Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[Calm]

While not specifically on topic, this might help nonLDS with some of the nuances of LDS belief on the topic of sin, Adam and Eve and their choice, etc:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw-approaches-lehis-dream-and-nephis-vision/17-bitter-and-sweet

[danielwoods]

Can you know joy if it's all you've EVER experienced?  If there was a person who had NEVER had anything but sugar, and another person who had had both sugar and salt, which person would be qualified to explain what sugar tastes like, or how it makes them feel? 

 

We have to have something different to compare our experiences to, or they mean nothing to us.  That's what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach.

 

Have you ever been in a room that had a really strong smell, but you had no idea that it smelled like it did until someone came in from outside (or you left and came back)?  When our bodies are exposed to the same experience repeatedly, they loose the ability to recognize it.  If it's all we've ever been exposed to, then our bodies react as if it's not even there. 

 

Because Adam and Eve had nothing else to compare it to, they had no way to recognize joy.  For them, it would have been like the strong smell in a room that they had never been outside of.  It could be the strongest smell in the world but they would not be able to 'smell' it because it was all they've ever known.  In such an existence, it is reasonable to describe them has 'having no joy' because if you don't know that you have something, it's the same as not having it.

 

And I've already talked about why it doesn't really make sense to try to argue that being obedient is always the same as doing good.  A toddler can be obedient.  Heck, even a dog or a cat can be obedient.  That doesn't mean they are doing good.  At least, I've never thought that my pet was doing good when they came when I called-not in the way the scriptures define doing good anyway.

 

But like I said, you might feel differently about that. 

 

I understand what you are saying. I disagree. Adam even rejoiced when he saw Eve. "Bone of my bone!" Woo hoo! Who wouldn't be excited to see and experience the perfection of God's ultimate creation?

 

What the statement says is quite different. It states they had "no joy" and "doing no good." Quite the opposite of what the Biblical text states. 

 

I'm fine though. I'm not here to bash anyone's belief. 

[bluebell]

I understand what you are saying. I disagree. Adam even rejoiced when he saw Eve. "Bone of my bone!" Woo hoo! Who wouldn't be excited to see and experience the perfection of God's ultimate creation?

 

Where does the bible say that Adam rejoiced when he saw Eve?

 

I don't remember that being in the bible, but I certainly don't have the creation story memorized.

[danielwoods]

 

Where does the bible say that Adam rejoiced when he saw Eve?

 

I don't remember that being in the bible, but I certainly don't have the creation story memorized.

 

Gen. 2:²³ The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;^(AN)

she shall be called^(AO) ‘woman,’

    for she was taken out of man.^(AP)”

²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united^(AQ) to his wife, and they become one flesh.^(AR)

²⁵ Adam and his wife were both naked,^(AS) and they felt no shame." (NIV)

 

Notice that verse 23 is in poetic form. It's reasonable to assume that Adam was singing this, and at the very least was pretty darned excited about the prospect of having the perfect woman. 

[bluebell]

Gen. 2:²³ The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;^(AN)

she shall be called^(AO) ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.^(AP)”

²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united^(AQ) to his wife, and they become one flesh.^(AR)

²⁵ Adam and his wife were both naked,^(AS) and they felt no shame." (NIV)

Notice that verse 23 is in poetic form. It's reasonable to assume that Adam was singing this, and at the very least was pretty darned excited about the prospect of having the perfect woman.

You seem to be reading a lot in there that isn't actually in the bible.

Adam certainly could have been excited (i dont personally doubt it, but excitement is not the same thing as the joy the book of mormon is teaching about) but whether we like it or not, the bible seems to be silent on that issue. If we are using the bible alone to teach us about the garden, then, at least as far as how adam felt about eve, all we have is speculation.

Not being a believer in "bible only" theology, that doesn't bother me though.

[danielwoods]

You seem to be reading a lot in there that isn't actually in the bible.

Adam certainly could have been excited (i dont personally doubt it, but excitement is not the same thing as the joy the book of mormon is teaching about) but whether we like it or not, the bible seems to be silent on that issue. If we are using the bible alone to teach us about the garden, then, at least as far as how adam felt about eve, all we have is speculation.

Not being a believer in "bible only" theology, that doesn't bother me though.

 

As a believer that the Bible is all we need. I see a lot of joy and good, where the BoM sees no joy or good. And I'm fine with that. 

[BlueDreams]

While not specifically on topic, this might help nonLDS with some of the nuances of LDS belief on the topic of sin, Adam and Eve and their choice, etc:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw-approaches-lehis-dream-and-nephis-vision/17-bitter-and-sweet

 

 

Even less specifically on the topic....though maybe it is. I was actually thinking about the sweet/bitter thing the other day and how in this verse the forbidden fruit is described as sweet while the tree of life as bitter. Except I thought of the it as symbolically like fruit. Most fruit are sweet when they are ripe and ready to be harvested and bitter/hard when they are premature or still growing. I took it as indicative that the next step in their development, to fall and enter mortality, was ready for them. It was sweet because it was time. The tree of life fruit was bitter because it was not fully matured yet. In scriptures it is always after some form of travailing in this life, seeking righteousness/the Lord that one receives of the tree of life. And it's only after Lehi has come to the Lord that the fruit is sweet and unimaginably delicious.  

 

 

It was interesting reading another outlook to the same thing. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

As a believer that the Bible is all we need. I see a lot of joy and good, where the BoM sees no joy or good. And I'm fine with that. 

 

I don't want to beat a dead horse, and hopefully won't, but I saw something of interest while reading the bible passage again.

 

There is a lot of good going on in the genesis account, but the recognition that it is good, comes not from adam or eve but of God. It's God who "saw that it was good" and in the finishing of creation by making man and woman "very good." In Gen 2 the word "good" abruptly stops when God, again, states that it's not good for man to be alone. But an assessment of whether something was good or not is never attributed to Adam directly. And that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is named such makes more since if they had no understanding of both good and evil, not just comprehension of good without evil. I mean a better naming for the tree if it was simply an introduction of sin would be better named the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. But there is both and tied into the context of how the word is used and not used in the account I feel would give enough inference for an LDS view of about needing contrast to fully understand either with or without the BoM for clarity.

 

Another thing I never noticed before. Eve isn't called "Eve, the mother of all living" until AFTER the fall. Before then she was called "woman, because she was taken out of man."  I find that interesting as well, that there would be a differentiation in naming pre and post fall for Eve. I could see this taken in either (theological) way: that there was an embodiment of some sort that allowed woman to be mother. Or in other words, that something fundamentally changed to allow Eve to mother and create life. It could also be taken as more of a description of origination of where mortality/the fall came from in more of a traditional christian sense. (as in the mother of life-as-we-know-it as opposed to the capable-of-bringing all living) 

 

Again, if I was going solely on a biblical account, I think there is enough inference for both claims. I would not state that it's the opposite of what the bible says, just the opposite to how you've come to understand it.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2013 by BlueDreams

[danielwoods]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, and hopefully won't, but I saw something of interest while reading the bible passage again.

 

There is a lot of good going on in the genesis account, but the recognition that it is good, comes not from adam or eve but of God. It's God who "saw that it was good" and in the finishing of creation by making man and woman "very good." In Gen 2 the word "good" abruptly stops when God, again, states that it's not good for man to be alone. But an assessment of whether something was good or not is never attributed to Adam directly. And that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is named such makes more since if they had no understanding of both good and evil, not just comprehension of good without evil. I mean a better naming for the tree if it was simply an introduction of sin would be better named the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. But there is both and tied into the context of how the word is used and not used in the account I feel would give enough inference for an LDS view of about needing contrast to fully understand either with or without the BoM for clarity.

 

Another thing I never noticed before. Eve isn't called "Eve, the mother of all living" until AFTER the fall. Before then she was called "woman, because she was taken out of man."  I find that interesting as well, that there would be a differentiation in naming pre and post fall for Eve. I could see this taken in either (theological) way: that there was an embodiment of some sort that allowed woman to be mother. Or in other words, that something fundamentally changed to allow Eve to mother and create life. It could also be taken as more of a description of origination of where mortality/the fall came from in more of a traditional christian sense. (as in the mother of life-as-we-know-it as opposed to the capable-of-bringing all living) 

 

Again, if I was going solely on a biblical account, I think there is enough inference for both claims. I would not state that it's the opposite of what the bible says, just the opposite to how you've come to understand it.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Well, at the risk of the dead horse thing... I disagree. There isn't any indication that having no children was apart of the pre-fall plan (no mention of any physical changes in this regard either). Further, the idea that Adam or Eve didn't have joy or do good is quite the opposite of what is in the Biblical text. But if you think that there's enough inference for the BoM claims to be true, that's fine. 

[Calm]

Even less specifically on the topic....though maybe it is. I was actually thinking about the sweet/bitter thing the other day and how in this verse the forbidden fruit is described as sweet while the tree of life as bitter. Except I thought of the it as symbolically like fruit. Most fruit are sweet when they are ripe and ready to be harvested and bitter/hard when they are premature or still growing. I took it as indicative that the next step in their development, to fall and enter mortality, was ready for them. It was sweet because it was time. The tree of life fruit was bitter because it was not fully matured yet. In scriptures it is always after some form of travailing in this life, seeking righteousness/the Lord that one receives of the tree of life. And it's only after Lehi has come to the Lord that the fruit is sweet and unimaginably delicious.  

 

 

It was interesting reading another outlook to the same thing. 

 

With luv,

BD

Really like this

[BlueDreams]

Well, at the risk of the dead horse thing... I disagree. There isn't any indication that having no children was apart of the pre-fall plan (no mention of any physical changes in this regard either). Further, the idea that Adam or Eve didn't have joy or do good is quite the opposite of what is in the Biblical text. But if you think that there's enough inference for the BoM claims to be true, that's fine. 

 

You would have to show where it is opposite. That's my main problem, you really haven't. The bible does not state that.....in fact it's quite silent on how A+E Felt (you have to infer far more than I did to get an answer on that) and has no reference to doing good attributed to them. All that was done that was good is attributed to the Lord, not A+E, in genesis. At best you can state that God saw it was good. But that phrase is not attributed to A+E. You can disagree, but stating it's the opposite of what is in the biblical text is quite unfounded. You're using an inference of poetry to mean good (could just mean that it was more beautiful than before or a poetic statement that the Lord's good creations was completed in this) while I'm using the actual wording of the text. Your statement comes off quite flimsy. I don't mind that you believe that they experience joy and did good. I think there's plenty of room for either opinion. I just don't think you have the capacity to state its biblically opposite when the account is so scant and that there is evidence to point otherwise. That's my main problem. 

 

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. But I can't say that your opinion is the opposite of what is found in the bible (at best I can say there's not a ton of evidence for it without the assumption already there) any more than you can (again at best you can say there's not a ton of evidence without the assumption already there).

 

 

WIth luv,

BD

Edited August 25, 2013 by BlueDreams

[danielwoods]

You would have to show where it is opposite. That's my main problem, you really haven't. The bible does not state that.....in fact it's quite silent on how A+E Felt (you have to infer far more than I did to get an answer on that) and has no reference to doing good attributed to them. All that was done that was good is attributed to the Lord, not A+E, in genesis. At best you can state that God saw it was good. But that phrase is not attributed to A+E. You can disagree, but stating it's the opposite of what is in the biblical text is quite unfounded. You're using an inference of poetry to mean good (could just mean that it was more beautiful than before or a poetic statement that the Lord's good creations was completed in this) while I'm using the actual wording of the text. Your statement comes off quite flimsy. I don't mind that you believe that they experience joy and did good. I think there's plenty of room for either opinion. I just don't think you have the capacity to state its biblically opposite when the account is so scant and that there is evidence to point otherwise. That's my main problem. 

 

I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. But I can't say that your opinion is the opposite of what is found in the bible (at best I can say there's not a ton of evidence for it without the assumption already there) any more than you can (again at best you can say there's not a ton of evidence without the assumption already there).

 

 

WIth luv,

BD

 

I can appreciate that. 

 

One thing I think about is what was the intended message to the original hearers/readers of this passage? 

Did they think that A&E had joy and did good? Or did they think they had no joy and did no good?

 

What appears to me to be happening is that the idea that they had joy and did good isn't persuasive to a person who already believes they didn't based on what they already believe to be true (the BoM). I don't have that bias. I don't really care one way or the other, my goal is to know the truth. That's it. IF they didn't have joy, then I'd expect some mention of that, or if they didn't do good, that also, I'd expect to be mentioned. Why? Because Joy and Good are apart of the very nature of what God is. And for his creation (the pinnacle) to not have that, wouldn't make sense, at least to me. I mean consider all the passages about Heaven where joy and goodness fill God's presence, why is it assumed that if its silent, then it's not present here? Further, if God said that what he made was good (A&E) then what else would one expect to come from his creation (before the fall remember)? 

 

Do I expect this to be persuasive to a BoM believer? No. But, I'd hope that one would maybe understand how one's own biases can influence how we interpret passages. 

[bluebell]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, and hopefully won't, but I saw something of interest while reading the bible passage again.

 

There is a lot of good going on in the genesis account, but the recognition that it is good, comes not from adam or eve but of God. It's God who "saw that it was good" and in the finishing of creation by making man and woman "very good." In Gen 2 the word "good" abruptly stops when God, again, states that it's not good for man to be alone. But an assessment of whether something was good or not is never attributed to Adam directly. And that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is named such makes more since if they had no understanding of both good and evil, not just comprehension of good without evil. I mean a better naming for the tree if it was simply an introduction of sin would be better named the Tree of the Knowledge of Evil. But there is both and tied into the context of how the word is used and not used in the account I feel would give enough inference for an LDS view of about needing contrast to fully understand either with or without the BoM for clarity.

 

Another thing I never noticed before. Eve isn't called "Eve, the mother of all living" until AFTER the fall. Before then she was called "woman, because she was taken out of man."  I find that interesting as well, that there would be a differentiation in naming pre and post fall for Eve. I could see this taken in either (theological) way: that there was an embodiment of some sort that allowed woman to be mother. Or in other words, that something fundamentally changed to allow Eve to mother and create life. It could also be taken as more of a description of origination of where mortality/the fall came from in more of a traditional christian sense. (as in the mother of life-as-we-know-it as opposed to the capable-of-bringing all living) 

 

Again, if I was going solely on a biblical account, I think there is enough inference for both claims. I would not state that it's the opposite of what the bible says, just the opposite to how you've come to understand it.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Great observations. I never noticed before that in the Bible, Eve is not called the mother of all living until after the Fall.

[bluebell]

 

 

Do I expect this to be persuasive to a BoM believer? No. But, I'd hope that one would maybe understand how one's own biases can influence how we interpret passages. 

 

I certainly can see both of our biases in our interpretation of the Genesis story and it's a valid point.  Our biases do color how we read and interpret scripture.

[BlueDreams]

I can appreciate that. 

 

One thing I think about is what was the intended message to the original hearers/readers of this passage? 

Did they think that A&E had joy and did good? Or did they think they had no joy and did no good?

 

What appears to me to be happening is that the idea that they had joy and did good isn't persuasive to a person who already believes they didn't based on what they already believe to be true (the BoM). I don't have that bias. I don't really care one way or the other, my goal is to know the truth. That's it. IF they didn't have joy, then I'd expect some mention of that, or if they didn't do good, that also, I'd expect to be mentioned. Why? Because Joy and Good are apart of the very nature of what God is. And for his creation (the pinnacle) to not have that, wouldn't make sense, at least to me. I mean consider all the passages about Heaven where joy and goodness fill God's presence, why is it assumed that if its silent, then it's not present here? Further, if God said that what he made was good (A&E) then what else would one expect to come from his creation (before the fall remember)? 

 

Do I expect this to be persuasive to a BoM believer? No. But, I'd hope that one would maybe understand how one's own biases can influence how we interpret passages. 

I would definitely agree that our biases influence our interpretation of passages. And though you do not care one way or the other, as you stated, you also read the same passage with a set of biases (I would take a guess both of us our invested in knowing the truth). It goes back into basic questions of what is the fall to you, what is the purpose of our being here, and how we envision heaven, etc.....not including our concept of doing good, having joy (a fullness of it), etc.  The reason the argument isn't persuasive is because we're coming from very different sets of biases and assumptions about these things.

 

For example the first questions I have when I read your main paragraph above was, how do you see them when it's stated they didn't have joy or didn't do good. Personally, the way you word it, it almost makes them sound like they were (at worst) down or untouched by anything. Or that nothing they did was worthwhile. To LDS this isn't the concept at hand. It's not a value judgment but a place where comprehension of good and evil were not fully recognized. In all accounts and lds depictions the Garden is depicted as beautiful, good, pleasant, etc. And they are depicted as happy in coming together, etc. But this is not the same as comprehending good and evil and actively choosing good. It's not the same as having a "fullness of Joy." 

 

And they already didn't have all that God is, by His own words before the fall they were not as the Gods "to know good and evil." So there was already something they didn't have before it that is attributed to God. I would say that knowledge of good and evil, to be able to appraise something as good or as evil is a pretty big thing to miss as well. For LDS it goes back to our purpose for coming to mortality. The argument isn't convincing because there are plenty of answers to all that you mentioned that make sense theologically for LDS.

 

Your assumptions are playing into it just as much as my own. I cannot pretend to understand from the original audience's POV. I know just a little about hebrew thought, even less about ancient Hebraic reasoning, and less still of the place that the people fresh out of egypt would have thought about this topic. How it morphed from an oral to written tradition in stories would also be difficult for me to even have a scant idea about.  I've got what I got from and LDS perspective that I personally see strong merit for, in general and that shapes how I see things and even what little I do know about anything ancient Hebraically oriented. Frankly all I've got that I solidly can rely on is what I know of God now rather than what a people millenia removed understood of God then. 

 

 

With luv,

BD  

[danielwoods]

I would definitely agree that our biases influence our interpretation of passages. And though you do not care one way or the other, as you stated, you also read the same passage with a set of biases (I would take a guess both of us our invested in knowing the truth). It goes back into basic questions of what is the fall to you, what is the purpose of our being here, and how we envision heaven, etc.....not including our concept of doing good, having joy (a fullness of it), etc.  The reason the argument isn't persuasive is because we're coming from very different sets of biases and assumptions about these things.

 

For example the first questions I have when I read your main paragraph above was, how do you see them when it's stated they didn't have joy or didn't do good. Personally, the way you word it, it almost makes them sound like they were (at worst) down or untouched by anything. Or that nothing they did was worthwhile. To LDS this isn't the concept at hand. It's not a value judgment but a place where comprehension of good and evil were not fully recognized. In all accounts and lds depictions the Garden is depicted as beautiful, good, pleasant, etc. And they are depicted as happy in coming together, etc. But this is not the same as comprehending good and evil and actively choosing good. It's not the same as having a "fullness of Joy." 

 

And they already didn't have all that God is, by His own words before the fall they were not as the Gods "to know good and evil." So there was already something they didn't have before it that is attributed to God. I would say that knowledge of good and evil, to be able to appraise something as good or as evil is a pretty big thing to miss as well. For LDS it goes back to our purpose for coming to mortality. The argument isn't convincing because there are plenty of answers to all that you mentioned that make sense theologically for LDS.

 

Your assumptions are playing into it just as much as my own. I cannot pretend to understand from the original audience's POV. I know just a little about hebrew thought, even less about ancient Hebraic reasoning, and less still of the place that the people fresh out of egypt would have thought about this topic. How it morphed from an oral to written tradition in stories would also be difficult for me to even have a scant idea about.  I've got what I got from and LDS perspective that I personally see strong merit for, in general and that shapes how I see things and even what little I do know about anything ancient Hebraically oriented. Frankly all I've got that I solidly can rely on is what I know of God now rather than what a people millenia removed understood of God then. 

 

 

With luv,

BD  

 

You are right. I come at the passage with the bias that it is true. And when I read the statement, "having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." I don't see this as being true from the outset, unless it agrees with the passage in the Biblical text. 

 

Your argument that the above statement is specifically about their comprehension of good and evil is probably one I'd make if I was attempting to stretch the meaning to fit the biblical passage. I had asked before, if Adam was "doing no good" then was naming the animals good or bad? One person responded that he'd bet it was good. I then followed up and asked if he was disagreeing with the BoM text? He didn't respond. I'd ask the same of you. IF you argue that Adam was doing no good before the fall (as the BoM is) then wasn't naming the animals good? If it was as you state, "lds depictions the Garden is depicted as beautiful, good, pleasant, etc." then why doesn't the Nephi passage state that it's all about comprehension? Why does it just plainly state that Adam was "doing no good"? "Doing" certainly isn't just comprehension, it's an action. As James says, be a "doer" of the word, not a hearer only. 

 

There is another thing that I thought of. The whole narrative in Genesis is detailing what would rightly be called the first sin of mankind. Everything before that had to be good by definition, if it wasn't good it would have been mentioned (and that would have been the first). In essence, the reason we learned about the fall was because it was the first "not good action" by Adam and Eve. Therefore by logical conclusion, everything was good before that. Making the statement about them before the fall, "doing no good, for they knew no sin." false. 

 

As for learning what the original hearers/readers of this message thought, verses relying on what the LDS teach. This also comes from our different biases or beliefs. 

[Vance]

So, when Adam named the animals it was not a good thing he did? 

That is neither good nor bad.  It is just naming animals.

[Vance]

 

My point is that certainly they had Joy (given the context of the Bible), if they were at all connected with the author of joy. And they certainly did good, because they obeyed God's commands, until the fall. So, if that's true, then the BoM and the Bible are at odds on this point. Or so it seems to me. 

And yet you still can't provide Biblical support for your assumption.  You are simply reading into it what you want to see.  What ever happened to "sola scriptura"?  Where is your Biblical support for the presumption of them having "joy"?

[Vance]

Wow.  Beginning w/ post #374 (Vance) and quickly piled-on by Mola Ram Suda Ram & mfbukowski--MrG gets taken to the woodshed for his failing to make differentiation between sin and transgression.  The beating reaches its zenith with what is hands-down the thread's most condescending post, mfbukowski, #408.  (MrG's restraint shown in #409 is for the ages.)

 

And then we learn said distinction is a late 20th century LDS understanding, taught by Joseph Fielding Smith.  I don't know how other readers feel, but kinda seems to me the aforementioned worthies owe MrG an apology.  Not holding my breath, of course. 

;0)

 

What do you think, calmoriah?

 

--Erik

 

Clean up the attitude and start contributing substance or you will be removed from threads.

Well, I see that you have provided all the evidence available to you for your position.  Which, of course, is none at all.

[Vance]

I understand what you are saying. I disagree. Adam even rejoiced when he saw Eve. "Bone of my bone!" Woo hoo! Who wouldn't be excited to see and experience the perfection of God's ultimate creation?

 

What the statement says is quite different. It states they had "no joy" and "doing no good." Quite the opposite of what the Biblical text states. 

 

I'm fine though. I'm not here to bash anyone's belief. 

And just how would Adam know that he just "experience(d) the perfection of God's ultimate creation"?  Again, you are just making this stuff up.

 

And you keep saying "what the Biblical text states" without actually providing Biblical statements that support your position.

[Vance]

 

Where does the bible say that Adam rejoiced when he saw Eve?

 

I don't remember that being in the bible, but I certainly don't have the creation story memorized.

It doesn't.  That is just Daniel making stuff up as he goes.

[Vance]

I can appreciate that. 

 

One thing I think about is what was the intended message to the original hearers/readers of this passage? 

Did they think that A&E had joy and did good? Or did they think they had no joy and did no good?

What ever happened to "sola scriptura"?  So now we can't go by what the Bible says but rather what a 21 Century American Protestant THINKS is the intended message?????

[Vance]

Gen. 2:²³ The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;^(AN)

she shall be called^(AO) ‘woman,’

    for she was taken out of man.^(AP)”

²⁴ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united^(AQ) to his wife, and they become one flesh.^(AR)

²⁵ Adam and his wife were both naked,^(AS) and they felt no shame." (NIV)

 

Notice that verse 23 is in poetic form. It's reasonable to assume that Adam was singing this, and at the very least was pretty darned excited about the prospect of having the perfect woman. 

You do know that Genesis is attributed to Moses, right???

[Vance]

As a believer that the Bible is all we need.

WOW!!!  For believing that the Bible is all that we need you sure ADD a lot into it that JUST IS NOT THERE!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even less specifically on the topic....though maybe it is. I was actually thinking about the sweet/bitter thing the other day and how in this verse the forbidden fruit is described as sweet while the tree of life as bitter. Except I thought of the it as symbolically like fruit. Most fruit are sweet when they are ripe and ready to be harvested and bitter/hard when they are premature or still growing. I took it as indicative that the next step in their development, to fall and enter mortality, was ready for them. It was sweet because it was time. The tree of life fruit was bitter because it was not fully matured yet. In scriptures it is always after some form of travailing in this life, seeking righteousness/the Lord that one receives of the tree of life. And it's only after Lehi has come to the Lord that the fruit is sweet and unimaginably delicious.  

 

 

It was interesting reading another outlook to the same thing. 

 

With luv,

BD

I have often thought that the actual fruit did not exist. Meaning that it was some magical (I only use that word because I am not sure how to describe it) fruit that had actual power. I think the fruit is symbolic. I havn't figure it all out but I am learning and trying to fit the pieces to the puzzle together.