What if Adam and Eve Had Resisted...?

[William]

IF Adam and Eve had resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, would they have been permitted to do so eventually?

[Miles]

Omniscience steadfastly remains a robust all-inclusive concept

For an omnipotent being obviously, his omniscience would include the ability to exercise choice as to accessing foreknowledge.

If an omniscient being has foreknowledge to be accessed then he would already possess that knowledge. You can not not know what you know, and by definition an omniscient being already knows everything. There's nothing left to choose to access.

Logic.


.

[1213]

...
Since there was nothing intrinsically special about the fruit, ...

There was one thing that made it special, the condition and promise what will happen, if it is eaten.

...Q: Why would YHWH create a being of nature and not instill that being with knowledge of good and evil,....

Knowledge of evil can be painful. That is one reason not to tell all about evil. But, perhaps this is not that simple. The tree is called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", it doesn't mean the people could not have known anything about evil and good without it. God doesn't say it gives knowledge. Even the serpent doesn't say so, he says "the day you eat it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So, it is possible that people knew already at least something, for example what God had told them. If they would not have known anything about good, how could the woman "saw that the tree was good for food"?

It seems to me that people have interpreted too much of their own ideas to the story.

[JehovahsWitness]

If an omniscient being has foreknowledge to be accessed then he would already possess that knowledge. You can not not know what you know...

Not if he was also omnipotent; unless you have a different definition to the word omnipotent "cannot" has no meaning to such a being.



RELATED POSTS

Would God not have to know everything in order to choose what NOT to know?
viewtopic.php?p=1052893#p1052893

Does the idea of being selective in the use of his powers negate God being "all knowing" in nature ?
viewtopic.php?p=849068#p849068

Is foreknowledge the same as causation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p850450

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

OMNISCIENCE , OMNIPOTENCE and ...SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE

[William]

JW: God did not create humans to die eventually.
God's original purpose for humans was simple, his purpose was that all the human descendants of Adam live happily forever on this our planet earth as one united family. In short, why did God create us? To be happy and enjoy life.

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #36]

In short, why did God create us? To be happy and enjoy life.

There is no mention of this assumed purpose in the story.

Which is where critical thinking skills come in

Please show us from the garden story where it is the case YHWH created human beings to "be happy and enjoy life". Take us through the steps re the critical thinking you employed in reaching that conclusion.

YHWH specified the purpose in creating human form the way it was created was for humans to multiply and subdue the Earth.

Correct... so? There is nothing that imposes death therein.

Yes there is. It is called "biological life on earth". It is born - it lives and then it dies.

Using critical thinking re that, we have the clue in those two attributes. YHWH designed the human form to be used to recreate other humans forms and there was no mention of those forms being infused with a natural ability to remain alive perpetually.
Therefore, the human form was designed by YHQH to have a use-by date - to eventually die.

YHWH created the human form to eventually die

Prove that with scripture.

We should all know that story off by heart, since it is relatively short as far as stories go.

The garden story is the scripture being used for that purpose.
In that, there is no mention of YHWH having any other designs re the human form.

__________________________________
Also - you have yet to provide support for your claim re YHWH's position on the answer to the OPQ.

OPQ: IF Adam and Eve had resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, would they have been permitted to do so eventually?

Your answer;

JW: No. God prohibited eating from that tree on pain of death. It would be entirely contradictory to then later offer the same thing as a reward. Rather like asking if pedophilia will one day offered as a reward for not being a pedophile.

My reply to that was;

William: Read the OPQ again...currently you are way off track in your answer...

to which you replied;

JW: If by "currently you are way off track" you mean I did not provide the answer you would like, then fair enough. If however you use the expression " way off track" to mean I did not answer the question asked, I beg to differ. I said " "No" as in "No, they would NOT have eventually been permitted to do so" which is an answer to the question asked.

To which I replied;

William: Neither.

I further questioned you on your reasoning. If what was once prohibited by YHWH is then allowed by YHWH, who are you to declare that YHWH is being contradictory?
I also pointed out that YHWH is biblically attributed as being able and willing to changing his mind about something

So far you have skirted around answering that question, so I see no way forward in this aspect of the debate until you support you assertion, since it is that assertion which has you declaring that the answer to the OPQ is "No."

Prove your assertion with scripture.

Until you do, I will consider the OPQ has been answered honestly and the answer is "Yes - Adam and Eve would have had access to the fruit they were prohibited from eating, once they had shown they could resist temptation."

[William]

William: I did not say that the fruit caused anything or argue that the fruit had something within it which gave one the ability to know/have knowledge of, good and evil.

It was a prop which YHWH used as a means to an end.

[Replying to 1213 in post #42]

There was one thing that made it special, the condition and promise what will happen, if it is eaten.

Both condition and promise derived from YHWH. The fruit itself held no special attribute.

Since there was nothing intrinsically special about the fruit, there should be no reason why the fruit could not be eaten by the pair, after they had resisted the temptation.

It was a deception because - in the biblical telling of it - God [as yet unnamed] - implied to Adam that the fruit itself had the power to give Adam knowledge of good and evil.
YHWH planted a seed into Adams mind, which then germinated into the eventual disobeying of YHWH.

All along, YHWH would have known that any death incurred after Adam disobeyed YHWH, would not be because the of the fruit that had been eaten but rather, because YHWH would have denied Adam access to the fruit of the tree of life.

This begs the question:
___________________
Q: Why would YHWH create a being of nature and not instill that being with knowledge of good and evil, if indeed we agree that without morals, the human specie could not even get a foothold on the back of nature?

The tree is called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", it doesn't mean the people could not have known anything about evil and good without it.

You have made a number of posts in the thread, none of which tell us where you stand on the OPQ.

Until you make it clear whether you are arguing for "No" or "Yes" - I don't see going off-track re the OPQ as particularly productive.

[Miles]

If an omniscient being has foreknowledge to be accessed then he would already possess that knowledge. You can not not know what you know...

Not if he was also omnipotent; unless you have a different definition to the word omnipotent "cannot" has no meaning to such a being.

???
Sorry, but I still fail to see how omnipotence has any bearing on omniscience. Does omniscience have a bearing on omnipotence? If so, how?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

... It is called "biological life on earth". It is born - it lives and then it dies.

That is an observable reality of life now (no human has ever escaped death) but you are assuming that was God's original purpose. And scripturally, that assumption is false.

HOW DO WE KNOW DEATH WAS NOT PART OF GODS ORIGINAL PURPOSE FOR HUMANS?

Continued human life was explicitly said to be limited by one thing, and one thing only, namely disobedience to God. There is no mention of physical nature being a factor. Other scriptures bear this out as Paul explained to the Romans

ROMANS 5:12

... through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned

Adam died because he sinned (broke Gods law) , ergo if Adam had not sinned he would not have died. If he had not sinned death would not have entered into the human experience (see above). Our physicality is irrelevant scripturally - the death we experience, according to scripture, is the result of human sinnfulness NOT because we are physical .





RELATED POSTS

Is it true that physical flesh and blood human beings can NEVER live forever?
viewtopic.php?p=1075541#p1075541

Were humans designed to live forever?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 82#p815882

If death will be eliminated, why will animals not live forever in paradise ?
viewtopic.php?p=956006#p956006

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVERLASTING LIFE, DEATH and ...THE PURPOSE OF LIFE

[JehovahsWitness]

Does omniscience have a bearing on omnipotence?

Of course, omniscience is a facet of omnipotence.

Think of it this way: An Almighty (all powerful/omnipotent) God is like the superhero with ALL of the superpowers. One of his superowers is his the ability to read the future.

So He can read the future and has the power to control anything that exists including his powers. If he had no power to be selective in his use of his "superpowers" (ie there was no way for him to "turn off" his ability to see the future) then he wouldn't be omnipotent (because there would be one thing he could not do).



JW



RELATED POSTS

Is God OMNISCIENT ?
viewtopic.php?p=1075354#p1075354

How can Omniscience be defined?
viewtopic.php?p=1092483#p1092483

Does omniscience have a bearing on omnipotence?
viewtopic.php?p=1092460#p1092460

Is omnipotence AND omniscient even possible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 04#p334604

Would God not have to know everything in order to choose what not to know?
viewtopic.php?p=1052893#p1052893

Is SATAN omniscience and omnipresent?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p848009

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

OMNISCIENCE , OMNIPOTENCE and ...SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE

[JehovahsWitness]

So far you have skirted around answering that question...Prove your assertion with scripture.

IF Adam and Eve had resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, would they have been permitted to do so eventually?

ANSWER: No, if Adam and Eve had resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit, they would not have eventually been permitted to do so. God prohibited eating from that tree on pain of death. It would be entirely contradictory to then later offer the same thing as a reward. Rather like asking if pedophilia will one day offered as a reward for not being a pedophile.




WAS THE ORIGINAL LAW A PROHIBITION ON SOMETHING THEY HAD A RIGHT TO BUT WERE SIMPLY NOT READY FOR?


No. There is no biblical basis for such a conclusion; God had said "on the day you eat from it you will surely die!" (Genesis 2:17). There was no time limit given on the above. Unlike sex for example ,which a child is prohibited from engaging in until he or she has the maturity to cope with it, the edenic law was absolute without any indication it was temporary.

There is no biblical precedent of God imposing the death penalty for something of which he would eventually approve of and no indication in the Edenic account that He wished eventually for Adam and Eve to eat of that particular tree*.

Although God can and does occassionally change his mind regarding his judgements, he is unchangeable regarding his morality being "...the Father of the celestial lights, who does not vary or change..."(James 1:17). Eating from the tree represented rebellion against divine rulership and this could NEVER be considered right (compare Romans 13:2).

* NOTE There was another tree, THE TREE OF LIFE which the disobedient couple were barred from access to; arguably this was the tree they would have been rewarded to eat from had they proved faithful [Read Genesis 3 verse 22]

JW

Were Adam and Eve being tested? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1092257#p1092256

Would the prohibition on the forbidden tree have been lifted?
viewtopic.php?p=1092464#p1092464

If the fruit had no intrinsic value why would the prohibition be permanent?
viewtopic.php?p=1092364#p1092364

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL , THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD and .. . THE ORIGINAL SIN ,

[Miles]

Does omniscience have a bearing on omnipotence?

Of course, omniscience is a facet of omnipotence.

Think of it this way: An Almighty (all powerful/omnipotent) God is like the superhero with ALL of the superpowers. One of his superowers is his the ability to read the future.

So He can read the future and has the power to control anything that exists including his powers. If he had no power to be selective in his use of his "superpowers" (ie there was no way for him to "turn off" his ability to see the future) then he wouldn't be omnipotent (because there would be one thing he could not do).

Although I see you can't bring yourself to acknowledge god's omniscience, but have to cloak it in an "ability to read the future," it's still nice to see you admit that god does know everything, including everything that lies in the future. So "being omniscient, before he created A&E god knew they and all their descendants would eventually die." And that "God did n̶o̶t̶ create humans to die eventually."

I knew you'd finally come around to the only logical conclusion there is. (Well, I didn't actually "know" this, but was hopeful. )

.