Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[cdowis]

The Bible is silent, yet it's silence doesn't lend any  support to the idea that they couldn't.

 

You need help here.  The Lord commanded them to have children, so the silence presumes that they were able to fulfill the commandment.  In silence, you have to presume the default position that they had the physical capability to fulfill the commandment.

 

So, you could rightly ask whether it makes sense that God would give a commandment that He knew that it could not be fulfilled.

 

The LDS would have an answer, but I'll let them figure it out for themselves.  They are too smug, methinks.

[Vance]

I don't usually respond to things that I don't think are persuasive. I simply don't have the time to respond to everything.

  Or it is because you don't have a coherent response.

 

How does your doubt about God's ability to create have anything to do with what is in the text?

I have no doubt about God's ability to create.  I just know that the text does NOT support your claim.

 

If you wish to support your position, that they weren't physically able to "Know" each other, then show where it is in the text.

I have already provided several, and Bluebell as well.  You have not responded to all of them.  And what you have responded to has not been with substance.

 

Otherwise it's not just my assumption you are disagreeing with, it's the text, or lack of evidence supporting your idea. Further, if you are arguing that they were prepubescent (currently 11-12 or so years old?) then evidence for this is also needed.

 It is your assumption when it is not found in or supported by the text.

False. Increasing one's pain in childbirth is the same in Hebrew as it is in english and mentioning it as a judgement to a person not able to have children is meaningless. Sort of like saying, I'm going to take away your drivers license, that you are unable to have yet.

Your response is the false one.  The main definition of the Hebrew word translated as "multiply" is "be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous".  Let's TOTALLY ignore the "become" parts of that definition.

 

And Eve's "desire shall be to thy husband".  Obviously referring to sexual desire, which she didn't have before. You can even check out the Hebrew if you don't believe that is sexual desire being refered to here.

 

All choices or options aren't always in conflict, this is one of those cases. The choice between painting a wall yellow or blue aren't in conflict, and the choice to have children (fill the earth) isn't juxtaposed to eating the fruit. Neither have anything to do with each other. They aren't connected in the text anywhere. It doesn't say, oh you can only have children if you eat this fruit. This is a false connection not made by the text alone. Sort of like saying you can't get a drivers license unless you eat rocky road ice cream, they have nothing to do with each other.

You can't have the wall all blue and all yellow at the same time.  The two are in conflict.  You have to choose because you can only have one.

 

The fact that you don't believe they are in conflict doesn't mean that we are not free to believe that they are.  And the text, due to its silence, can support either, or at lease not conflict with either.  So using the text you can NOT show our position to be unreasonable.

It doesn't change the meaningfulness of the statement, "bone of my bone" and "one flesh". If Adam and Eve were unable to "Know" each other before the fall, the statement is meaningless. Your question about their parents is irrelevant and another topic (a red herring) and doesn't change the meaningfulness of the statement concerning their ability to have children.

And "bone of my bone" doesn't support your position in any way.  Nor does it conflict with the LDS position in any way.  And of course you failed to notice or include the FUTURE tense "they SHALL BE one flesh".  OBVIOUSLY meaning at some future time (like after the fall).

 

You STILL have not addressed the "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother" which totally blows a giant hole in your whole argument. And that is why you are dodging it.

 

Weak or not depends on whether one believes the LDS point of view already. From a Bible only point of view, the whole idea that this is even an issue is not even worth talking about, . . .

And yet you are making a big deal about it simply because that is the anti-LDS thing to do.  If it has absolutely no affect on your theology either way, then it very much appears that you are aguing simply because it is the anti-LDS thing to do.

 

. . .because it's clear the fall didn't add any abilities to A&E.

You mean other than the ones that the Hebrew clearly shows, like Eve would be able to "BECOME" pregnant.  Or that Eve would now have "sexual desire" toward her husband.

 

It was sin and judgement, which always takes away from the perfection God created.

Because your God is unable to create something from nothing that would remain in a state of "perfection", right?

 

Edited September 2, 2013 by Vance

[mfbukowski]

As we have seen from Rob Bowman, it is doubtful it will get any better.  The philosophical presumptions on which the EV arguments are based rely on Greek philosophy being able to fuse with the Hebrew Bible.

 

Guess what?  Those two positions do not fuse. We have 2,000 years of allegedly "Christian" theology trying to do just that, and here we are debating the same issues again.

 

Today's "Christians" are just no longer Christian.  The definition has reversed itself.  They are proponents of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Edited September 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

You need help here.  The Lord commanded them to have children, so the silence presumes that they were able to fulfill the commandment.  In silence, you have to presume the default position that they had the physical capability to fulfill the commandment.

 

So, you could rightly ask whether it makes sense that God would give a commandment that He knew that it could not be fulfilled.

 

The LDS would have an answer, but I'll let them figure it out for themselves.  They are too smug, methinks.

I thought you were LDS?

[bluebell]

Whether they could have children or not is largely irrelevant to the text. It just doesn't matter. The sin wasn't about sex or anything connected to it. The fact that the LDS point to this as one reason the fall was necessary is why it's an issue at all in this discussion. The LDS point not to the Bible as it's reference but to further revelation. As far as the Bible is concerned, they were fully functional right from the get go. There's no evidence other wise, but let's analyze your points.

 

It doesn't say she couldn't have children until after the fall. I agree it calls her 'woman' for she was taken out of man, and then it states later that her name would be Eve because she would be mother of all living. I agree. However, I disagree that this is evidence of a limitation placed on them before the fall that then after the fall they were changed somehow to allow them to bear children. For example, what changed exactly? And why? What bearing did the fall have on their relationship with respect to function? Where is this limitation mentioned at all? Even once?

The timing of naming Eve in your example doesn't indicate she couldn't have kids before, she was always going to be the mother of all living, because they were given the command to be fruitful, before the fall.

 

Right on both counts. However, again there is missing any evidence that the fall somehow allowed them to "know" each other, where before they weren't able to "know" each other. Juxtapose this with the command to fill the earth. If they were unable to understand the command or follow it, what's the point of the command? Seems to me the timing is in your favor, but it is mitigated by other evidence, because there is nothing specific to the fall that expanded their ability with regards to having kids. Now let's look at the list I posted earlier.

 

danielwoods, on 20 Aug 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

The question of contention is were they able to have children before the fall?

Points for:

1) God created them perfect and fully formed and functional.

2) God indicated that the pain of child birth would increase. Something that increases must have existed (at least in theory) before, other wise it doesn't make sense.

3) God commanded that they be fruitful and multiply. God doesn't command something that isn't possible. (before the fall)

4) Adam's statement, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" followed by the statement, "They become one flesh..." (before the fall)

I think we're about to the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree but I'll address your final four points to keep things simple.

 

1)  God also created them 'innocent'.  Children are innocent and one of the hallmarks of that is a lack of sexual desire.  Even the bible points out that Eve had no 'desire' towards her husband until after the Fall  (it was one of the 'curses' of Eve's transgression).  It is not anti-biblical to believe that sex would not happen where there was no desire for it to happen.

 

2)  God actually doesn't indicate that.  In the KJV it says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception."  In the NIV it says "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;  with painful labor you will give birth to children."  I believe that the NIV is considered a better translation (as far as being truer to Hebrew texts we have).  So, we have the KVJ saying that sorrow and her conception will multiply and the NIV saying that it will be painful to bear children.  Neither must be interpreted to mean that Eve's pain during childbirth will increase. 

 

3)  God commands us to be perfect as He is.  Do you believe that is possible?  If you don't believe that's possible then God does occasionally give commandments that cannot be carried out without intervention of some kind.

 

4)  The only verse I could find that talks about being one flesh before the fall is Genesis 2:24-"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  If you want to interpret this to mean that Adam and Eve became one flesh at this point, then you also have to interpret it to be saying that Adam had a mother and father which he left so he could cleave to his wife.  You can't take the first part figuratively and then want to be literal with the second.  

 

In my view, this verse appears to simply be general commentary by Moses on what it means to be married, and is not specifically speaking about the exact experience of Adam and Eve.

[danielwoods]

I think we're about to the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree but I'll address your final four points to keep things simple.

 

1)  God also created them 'innocent'.  Children are innocent and one of the hallmarks of that is a lack of sexual desire.  Even the bible points out that Eve had no 'desire' towards her husband until after the Fall  (it was one of the 'curses' of Eve's transgression).  It is not anti-biblical to believe that sex would not happen where there was no desire for it to happen.

 

2)  God actually doesn't indicate that.  In the KJV it says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception."  In the NIV it says "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;  with painful labor you will give birth to children."  I believe that the NIV is considered a better translation (as far as being truer to Hebrew texts we have).  So, we have the KVJ saying that sorrow and her conception will multiply and the NIV saying that it will be painful to bear children.  Neither must be interpreted to mean that Eve's pain during childbirth will increase. 

 

3)  God commands us to be perfect as He is.  Do you believe that is possible?  If you don't believe that's possible then God does occasionally give commandments that cannot be carried out without intervention of some kind.

 

4)  The only verse I could find that talks about being one flesh before the fall is Genesis 2:24-"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  If you want to interpret this to mean that Adam and Eve became one flesh at this point, then you also have to interpret it to be saying that Adam had a mother and father which he left so he could cleave to his wife.  You can't take the first part figuratively and then want to be literal with the second.  

 

In my view, this verse appears to simply be general commentary by Moses on what it means to be married, and is not specifically speaking about the exact experience of Adam and Eve.

 

The question is whether the text alone supports the LDS view. Responses to the points above. 

 

1) Vance has also advanced this argument. The bible doesn't say that Eve had no desire towards her husband. The judgement or curse is seen to be a negative in the context of "your desire will be to your husband". It's not mentioned as if this was good thing, this is among the negative judgements for their transgression. I'm not entirely clear what is meant by it, however, the conclusion that she had no sexual desire before the fall can't be supported by the text alone. 

 

2) I will greatly "multiply" your sorrow or pain... when something is multiplied it's increased. 

 

3) The context of the command "be fruitful and multiply" is given to all on the planet. Not just Adam and Eve. So tell me, were the animals and the plants incapable of multiplication until the fall also? 

 

4) You know I agree with you that Moses' commentary is contained in this passage. However, it doesn't change anything. There's no indication that Moses or anyone believed that the fall created this new ability to have children. As I argued above, the judgements are meaningless unless they are already able to have children. 

 

I do appreciate your hanging in there.

Edited September 4, 2013 by danielwoods

[Calm]

 

2) I will greatly "multiply" your sorrow or pain... when something is multiplied it's increased. 

 

And yet we agree that Eve did not have any children before the Fall (whether or not she could have), so she never had experienced childbirth prior to this...so what was there to multiply except a future condition?

[danielwoods]

And yet we agree that Eve did not have any children before the Fall (whether or not she could have), so she never had experienced childbirth prior to this...so what was there to multiply except a future condition?

 

We agree that she didn't have any children before the fall. What we don't agree on is whether or not she was capable or had the capacity to have kids before the fall or not. So you are correct, this judgement on Eve is concerning a future event. The same possibly could be said of Adam. It's not directly recorded that he worked before the fall (though it's is possible), and the judgement aimed at him was increased toil in his work. So it's possible that both were referencing a future event. 

 

Now, the question is if it is increased (pain/toil), is it more likely that it existed before the increase or less likely? In essence, how does one increase something that doesn't exist yet? 

 

It seems to me that the meaningfulness of the statement is lost if they were incapable of having children (or Adam working for example) before the fall.

[Vance]

The question is whether the text alone supports the LDS view.

That is not the question at all. The LDS view has never claimed that the Bible is the ONLY source of our doctrine.  The real question should be "does the text contradict the LDS view?"  And the answer is, NO!!!

 

Responses to the points above. 

 

1) Vance has also advanced this argument. The bible doesn't say that Eve had no desire towards her husband. Nor does it say that she did.  So then, when God tells her AFTER the fall that she would now have that in distinction to her prior condition, we must assume that she did NOT have it prior to the fall. The judgement or curse is seen to be a negative in the context of "your desire will be to your husband". You keep claiming things are a "curse", but the text ONLY declares two entities cursed.   It's not mentioned as if this was good thing, Nor is it mentioned as a bad thing. this is among the negative judgements for their transgression. You are presuming something that is NOT in the text. I'm not entirely clear what is meant by it, however, the conclusion that she had no sexual desire before the fall can't be supported by the text alone. Classic anti-Mormonism, "I don't know what it means but Mormons are wrong".  That isn't going to get you anywhere on this forum.

 

2) I will greatly "multiply" your sorrow or pain... when something is multiplied it's increased. You might have a case if Eve had already experienced child birth. But she didn't and you don't.  How can you "increase" something that never was?

 

3) The context of the command "be fruitful and multiply" is given to all on the planet. Not just Adam and Eve. So tell me, were the animals and the plants incapable of multiplication until the fall also? Irrelevant.

 

4) You know I agree with you that Moses' commentary is contained in this passage. However, it doesn't change anything. There's no indication that Moses or anyone believed that the fall created this new ability to have children. Again, ignoring the evidence we have presented. As I argued above, the judgements are meaningless unless they are already able to have children. As has already been shown, your arguments are weak or baseless.

 

I do appreciate your hanging in there.

And I appreciate you providing your best arguments.  It is has been very instructional to tear them to pieces.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

We agree that she didn't have any children before the fall.And by said admission you have rendered your own argument baseless.  You can't increase something that never was, so OBVIOUSLY it is either a bad interpretation, a bad translation, or a bad transmission of the original.  What we don't agree on is whether or not she was capable or had the capacity to have kids before the fall or not. So you are correct, this judgement on Eve is concerning a future event. The same possibly could be said of Adam. It's not directly recorded that he worked before the fall (though it's is possible), and the judgement aimed at him was increased toil in his work. So it's possible that both were referencing a future event. 

 

Now, the question is if it is increased (pain/toil), is it more likely that it existed before the increase or less likely? There are other possibilities as I have mentioned above. In essence, how does one increase something that doesn't exist yet? You don't.

 

It seems to me that the meaningfulness of the statement is lost if they were incapable of having children (or Adam working for example) before the fall.Sorry but "seems" does not an case make.

[cdowis]

Adam and Eve probably had the physical capacity to bear children before the Fall, but they had no awareness of their nakedness (if you know what I mean).

[Vance]

Moses 5:11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

 

Is being physically capable yet not being physically capable what you are talking about?

[Stone holm]

Adam and Eve probably had the physical capacity to bear children before the Fall, but they had no awareness of their nakedness (if you know what I mean).

 

CFR on Adam and Eve probably had the physical capacity to bear children before the Fall.  

[Stone holm]

Seems to me that we are reading an awful lot into the supposed "curse".  There is a tendency to do a lot of spinning on sparse references in the OT.

[cdowis]

CFR on Adam and Eve probably had the physical capacity to bear children before the Fall.  

 

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?  "Probably" specifically means that this is my opinion.

 

You cannot cfr a personal opinion.

Edited September 6, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

Seems to me that we are reading an awful lot into the supposed "curse".  There is a tendency to do a lot of spinning on sparse references in the OT.

I am not even sure if death should be classified as a curse, after all, I have never heard any complaints from those "afflicted" with the condition. 

[Stone holm]

I am not even sure if death should be classified as a curse, after all, I have never heard any complaints from those "afflicted" with the condition. 

I don't know I keep asking people to come back and report, you just can't get reliable help these days.