|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 10:47:17 GMT -6
lionofgod , you might want to research the second part of this statement: since the KJV is the most widely accepted, and most other bibles are simply translated from it. I don't want to distract from the topic of this thread, so here is a thread I started: board.unsealed.org/thread/2545/bible-translations has a listing of almost all the versions and gives a historical context for most as well as indicating source material for the individual versions. I use several other places as well as the actual intros from the 10 different versions I personally own, for reference. The intro to the 1611 KJV is particularly interesting, unfortunate that it was seen fit to remove it, from versions made after that. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 11:15:21 GMT -6
Deut 32:16-17 similar wording about being a jealous God and there being other gods, but we get more detail about those other gods. (I am using ESV which is very like NASB and both are highly respected) I too have and use a ESV, with others. so no issues for me. Everyone has a type of translation that they understand best. Only caviat being, when it comes to defining a given word, you cannot use a modern definition for an ancient word, since this language did not exist at the time of the bible. Thats why I gave a resource from the biblical age to use, which also uses the bible in it's definitions, thereby eliminating any doubts as to meaning. Modern words are redefined every year, and the dictionary is updated. In the old times, there was just simple languages. no room for incorrect interpretations, using the definitions of the language as close to the dates as possible, gives you the most true understanding of what is meant.They stirred Him to jealousy with strange gods;
with abominations they provoked him to anger.
They sacrificed to demons that were no gods,
to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
This passage uses parallelism - a technique often used in Hebrew writing. It's when two lines mean the same thing. So, the two lines I highlighted are meant to go together. The other gods are demons.
I understand your assertion, but you are using a narrative by a person, to define a statement of God. I'm doing my best to stay with God's own words, as that is what is being examined. Every person has their own "understanding" of what God means by them. But only God's own words are really adequate to define Gods intent. As I said, there is no refutable evidence of God's intention within the words of God. Many have looked, besides me. Unless they added text that I don't know about. This issue is not carried over into the "New Testament", but is only evident in the OT. God didn't make the commandments in parable, or in inferences or in any other way than crystal clear. A perfect God, would never make a rule set, or laws, that are subjective to man's interpretation. Therefore, to take His own words, assert they mean other than stated and give further interpretive language to back it up, is not adhering to God's actual words. No story is told in the commandments, not extra un needed language was used. no parables and no parallel meanings. Just the words of God, in His own stated laws.
These following from Psalms are the gods that people worshiped. Idols made by human hands. But from the passage above, the people were really worshiping demons. God calls them gods, but they are not real gods, they have no power, they are things other than God that people were worshiping. Like today we might say, "Money is that man's god." It's not a real god, but we use the word god and money is worshiped.
Psalm 115
4 Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
5
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
6
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
7
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
8
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them.
Like the psalms, but they are songs, not doctrine, as it is implied. I don't recall anyone in the bible stating that praising God was equal to defining His word. From Paul: 1 Cor 10:19-21 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
God wants His people to worship Him not demons. That's the jealousy. It's similar to a husband and wife. The closest in your list is number 5. A husband is careful and concerned for her, he wants her affection and doesn't want her giving it away to others. Same with God. And when His people participate in sin instead, that makes Him righteously angry.
I get what you are saying here and as a human, I agree. But we are not discussing Humans we are discussing God, therefore you cannot use a human emotion and human sinful nature, to describe a perfect God. The two cannot be the same. You are asserting that a perfect being created an imperfect being, then further, that the perfect being shares the same rational as the imperfect one they are admonishing. That is a contradictory theory. You can't have both. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 11:45:06 GMT -6
I do have another question, since the previous one cannot be answered sufficiently, by any, without breaking the accepted doctrine. Is using "doctrine", to point of conflicts within itself, breaking doctrine? Since doctrine is an infallible thing, is using the infallible thing, to point out it's own limitations, a break from said doctrine? If not, as it would seem impossible for a rule to "break" itself, or to contradict or define a separation from itself, should be impossible under the rules, of the thing being ruled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 11:45:22 GMT -6
Deut 32:16-17 similar wording about being a jealous God and there being other gods, but we get more detail about those other gods. (I am using ESV which is very like NASB and both are highly respected) I too have and use a ESV, with others. so no issues for me. Everyone has a type of translation that they understand best. Only caviat being, when it comes to defining a given word, you cannot use a modern definition for an ancient word, since this language did not exist at the time of the bible. Thats why I gave a resource from the biblical age to use, which also uses the bible in it's definitions, thereby eliminating any doubts as to meaning. Modern words are redefined every year, and the dictionary is updated. In the old times, there was just simple languages. no room for incorrect interpretations, using the definitions of the language as close to the dates as possible, gives you the most true understanding of what is meant.They stirred Him to jealousy with strange gods;
with abominations they provoked him to anger.
They sacrificed to demons that were no gods,
to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently,
whom your fathers had never dreaded.
This passage uses parallelism - a technique often used in Hebrew writing. It's when two lines mean the same thing. So, the two lines I highlighted are meant to go together. The other gods are demons.
I understand your assertion, but you are using a narrative by a person, to define a statement of God. I'm doing my best to stay with God's own words, as that is what is being examined. Every person has their own "understanding" of what God means by them. But only God's own words are really adequate to define Gods intent. As I said, there is no refutable evidence of God's intention within the words of God. Many have looked, besides me. Unless they added text that I don't know about. This issue is not carried over into the "New Testament", but is only evident in the OT. God didn't make the commandments in parable, or in inferences or in any other way than crystal clear. A perfect God, would never make a rule set, or laws, that are subjective to man's interpretation. Therefore, to take His own words, assert they mean other than stated and give further interpretive language to back it up, is not adhering to God's actual words. No story is told in the commandments, not extra un needed language was used. no parables and no parallel meanings. Just the words of God, in His own stated laws.
I get what you are saying here and as a human, I agree. But we are not discussing Humans we are discussing God, therefore you cannot use a human emotion and human sinful nature, to describe a perfect God. The two cannot be the same. You are asserting that a perfect being created an imperfect being, then further, that the perfect being shares the same rational as the imperfect one they are admonishing. That is a contradictory theory. You can't have both. Based on Scripture, I believe that all the Words in the Bible are God's words. All of them given by the Holy Spirit or as it says "breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16-17) All of them are useful for teaching, doctrine, and understanding the God we worship. So, quotes from Moses, who talked with God face to face, and words of the Psalms are all meant for us to be used to understand Him. The book of Hebrews begins: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets..." (Heb 1:1) Moses was considered the greatest prophet. God spoke through the words of Moses.
You said:
According to Genesis we were created in God's image. What if emotions originate from God but are corrupted in man because of our sinful nature? So whereas God's anger can never be sinful, in sinful man anger is often sinful. Man's jealousy can be sinful, but in God it is not. Our sin nature causes perfection to be broken. You are looking at God through a lens based on mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 11:55:57 GMT -6
"Jealous" Strongs H7067 Hebrew word whose transliteration is qannā' "Used of God not bearing any rival; the severe avenger of departure from himself" the only time this word is used is for God's jealousy - never man's
A Hebrew word cannot necessarily be defined using an English dictionary. We must use the Hebrew meaning in the Hebrew language. Translators then use the English word that most closely conveys what it means. Sometimes it is lacking. That's why it's good too sometimes look stuff up using Strongs to see if we are understanding correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 23, 2021 12:21:50 GMT -6
doesnt the perfect being have to communicate with the imperfect one on a level the imperfect can comprehend? We dont and cant comprehend things outside of our 3 dimesions (4 if you include time). God is outside these and similar to that we just arent able to understand outside what we know and see. When we are born of the Spirit we do comprehend more but our understanding is incomplete now, but will be complete later (1 Cor 13:12).
That is how I would see this at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 12:51:04 GMT -6
I get what you are saying here and as a human, I agree. But we are not discussing Humans we are discussing God, therefore you cannot use a human emotion and human sinful nature, to describe a perfect God. The two cannot be the same. You are asserting that a perfect being created an imperfect being, then further, that the perfect being shares the same rational as the imperfect one they are admonishing. That is a contradictory theory. You can't have both. Based on Scripture, I believe that all the Words in the Bible are God's words. All of them given by the Holy Spirit or as it says "breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16-17) All of them are useful for teaching, doctrine, and understanding the God we worship. So, quotes from Moses, who talked with God face to face, and words of the Psalms are all meant for us to be used to understand Him. The book of Hebrews begins: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets..." (Heb 1:1) Moses was considered the greatest prophet. God spoke through the words of Moses.
I understand what you are saying. However, if that is the case, then no man, who wrote down God's words, could be capable of making a mistake in relating them, as God Himself gave them to him. So, we are back to the infallibility of scripture. But if it is infallible, than it cannot be interpreted, as interpretation is a human construct and Humans are by nature sinful and not perfect, as you have also asserted here. So, the Word cannot contradict or teach in any way other than what the Word means, otherwise you are interpreting, which is expressly forbidden in doctrine. Doctrine, by it's very nature, is an rule. rules don't change, thats what makes them rules. They also cannot be modified per each passage to mean more than one thing. However the "doctrine" also is being applied differently in different situations, which id done so, means it ia actually not static, but a moving thing, based on the held belief at the time.
You said:
According to Genesis we were created in God's image. What if emotions originate from God but are corrupted in man because of our sinful nature? So whereas God's anger can never be sinful, in sinful man anger is often sinful. Man's jealousy can be sinful, but in God it is not. Our sin nature causes perfection to be broken. You are looking at God through a lens based on mankind.
A statement that is very understandable, but contrary to your established stated beliefs. You are stating that a perfect God, created a imperfect being, in His own image. The laws of perfection are not moveable, which is why it is called perfection. Perfection cannot create anything other than perfection. If you follow your own beliefs, than this statement is against doctrine, and not allowed. You imply; A perfect Good, created an image of himself, that was imperfect. (not possible according to the laws/rules of accepted doctrine) Then you imply; Anger is sinful in men, who are God's image, but that with God, the original, it is not sinful as He is not Human. (again a contradiction of stated beliefs) You back that up with the assertion that I am using "mans" lens, not God's. But your previous statement implies that mans lens is an image of gods. (another contradiction) You are doing a very good job of making my point for me. There are contradictions in the bible. If that is true, then it cannot by definition, be a perfect work. You cannot state 2 opposing views as the same truth. One God, one truth. Thats the doctrine you accept. Thats the doctrine I'm using. This is why I went out of my way to nail down the precise meanings of the doctrine, before I even started, so that there is NO wiggle room. You either have a doctrine that is correct, or you have one that is incorrect. (according to scripture, which is already stated as perfect and complete) You see, what nobody wants to admit, is that any set of rules, made by man, to define God, is never going to work. Man cannot fathom gods mind, according to scripture, so doing so, violates the very beliefs that the rules espouse. I will leave this for now as it is the subject of a separate discussion.
God bless!
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 13:02:03 GMT -6
doesnt the perfect being have to communicate with the imperfect one on a level the imperfect can comprehend? We dont and cant comprehend things outside of our 3 dimesions (4 if you include time). God is outside these and similar to that we just arent able to understand outside what we know and see. When we are born of the Spirit we do comprehend more but our understanding is incomplete now, but will be complete later (1 Cor 13:12). That is how I would see this at this time. This is the crux! You agree that man cannot comprehend God, but you also believe that some "really smarter" ones did, and handed down rules as to how to do so, which you follow without question, as stated by "doctrine". Apples and oranges will never be the same, you cannot compare different things as the same. You also cannot state perfection as fact and then describe it in an imperfect rule. If Truth is the guiding principle, as it is implied. Truth does not alter at any point, it is constant. Thats the stated fact and it IS true. So, by definition, if it is not ALWAYS the same, under any possible circumstance, it is not true. There is no such thing as truth that is nearly always true. Like with ALL things, the are only ever 2 choices, not shades of grey as man would like. Good/Bad, God/Satan, Light/Dark, etc. there is no such thing as an imperfect perfect, or an untrue truth. And if the implication is we just don't understand, that would make doctrine a lie, as it states facts and established truth. Which if they cannot be truly understood, cannot either be defined and rules put on it. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 23, 2021 13:18:11 GMT -6
doesnt the perfect being have to communicate with the imperfect one on a level the imperfect can comprehend? We dont and cant comprehend things outside of our 3 dimesions (4 if you include time). God is outside these and similar to that we just arent able to understand outside what we know and see. When we are born of the Spirit we do comprehend more but our understanding is incomplete now, but will be complete later (1 Cor 13:12). That is how I would see this at this time. This is the crux! You agree that man cannot comprehend God, but you also believe that some "really smarter" ones did, and handed down rules as to how to do so, which you follow without question, as stated by "doctrine". Apples and oranges will never be the same, you cannot compare different things as the same. You also cannot state perfection as fact and then describe it in an imperfect rule. If Truth is the guiding principle, as it is implied. Truth does not alter at any point, it is constant. Thats the stated fact and it IS true. So, by definition, if it is not ALWAYS the same, under any possible circumstance, it is not true. There is no such thing as truth that is nearly always true. Like with ALL things, the are only ever 2 choices, not shades of grey as man would like. Good/Bad, God/Satan, Light/Dark, etc. there is no such thing as an imperfect perfect, or an untrue truth. And if the implication is we just don't understand, that would make doctrine a lie, as it states facts and established truth. Which if they cannot be truly understood, cannot either be defined and rules put on it. Whoa! I didnt say we cant comprehend God, our level of understanding Him is limited to what He has chosen to reveal. And yes the scripture tells us that He chose certain men to reveal Himself to so that He could specify His communication to us. He is also revealed through His creation |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 13:36:24 GMT -6
This is the crux! You agree that man cannot comprehend God, but you also believe that some "really smarter" ones did, and handed down rules as to how to do so, which you follow without question, as stated by "doctrine". Apples and oranges will never be the same, you cannot compare different things as the same. You also cannot state perfection as fact and then describe it in an imperfect rule. If Truth is the guiding principle, as it is implied. Truth does not alter at any point, it is constant. Thats the stated fact and it IS true. So, by definition, if it is not ALWAYS the same, under any possible circumstance, it is not true. There is no such thing as truth that is nearly always true. Like with ALL things, the are only ever 2 choices, not shades of grey as man would like. Good/Bad, God/Satan, Light/Dark, etc. there is no such thing as an imperfect perfect, or an untrue truth. And if the implication is we just don't understand, that would make doctrine a lie, as it states facts and established truth. Which if they cannot be truly understood, cannot either be defined and rules put on it. Whoa! I didnt say we cant comprehend God, our level of understanding Him is limited to what He has chosen to reveal. And yes the scripture tells us that He chose certain men to reveal Himself to so that He could specify His communication to us. insert understand instead of "comprehend" if that makes it more acceptable or understandable. the meaning is still the same in intent. And this is not directed AT you, or anyone else in particular. Merely examining facts, and the bible. As an aside- I din't come up with these questions after reading anything outside the bible. I was fortunate as a child. My mother was a stay at home Christian woman, who taught me the bible, as well as history, math and writing and cursive, before I was ever in first grade. I discovered the contradictions at about 12 years old. I didn't need a schooling to teach me that different things are different. I have posed these questions to leaders of my churches before as well, in the end, even with restrictions of rule placed on how to question, they all had to concede the obvious. For short of inventing a definition for each passage, it is impossible to deny the contradictions. Also to a one, after said admissions, they all implied that I was to sort of ignore that fact and just have faith. To which I asked, faith in mans word, or in gods. The answer to that, was different depending on the individuals form of "Christianity". I'm now 53, and have yet to find a person to actually use Gods word to define itself, that can honestly state that there are no contradictions. They say it only "appears so" because we can't understand God's mind. Which contradicts the commandments in that they are the rules of God, given by God, to man, with the intent for him to obey, so he does understand God's word. Which again creates a contradiction of belief. Am I truly the only person that can see this? I speak the same language and have the same definitions as all use. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 13:59:35 GMT -6
lionofgod said, Who says the infallible Word of God cannot be interpreted? This would mean that God gave us truth but we can't understand it. Interpreting means understanding. Yes? For example, you write words on this forum and I interpret their meaning. If I don't understand them, I either look at other things you have said or I ask you to clarify. Can't we do the same with the Bible?
Doctrine is a set of beliefs. We form out doctrine by our understanding of the Bible. We have beliefs about God, sin, redemption, eternity. They form our doctrine.
You also said:
When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. An image of their perfect Creator. God created a perfect world and perfect mankind, but mankind disobeyed and sin entered the world thereby perfection was broken. We (mankind) are no longer perfect but once were. That's one reason why we need a Redeemer; to bring us back to perfection and a relationship with God like Adam and Eve first enjoyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 16:18:50 GMT -6
lionofgod said, Who says the infallible Word of God cannot be interpreted? Interpretation is, by definition, 1 persons opinion of the matter in question. If you are saying that there is indeed more than one truthful opinion, then that would be in oposition to doctrine, as it states facts not opinions. This would mean that God gave us truth but we can't understand it. No, that is a false statement I understand it easily without interpreting it. A statement is not up for interpretation, as it is itself the explanation. Parables, stories, etc. things that are not plainly stated, those are able to be interpreted, as they may not be a direct statement. Interpreting means understanding. Yes? No. here's the definition, it is a different word, which denotes comprehension. For example, you write words on this forum and I interpret their meaning. If I don't understand them, I either look at other things you have said or I ask you to clarify. Can't we do the same with the Bible?
UNDERSTAND'ING, participle present tense
1. Comprehending; apprehending the ideas or sense of another, or of a writing; learning or being informed.
2. adjective Knowing; skillful. He is an understanding man.
Doctrine is a set of beliefs. We form out doctrine by our understanding of the Bible. We have beliefs about God, sin, redemption, eternity. They form our doctrine.
Doctrine first must be established. You cannot use doctrine to decide doctrine. that is contrary to the word. DOCTRINE, noun [Latin , to teach.]
1. In a general sense, whatever is taught. Hence, a principle or position in any science; whatever is laid down as true by an instructor or master. The doctrines of the gospel are the principles or truths taught by CHRIST and his apostles. The doctrines of Plato are the principles which he taught. Hence a doctrine may be true or false; it may be a mere tenet or opinion.
2. The act of teaching.
He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in his doctrine Mark 4:2.
3. Learning; knowledge.
Whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Isaiah 28:9.
4. The truths of the gospel in general.
That they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. Titus 2:1.
5. Instruction and confirmation in the truths of the gospel. 2 Timothy 3:10
As you see doctrine, as it is intended to be, is taught by Christ and the apostles. Not by mans interpretation of God's word. Since it is your stance that not all Christs teachings are doctrine, nor that of any apostle not already in your book, YOU are not actually following doctrine. You are actually stating a specific set of mens interpretations of fact as fact, and further creating restrictions on doctrine. I tried to explain this before, but everyone started accusing ME of going against doctrine, when my definition IS the correct definition. If you wish to state that it is your opinion and you make the rules, but do not have to follow them, or that the rules can be changed as it fits your held opinion, that is true. But you can't have both. when you just decide to apply definition to a word as you see fit, it renders the word meaningless, as the meaning can change depending on the author. Thats how language works, God knows this, he invented it and gave us the common sense to follow it. Since He doesn't say it changes, who is man to put his opinion over Gods plainly stated facts?
You also said:
When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. An image of their perfect Creator. God created a perfect world and perfect mankind, but mankind disobeyed and sin entered the world thereby perfection was broken. We (mankind) are no longer perfect but once were. That's one reason why we need a Redeemer; to bring us back to perfection and a relationship with God like Adam and Eve first enjoyed. Why would a perfect creation from a perfect being, need to be changed to make it align with the perfection it already is? Perfection needs no redemption, it is perfect. However if it was made imperfect or if it was never intended to be perfect, then that would apply, but then your saying perfection can breed imperfection. creating yet another contradiction. How does a perfect being do an imperfect thing? Another contradiction. You can (sort of) play a word game around the facts, but they still are the facts. Imperfection came from somewhere. It didn't create itself. Since God created all things in heaven and earth, God created imperfection. There simply is no other way to truthfully put it. However if you do admit such, it violates the "doctrine" you follow. So, it would create another contradiction. The ONLY way to understand a statement, is to take it as a statement and not alter its meanings.
INTERPRETA'TION, noun [Latin interpretatio.]
1. The act of interpreting; explanation of unintelligible words in language that is intelligible. interpretation is the design of translation.2. The act of expounding or unfolding what is not understood or not obvious; as the interpretation of dreams and prophecy.Look how we can, or sad or merrily,
Interpretation will misquote our looks.
3. The sense given by an interpreter; exposition. We sometimes find various interpretations of the same passage of Scripture and other ancient writings.
4. The power of explaining. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 16:30:14 GMT -6
In language, going all the way back to Christs time, they used methods to determine if a statement was indeed just a statement. They did so by taking the "subject" out of the sentence and substituting a new subject in its place. If the sentence still reads the same meaning, then it is indeed a statement, not something to be interpreted. I took the word "God" out and put "man" in, and it reads identical either way, both intent and meaning do not change. Therefore it IS a statement and is not interpretable as anything else. See....
Exodus 34:14-15 KJV-
14 For thou shalt worship no other man: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous Man:
15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their men, and do sacrifice unto their men, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
I will wait to do any comparisons to the New Testament till you all have a chance to get your heads around the first half of this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 23, 2021 16:43:47 GMT -6
You also said:
When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect. An image of their perfect Creator. God created a perfect world and perfect mankind, but mankind disobeyed and sin entered the world thereby perfection was broken. We (mankind) are no longer perfect but once were. That's one reason why we need a Redeemer; to bring us back to perfection and a relationship with God like Adam and Eve first enjoyed. Why would a perfect creation from a perfect being, need to be changed to make it align with the perfection it already is? Perfection needs no redemption, it is perfect. However if it was made imperfect or if it was never intended to be perfect, then that would apply, but then your saying perfection can breed imperfection. creating yet another contradiction. How does a perfect being do an imperfect thing? Another contradiction. You can (sort of) play a word game around the facts, but they still are the facts. Imperfection came from somewhere. It didn't create itself. Since God created all things in heaven and earth, God created imperfection. There simply is no other way to truthfully put it. However if you do admit such, it violates the "doctrine" you follow. So, it would create another contradiction. The ONLY way to understand a statement, is to take it as a statement and not alter its meanings.
You ask: How does a perfect being do an imperfect thing?
It's not a contradiction - it's because they were given free will. They were allowed to choose to obey or disobey. They disobeyed and now all of us deal with sin. And we know that the wages of sin is death. We either pay for our sin with our death or we put our faith in the Substitute provided by God. He knew from the beginning that they would disobey. Why give them free will? Why should we be allowed to choose to follow Him or not? God wants us to choose. He wants it to be our choice to love Him for in this way we glorify Him.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 23, 2021 17:10:27 GMT -6
You ask: How does a perfect being do an imperfect thing?
It's not a contradiction - it's because they were given free will. They were allowed to choose to obey or disobey. They disobeyed and now all of us deal with sin. And we know that the wages of sin is death. We either pay for our sin with our death or we put our faith in the Substitute provided by God. He knew from the beginning that they would disobey. Why give them free will? Why should we be allowed to choose to follow Him or not? God wants us to choose. He wants it to be our choice to love Him for in this way we glorify Him.
Again, even with free will, perfection will never choose imperfection on its own. Perfection cannot be flawed, or it is not perfection to begin with. Since you state that God "wants", you are implying a human need to a perfect divine entity, that "needs" nothing. Therefore making a contradiction. We do have the same definition of contradiction I assume. "something in opposition to another", in the most basic sense of the word. Since you brought up Adam and Eve and free will. Lets hit on that while we are talking contradictions, briefly, as it is another topic altogether. We cannot seem to stay on just one at a time here. LOL OT God created the heavens and the earth and all things within. That includes angels, which are divine by nature of being a heavenly creation of God, and not a man of the earth. Satan was a head angel, who defied God. So, without even involving sin, we have a perfect being that created a perfect being, who was as it turned out, not perfect, for he defied God. Now since God already had to know this would happen, yet created him anyway and allowed him to ruin the perfect man with sin. Why then is sin mans choice? Satan brought it into the garden, not Adam and Eve. They had no concept of sin, even with free will. They were "taught" that by Satan. So, god created an imperfect angel, that rebelled against Him, was then cast out, and taught man to sin. God, in turn holds man accountable for the sin, gives the angel Satan dominion on earth, then punishes man if he follows sin. So sin was a creation of God's creation. Which since God is the only ultimate responsible party, and the only one with the power to create, is the creator of sin, through his perfect/imperfect creations. |
|
