The Fall of Adam, Ancient Lie, and Redemption of Zion

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, halconero said:

What if the way is literally "The Way." What if the only way Adam could fulfill both those commandments was by allowing another to recapitulate his choice by proxy? It is no coincidence that, in a very chiasmus-like style 2 Nephi 2:26-27 is contrasted by the verses that proceed it or that Moses 6:59-60 puts the transgression and the redemption together as context on how to "keep the commandment."

Post of the month, man!  You really need to hang out here more.  

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Obeone said:

Not necessarily. Technically Lehi's and Eve's statements are correct (though misleading out of context). 

I simply bring int the context of the entire Canon and of Reason, to show that popular interpretation of their statements is dead wrong. Pun intended. 

So Lehi and Eve didn’t lie, but Adam did?

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Sure.  Women have always been disposable, interchangeable. 

I think he has misspelled his name- there seems to be a missing "g" in there

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Obeone said:

This goes both ways: If Adam fell and Eve did not, Eve would have gotten a different husband from the Lord, and Adam would have been cast out.

God is the perfect supreme Chessplayer.

He knows in advance which child is most likely to steal the cookie- he knows better than the child does.

There's no need for plan B's- the use of the word "plan" only makes sense for those who do not already know the future.

But like very poor chess players vs God- it looks like he is "infallible" and that MAKES us think that we are predestined.  But of course we are not.

One who speaks this way, imo, simply thinks he is as intelligent as God, so we with our ant brains are effectively postulating a God who is no more intelligent than we are.

We are seeing it OUR way, as ants, when He sees it as a being with infinite intelligence.

Ever played chess with a person of infinite intelligence?  Trust me, HIS plan will not be OUR plan.   He doesn't even need a plan.    Plans are for those without who don't know the future.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

And yet the scriptures suggest this would not happen:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

As I stated before, this is based on what he knows and what he doesn't know.  I think the obvious implication was perhaps intentionally left out as it doesn't need to be stated here, that this scenario would frustrate the plan of God completely.  

To not obey God's command is a transgression of law.  Period.  We know the consequence of such is death. This is spelled out in dozens of scriptures I have previously shared.  So, unless we are trying to re-write the basics gospel principles, we have to assume that Lehi was leaving something out...perhaps because it was so obvious that it didn't need to be mentioned.  IT is almost as if he is leaving a dot, dot, dot - "you see the problem here...right?"  "I don't really need to spell it out for you do I?"  "You do realize the Lord would never let that happen...right?"

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Fulfilled. If the violating the commandment means death, that implies that keeping it means life. Someone who kept the commandment would be entitled to such. Imagine if that someone could be proxy for others.

You lost me.  Are you talking about the Lord providing a surrogate mother and father to stand in the place of Adam and Eve? 

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Christ does more than undo the consequences of a violation. The scriptures say that he "takes away" sin itself. In the celestial ledger there isn't a note of sins or transgressions with a note that says "forgiven" and "not forgiven." Instead, Christ says, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Christ not only atones for the sin, but then forgets them on behalf of the repentant such that they are "restored" to a state where the violation did not occur.

In fact, I'm not sure you can separate the concept of redemption from removal of the violation itself. In other contexts, redemption is precisely the act of fulfilling something that someone else could not fulfill. In levirate marriage, the kinsman of the dead is called the "kinsman-redeemer" and their role is provide a child for the dead as if the dead had not died at all, thereby fulfilling laws of inheritance as if they had not been broken by death.

The above is patterned in our own work in the temples. When we stand as proxies for others, and they accept it, it is considered as being as it if had been done in mortality. The scriptures call Christ the second Adam. Why? Because Christ, who was in violation of no law, whether sin or transgression, stood as proxy for Adam, and restored humanity to a state of immortality as if the violation of that law had not occurred.

I don't think Nephi, Paul, Joseph Smith, and others had that in mind when they said what they said about the Lord not commanding without providing a way to fulfill the commandment.   What you are talking about is redemption from sin.  While there may be some truth to what you speak, I am fairly confident that is not what they had in mind.  Nephi was confident that the Lord would provide a way to obtain the plates as he commanded.  He was not going to give up until he fulfilled the command.  He could have left without the plates and later repented for it, but he never could do that and say "see I told you the Lord would provide a way to fulfill his commandment to get the plates" because the plates would have forever been out of his possession.  He may have received redemption and forgiveness as if it never happened.  But the command was never fulfilled.  He would have never obtained the plates which was the command.  That is not what he had in mind when he said what he said.  I think we both know that deep down.  Same with all the other passages that I quoted.  They were not exegesis on redemption from transgression, but rather they were conviction that the Lord would provide a way to fulfill his command in the first place.  

1 hour ago, halconero said:

 

Not really. May I suggest D&C 117 and D&C 124:49 as companion studies to 1 Nephi 3:7? The first details the mission of Oliver Granger. He was commanded by God to return to Kirtland as the church's agent to sell church property there. And yet, the Lord adds this:

Meanwhile, D&C 124 says the following:

There is an apparent contradiction between 1 Nephi 3:7 and the above. One says that children of men don't get commandments without having a way to fulfill them. The other says that children of men can go forth to do a work in righteousness, and still be stymied. Which is it?

Both. As the Saints found out, Zion can only be built through redemption.

To go back to 1 Nephi 3:7

What if the way is literally "The Way." What if the only way Adam could fulfill both those commandments was by allowing another to recapitulate his choice by proxy? It is no coincidence that, in a very chiasmus-like style 2 Nephi 2:26-27 is contrasted by the verses that preceed it or that Moses 6:59-60 puts the transgression and the redemption together as context on how to "keep the commandment."

Quote

 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

  I don't see 1 Nephi 3:7 as a contradiction to D&C 124.   I think there are times when the Lord commands for the experience of the effort - that is the purpose of the command, while there are other times when he commands to fulfill an end of obtaining plates for preservation, for example.  In D&C 124 the Lord retracted his commandment after its purpose was fulfilled, making it a moot point in this discussion.    If the command was to remain in effect, he would have provided a way to fulfill it. 

I appreciate the effort and thought you put into this though.  You make some very good points.  But I think there is more to this story where the current popular interpretation is problematic, which I will get into later. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Post of the month, man!  You really need to hang out here more.  

Agreed!

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Obehave said:

My idea of an exalted couple is to be like Adam and Eve were before they fell, and I believe Adam's body was like our Lord Jesus Christ's body after he was resurrected. 

So how has your experimentation with this hypothesis gone in scientific trials?

How did you design the experiments?

But gosh it sure sounds like it's about science.      Yet the church's paradigm is that Jesus was the "first fruits of the resurrection" which appears to contradict the notion that

Quote

Adam's body was like our Lord Jesus Christ's body after he was resurrected. 

I wonder who did the autopsy to figure that out?   And what precisely does "like" mean?

I think the relevant question here is "What are the benefits of believing in Adam and Eve at all?"

I believe the answer is not about scientific theories about realities we cannot possibly understand but to understand that The Covenant Path provides us with a paradigm that gives us meaning in life and encourages us to become as perfect as we possibly can, while getting our answers through testimony- that God himself can communicate to us- NOT in scientific terms but through the "still small voice" in our hearts.    Of course those words don't even come close to capturing the experience, yet millions will tell you they KNOW it is true.

It is direct experience, not faithless self-contradictory theories

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This compellation of scriptures:

 vs.

On the one hand is the idea that God does not provide commandments without providing a way to fulfill them.  On the other hand is the idea that God gave conflicting commandments without a way to fulfill both.  I know you gave it a shot, but it was honestly lacking for me.  
 

Thank you. Interpretations of what these scriptures mean do vary. Applying them to ourselves requires we interpret, but to apply properly we must also share and apply their context.

1 Corinthians 10:13 is not about God providing a way to fulfil a commandment, but to bear the temptation not to keep it.

1 Nephi 3:7 is about God providing a way to keep His commandments, but Nephi was coming from a very different experience-based knowledge than Adam and Eve, who had none in this regard as set forth in 2 Nephi 2:22-25. Nephi was oriented to redemption from a fallen nature, while Adam and Eve were static. This is why Moses 5:11 expresses the joyous breakthrough from their prior experience to their new reality.

D&C 5:34 is about not continuing to pursue a divinely ordered action (in Joseph’s case, translating) – Adam and Eve were not told to stop any particular activity.

Philippians 4:13, Adam and Eve did not express that they found themselves in need of strengthening prior to partaking of the forbidden fruit. They used the wisdom and rationale they possessed.

Genesis 18:14, I’m not seeing the application to Adam and Eve. Yes, God would walk with them and instruct them from day to day, but they did not have any future-oriented procreative miracle to anticipate. Teaching them how to reconcile the two commandments (both dealing with the union of spirit and element) would undermine the intelligence-building exercise of agency in an estate following the world in which they lived as spirits.

I do not see the commandments as conflicting because the atonement of Christ, already the foundation of what was going on in Eden, reconciles them. Through Christ we fulfill both. This hearkens back to our pre-mortal attitude, where we had to have the spiritual attributes necessary to come to earth and be willing to prove our failure without the Savior.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

My idea of an exalted couple is to be like Adam and Eve were before they fell, and I believe Adam's body was like our Lord Jesus Christ's body after he was resurrected.  And while I'm at it I'll say my idea of the whole point of the atonement is to restore our bodies to the condition of Adam and Eve's bodies before they fell by becoming mortal.  I'm talking about bodies now rather than orders or degrees of intelligence.  Mortal vs immortal.  I believe all of our bodies will be of the same general type, even if our bodies may radiate different degrees of light and intelligence. 

Why men and women with less than celestial glory and intelligence may not be able to have children together, I can't tell you right now.  Maybe they just won't be able to figure it out, while also not being willing to ask God how to do it. 

 

So do you believe in multiple mortal probations or that we start out as intelligences and then receive a spirit and a perfect, immortal physical body from our Heavenly Parents?  Or something else?

Is the teaching we came to earth to receive physical bodies a lie then?

[Calm]

A likeness or pattern doesn’t have to be that close. A robot can be in the likeness of man but unable to reproduce like men (with women) do.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

a) we can exercise agency without giving in to temptation

b) Jesus did show the way.

I believe the only reason Jesus needed to become mortal was to save those of our Father's children who also had became mortal.  The only sin or transgression that would make someone mortal was to eat from a particular tree, so we all would have still needed a Savior to cleanse us from any other sin or transgression even if none of us had eaten from that tree after we were born to immortal parents.

Now fast forward to the millennium and beyond when immortal beings will live on a planet, including this one and any other planets we live on, with immortal people like us producing children who are also immortal.  Or do you suppose no immortal men and women will ever reproduce to form children?

To answer your question, not like Adam and Eve who could not produce immortal or mortal children in Eden. There are many differences between them and the people you describe.

In the Millennium, the inhabitants of "Zion from above," while translated beings, are still technically mortal, and they and those mortals of "Zion from beneath" both began their lives as fallen mortals, so they have a common reference point. If Adam and Eve were engendered by one translated and one immortal being, they could remain immortal until further action on their parts just as Jesus, engendered by one mortal and one immortal being, remained mortal (or was is immortal?) until further action on His part.

Exalted beings of course have spirit children, but they also were once mortal.

[Obeone]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This just sounds like a convoluted mess.  It doesn't change the fact that she is stating that her transgression was the only way.  The last sentence in brackets contradicts the rest which says "were it not for...we NEVER should have had seed or known good and evil..."  In other words, there was no other way. 

Not really. She uses the word "never SHOULD have had seed" instead of  "never COULD have had seed". 

SHOULD means choice. 

COULD means ability.

She is commenting on their choice, not on their ability. If she said "COULD" it would have been a lie. But now, it is technically correct (though misleading when taken out context).

Again, she is not saying there we no other way had they listened to God, for that would be a lie.

That's why I said the statement must be viewed in context with the rest of the scriptures. So, for your convenience, I brought the context closer, and got:

"[We were so disobedient and foolish, that] Were it not for our transgression [which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse] 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. [For there verily was a better way for us in the garden were we willing to listen to God more than to the devil]."

 

By the way, if you change the word "transgression" to "temptation", her whole statement becomes generally applicable to anyone, and much less misleading. If they were not tempted they COULD not have had children, nor known good from evil, etc.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Obeone

[Obeone]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This doesn't address Lehi's words either. 

I addressed them here.

[Calm]

The quote function isn’t working for me, sorry. 
 

CV:  “D&C 5:34 is about not continuing to pursue a divinely ordered action (in Joseph’s case, translating) – Adam and Eve were not told to stop any particular activity”

These verses show that commandments may be part of a bigger process where if taken individually appear contradictory. We may not know the entire commandment sequence that was attached to the Garden of Eden. We are talking about something that could encompass the entirety of our existence even based on the teachings of the Plan of Salvation. Since it has been revealed there is a lot more will we need to learn to even begin to comprehend it all, whenever someone starts claiming something is a fact in relation to eternity, I will be honest and share my eyes start rolling some.  If it was so simple we could reason it out, then why is it those who have had visions of the past and the future life with God have described it as indescribable?
 

JS:  “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”

We are going to have the best teachers and the best learning environment and yet it will still be a “great while” after death before we comprehend the principles of exaltation, which includes what it actually is. 
 

https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book _of_Mormon/03_2nephi/2nephi03/2nephi03_05ladder_js.htm

[manol]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Christ does more than undo the consequences of a violation. The scriptures say that he "takes away" sin itself. In the celestial ledger there isn't a note of sins or transgressions with a note that says "forgiven" and "not forgiven." Instead, Christ says, "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." Christ not only atones for the sin, but then forgets them on behalf of the repentant such that they are "restored" to a state where the violation did not occur.

^This.^

I think your explanation that our sins and transgressions are completely "blotted out" - no "notes in the leger" - is magnificent.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."    ALL things are become new, so this is a huge level up, and it starts with (or at least includes) a major paradigm shift:  We are in Christ, AND Christ is in us:  "Abide in me, and I in you".   "I am the vine, ye are the branches."

Same principle, different words:  "I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." 

Latter-day Saints tend to interpret these and similar scriptures as being symbolic and/or being about agreement, but perhaps we ought not impose our Telestial-level concepts of locality as limitations on where Gods can be. 

Perhaps we really can be the same manner of men and women as Christ (3rd Nephi 27:27), consistent with the idea presented in this thread that God does not give us commands we cannot keep.  Perhaps we don't necessarily replicate all the steps of Christ's path; rather, perhaps we open the door, paradigm shift/level-up, and allow Christ to abide in us, and we in him.

Edited June 14, 2022 by manol

[Calm]

Obehave:  “I believe the only reason Jesus needed to become mortal was to save those of our Father's children who also had became mortal”

Why bother becoming mortal in the first place then?  Why have mortality in the first place is we have our bodies already?

Skip mortality which removes more agency then it gives in many ways and just cast the veil of forgetfulness over our immortal bodies. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

“I believe in multiple mortal probations rather than all of us having only one mortal probation to divide between all of us. You have your own mortal probation, as I do, and everyone else on this planet has their own probation too. A mortal, temporary time to see if you will do all God has commanded you or may yet command you to do.”

Perhaps you haven’t heard the term before. It is the Mormon version of reincarnation except we are always human and often always male or female.  This idea is popular among some Mormon fundamentalists, but I have heard the occasion faithful saint say they believe it as well.

Each Heavenly Father has to have had one life as a Saviour before becoming the Father. Some have being the Holy Ghost as one of the probations as well.
 

Do you believe we have more than one mortal life, we are mortal and die, get resurrected and are given immortality and then set that aside, repeat the process, get our immortal bodies restored again, and this occurs as we progress up to the ability to be exalted?

Edited June 14, 2022 by Calm

[Obeone]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

There is an apparent contradiction between 1 Nephi 3:7 and the above. One says that children of men don't get commandments without having a way to fulfill them. The other says that children of men can go forth to do a work in righteousness, and still be stymied. Which is it?

There is no contradiction here at all.

Notice, the Lord says: "it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men."  In other words, the former commandment is rescinded, no longer required.

If the commandment is not rescinded, then there is always a way to accomplish it.

God never rescinded the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit until Adam fell, therefore it was in full force, as attested by the curse. 

So to your question "Which is it?" The answer is the same as always:

If commandment has not been revoked, there is ALWAYS a way to accomplish it.

ALWAYS. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Obeone

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Obeone said:

Not really. She uses the word "never SHOULD have had seed" instead of  "never COULD have had seed". 

SHOULD means choice. 

COULD means ability.

She is commenting on their choice, not on their ability. If she said "COULD" it would have been a lie. But now, it is technically correct (though misleading when taken out context).

Again, she is not saying there we no other way had they listened to God, for that would be a lie.

That's why I said the statement must be viewed in context with the rest of the scriptures. So, for your convenience, I brought the context closer, and got:

"[We were so disobedient and foolish, that] Were it not for our transgression [which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse] 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. [For there verily was a better way for us in the garden were we willing to listen to God more than to the devil]."

 

By the way, if you change the word "transgression" to "temptation", her whole statement becomes generally applicable to anyone, and much less misleading. If they were not tempted they COULD not have had children, nor known good from evil, etc.

So your theory is that Enoch, who was the one who supposedly recorded a lot of this and it was then given to Moses, so Enoch wrote down what Eve said and wrote it badly in a way that was easily misunderstood. Yet you also say that correcting this error is vital to returning to a terrestrial state. Returning people to a Terrestrial state is what Enoch is probably most known for in our faith.

And you are saying this theory is based on *checks notes* reason?

Edited June 15, 2022 by The Nehor

[Obeone]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This scripture is what makes me think immortals can’t produce children the way mortals do.  A perfect body may mean an unchanging one (as in no aging, no illness or damage done to it, no decomposition).  Will our skin cells need to fall off to keep our skin healthy.  Will our hair continue to grow (it is basically dead once it is out of the hair root) and need to be cut or will it be alive and always at one length…and maybe even able to move? Or something else?  There are a lot of changes that happens to a woman’s body to produce a baby, including decomposition.  Maybe physical pregnancies are impossible in immortal, perfect beings.

Resurrected beings have spirit children.

A mortal body cannot touch a spirit body. But a resurrected body can. 

[pogi]

On 6/12/2022 at 12:17 AM, Obeone said:

It is interesting in this context, that the tree was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" because whether Adam resisted or yielded to the temptation to partake of its fruit, his eyes would have been opened, because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. 

Good and evil were present before their eyes and they could not decipher it.  Temptation and transgression, and the opposite of obedience is not enough to decipher good and evil without a critical key.  The knowledge of good and evil is only possible via the light of Christ.  That is what the tree represented.  

The tree of life (the love of God) represented the Father, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil represented Jesus Christ (the light of Christ).   These two trees were planted central (symbolically) in the garden by the Gods and were deemed "very good".  In the Salt Lake temple the tree of knowledge is standing on the right hand of the tree of life in mural. 

I am afraid the current popular interpretation of these events misses that critical piece of symbolism.   The fruit belonged to Christ.  It was his to give.  Satan was trying to take the place of Christ and confuse evil for Good.  He initially succeeded - causing Adam and Eve to feel safe and secure in the presence of Lucifer while fearing and hiding from the presence of God.  

The fruit represents the light of Christ.  That is what caused their eyes to be opened and to see and comprehend morality - good and evil. 

[Obeone]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So Lehi and Eve didn’t lie, but Adam did?

None of them lied, but all of them are misinterpreted. That's why Adam himself will fix this within 5 years or so.

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, manol said:

^This.^

I think your explanation that our sins and transgressions are completely "blotted out" - no "notes in the leger" - is magnificent.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."    ALL things are become new, so this is a huge level up, and it starts with (or at least includes) a major paradigm shift:  We are in Christ, AND Christ is in us:  "Abide in me, and I in you".   "I am the vine, ye are the branches."

Same principle, different words:  "I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." 

Latter-day Saints tend to interpret these and similar scriptures as being symbolic and/or being about agreement, but perhaps we ought not impose our Telestial-level concepts of locality as limitations on where Gods can be. 

Perhaps we really can be the same manner of men and women as Christ (3rd Nephi 27:27), consistent with the idea presented in this thread that God does not give us commands we cannot keep.  Perhaps we don't necessarily replicate all the steps of Christ's path; rather, perhaps we open the door, paradigm shift/level-up, and allow Christ to abide in us, and we in him.

I agree.  I am really impressed with halconero's response and ideas.  I think they are pretty profound and feel true to me.  I think it is beautiful exegesis on holistic redemption and becoming a new creature in and through Christ. 

Having said that, do you think that is what Nephi had in mind when he said what he said in the context of getting the plates? 

Edited June 14, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, speaking of music, are you a fan of new grass? Sam Bush, Jerry Douglas, Bela Fleck, John Hartford, etc.? You know, Telluride Bluegrass Festival folk. Peter Rowan just released a new album that's pretty good: "Calling You From My Mountain"

 

Indeed! Love it all. This weekend is the Stringbean Memorial Bluegrass Festival in McKee KY, about an hour away. My friend Phil Akemon, Stringbean’s nephew is the owner/manager. He gave us guest passes, but it is going to be really hot here. Don’t know if I can go. I don’t tolerate heat well.  I’ve had the pleasure of jamming with Phil and his friends several times. https://stringbeanpark.com/schedule

[Obeone]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God is the perfect supreme Chessplayer.

He knows in advance which child is most likely to steal the cookie- he knows better than the child does.

There's no need for plan B's- the use of the word "plan" only makes sense for those who do not already know the future.

But like very poor chess players vs God- it looks like he is "infallible" and that MAKES us think that we are predestined.  But of course we are not.

One who speaks this way, imo, simply thinks he is as intelligent as God, so we with our ant brains are effectively postulating a God who is no more intelligent than we are.

We are seeing it OUR way, as ants, when He sees it as a being with infinite intelligence.

Ever played chess with a person of infinite intelligence?  Trust me, HIS plan will not be OUR plan.   He doesn't even need a plan.    Plans are for those without who don't know the future.

God does know the future, but he always gives us options. Not because He doesn't know what we will choose, but because He wants US to choose.

Example:

Quote

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live (Deut. 30:19)

Here is your Plan A and B. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Obeone