted Adam to have in him, so that - through this emotion, the God could control Adam (and Adams decedents) in a particular manner which offered the best chance of that Gods agenda being carried out...over the face of the entire Earth.

How would it be to have a multitude of subservient creatures all simply nodding their heads in agreement and doing what they were told without question?

From the Gods perspective, this would not do because it left the whole relationship rather shallow and one-sided - kind of like having some type of obedient robot which you couldn't even hope to have a decent conversation with.

And yes, his body went from being perfect and eternal to corrupt.

Why would any GOD wish to place an imperfect consciousness within a perfect form within an imperfect universe?

(You have yet to address that part of my argument.)

Have you ever heard of DNA? Just a slight adjustment could render its host totally different.

So now you are suggesting that the host (form) - now imperfect, is the more practical one for the imperfect consciousness using it in the imperfect universe?

Were there any other tweaks of DNA performed on the other animals (apart from the serpent obviously) or were these animals all in corrupt forms already?

In other words, was the imperfect consciousness called 'Adam' in a perfect body in an otherwise imperfect universe...therefore, the only thing perfect about any thing, was the body Adam was within?

If your argument is to imply that all was perfect, then you are saying that the universe we currently are experiencing is NOT the one in which Adam originally was within.

See?

There are a few holes in your belief systems which require explaination.

Yes, I am saying that God's voice in the Garden had undoubtedly instructed Adam on the differences between what was good and what was evil. How could a just, merciful God have put His human creations on the planet without explaining things to them? Absurd.

The story does not say "otherwise," as you suggest it does. It simply says that the tree was to be left alone, and it is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." All of the argument is tied up in the word "knowledge." It isn't crystal clear what that means. Does it mean that Adam would gain knowledge only after he ate from the tree? Or does it mean that taking from the tree would demonstrate Adam's desire to dictate for himself what is good or evil? His "knowledge" would be of his own making.

Since it's not really clear, and the wording is tricky, what are we to do? I think we should go on all the other scriptures that show God to be merciful, kind and just. It stands to reason that He would not set humans up in the Garden with no instruction on what to do to maintain a safe, happy life.

Adam knew the outcome of his partaking of the tree. That is clear.

There was nothing bad "outside of the parameters" of the Garden. Adam had to simply "keep" the Garden and extend its borders, eventually turning the whole planet into a beautiful garden.

And yes, the "universe" that Adam experienced before he rebelled is not the one that we are experiencing today.

You seem to complicate things to the point of absurdity. To me, perfection and imperfection are not complicated. Jehovah did not place an imperfect consciousness within Adam. Everything about Adam was perfect, before he wilfully disobeyed Jehovah.


.

[William]

Yes, I am saying that God's voice in the Garden had undoubtedly instructed Adam on the differences between what was good and what was evil. How could a just, merciful God have put His human creations on the planet without explaining things to them? Absurd.

First off, the very existence of consciousness within this universe is absurd. The is the starting point, so Consciousness is dealing with the absurd right from the go get of self awareness kicking in.

GOD is better equipped in relation to knowledge than Adam. It does not matter how much someone is instructed about the dangers of fire, but UNTIL that individual burns himself with fire, he cannot really know.

He has knowledge but he does not know, because he is ignorant of what the knowledge means.

The story does not say "otherwise," as you suggest it does. It simply says that the tree was to be left alone, and it is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." All of the argument is tied up in the word "knowledge." It isn't crystal clear what that means. Does it mean that Adam would gain knowledge only after he ate from the tree? Or does it mean that taking from the tree would demonstrate Adam's desire to dictate for himself what is good or evil? His "knowledge" would be of his own making.

Exactly!

I have not been arguing that GOD is in the wrong here, only that GOD understands that in order for Adam (me) to understand what knowledge means, I have to experience it warts and all. Knowledge of good may indeed be cosy without knowledge of evil, but it is also incomplete for that. Evil is required under those circumstances because it exists (even as potential) and dealing with that is the whole biblical theme.

We chose and we deal with the consequences.

To call GOD 'evil' is evil.

Yet the actions which appear to be contradictory need to be explained. GOD cannot work directly with the individual and ignore evil. Participation in evil is thus required and so GOD occasionally acts out evil.

This is what caused the slpit in personalty between the two polars - GOOD and EVIL are recognized as opposing forces within a universe which is not opposed to itself if understood (scientifically) as a process which is self contained and at ONE with itself in that.

It might appear to be chaotic, but is organised intelligently. We are just so deep within it that our perspective is forced to see chaos.

Duality becomes the lens in which we see thing through.

Since it's not really clear, and the wording is tricky, what are we to do? I think we should go on all the other scriptures that show God to be merciful, kind and just.

All aspects of the One GOD. Warts and all.

It stands to reason that He would not set humans up in the Garden with no instruction on what to do to maintain a safe, happy life.

No it does not stand to reason. The Garden was already set up as a parameter to maintain a safe happy life.
Outside of that garden, was a different situation which required 'setting up humans' for the eventual venturing into that dangerous zone outside the gates of Eden.

Adam knew the outcome of his partaking of the tree. That is clear.

No he did not. He was told - in vague terms - what would happen, but his knowledge of that did not come until after the event.

There was nothing bad "outside of the parameters" of the Garden. Adam had to simply "keep" the Garden and extend its borders, eventually turning the whole planet into a beautiful garden.

According to what? The evidence?

The presumption might have been that this could have been the plan, but the reality is that the GOD knew it would be the most unlikely event to unfold.

If your presumption here is followed through logically, then what GOD required didn't require making a relatively small garden and placing a couple of humans and mostly harmless critters within it.
God could have just created a garden over the whole face of the earth and placed billions of human beings on it all at once.

Why did the GOD not do this?

The answer must be something other than what you are presuming here, onewithhim

And yes, the "universe" that Adam experienced before he rebelled is not the one that we are experiencing today.

You have to come to that conclusion based on your presumptions which shape your beliefs. I see that.

BUT - in doing so you are now invoking alternate universe theory and are basically saying that GOD decided to place the experiment into another type of universe BUT you believe apparently that THIS universe we are now in, will be the one in which (some of us - specifically 'Jehovah's Witnesses' will be living forever more in.

Why would anyone want to live forever in THIS universe when according to YOU, this is not even the original perfect universe Adam was placed within?

Shouldn't you be wanting to exist forever in the perfect universe rather than in this one?

Please think about that.

You seem to complicate things to the point of absurdity. To me, perfection and imperfection are not complicated. Jehovah did not place an imperfect consciousness within Adam. Everything about Adam was perfect, before he wilfully disobeyed Jehovah.

Please cease from arguing from the position of contradiction.

Adam cannot have been perfect if he was able to disobey GOD.

Either explain that contradiction or cease from using it in argument.

One is not perfect AND ignorant at the same time. (except for being perfectly ignorant.)

That is why this:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;