Flat Earth Forums | Conspiracy | Theology | Philosophy

An Introduction to Genesis 2:18 and 2:25:

I believe that in the early chapters of Genesis, it was GOD's intention to bear witness to the purpose of life, that is, our need to become holy and to give up any idolatry in our personal relationships (that is, that we were originally exiled from Paradise because of our unholiness and idolatry), while at the same time covering over the fact of our pre-conception existence, that is, while at the same time, not destroying the delusion regarding the time of our true beginning.

Thus Genesis bears witness to the fall of the elect “from Paradise” via her beguilement caused by her lack of holiness (listening to Their enemies) which lead to her disobedience, and via his idolatry (unwillingness to separate from her) which lead to his delusionment and disobedience, while at the same time not openly disclosing our pre-conception existence and fall, that is, that Eden was not the first beginning. Now if pre-conception existence is the truth, we should not be able to find anything in Genesis (or anywhere else) that really contradicts it, and we should be able to find some witness to it if we look.[1]
Now, there are a few verses in Genesis that have always been interpreted as bearing witness to the complete purity or perfection of the earthly creation at its beginning. Therefore, to adequately apologize for this doctrine, because it is fairly obvious that complete purity at the beginning of the earthly creation is quite contradictory to the pre-conception existence conception of Edenic life being a reform school experience for the purpose of correcting the spiritually criminal elect, we will have to look at these verses that have been traditionally interpreted as bearing witness to an earthly creation that was entirely pure to see first, whether that interpretation really can stand the criticism of pre-conception theology (it has never been questioned before), and second, whether the pre-conception interpretation of those same verses is any better.

I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that, in the garden, GOD gave us two situations that bear witness to our need to be holy in our relationship with HIM. In the first situation, HE utilized the ritual of marriage. In the second, HE utilized the ritual of sacrifice.[2] In both of these situations, some earthly “original” needed changed. In the first, Adam was “originally” alone, which state was corrected by his marriage. In the second, Adam was naked, that is, not dressed correctly, which state was corrected by the sacrificial skin coat (Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD GOD make coats of skins, and clothed them.).

Now, the “created on Earth” theologians all believe these “original” attributes (alone and  naked) to be morally pure or unsinful at the time of the earthly beginning, that is, connoting innocence or righteousness, etc  This interpretation is necessitated first, by the fact that the attributes of GOD demand that HE create in accord with HIS holiness, that is, that HE create no imperfection or evil and second, by their presupposition that this was the original creation. Thus any exegesis of theirs of the “alone – naked” states in Genesis has to be strained through their pre-suppositional time sieve so that their interpretation matches or lines up with the revealed attributes of GOD.

Therefore, I would say that they do not so much give us an exegesis of Genesis as they give us an sisegexe (backwards exegesis[3]) of it, that is, they do not tell us what it says so much as they tell us what it must say if their theology is to remain tenable.

Now with pre-conception theology, such “good” interpretations are not forced upon the Edenic situation because the “original purity” necessity does not have to fit into the earthly time span. Therefore, any pre-conception exegete can look at the “alone - naked” states in Genesis, with a little more freedom of interpretation than can a created on Earth exegete. For example, the “alone - naked” states in Genesis can be examined to see whether they were really good (as is usually thought to be the case) or whether they were not good, that is, against GOD's will (as they are in the rest of the Bible) which has always been an untenable option till now. Well, as I have said before, it is surprising what one can miss when one is not looking for (or actually seeking to strain out) something, as it is also quite surprising what one can find out when one looks at what Genesis says when one has taken off the “good old created on Earth” presuppositional blinders.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old[4] that Adam was given earthly life in a state of moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes even holiness.[5] The general idea is that Adam was faultless in GOD's sight before he disobeyed the command in Eden. One reason[6] why the traditional interpretation has endured so long is because it is necessitated by the fact that if the situation was interpreted any other way according to the “created on Earth” theologies, GOD would be guilty of sin,[7] in that there would be an imperfection in Their creation for which They were responsible.

[This interpretation ignores the fact that their favourite talisman against pre-sinful people being born on is that our sin is inherited from Adam also presupposes GOD had other  option than to make them sinners by forcing them to inherit Adam's evil without their own free will decision as Adam got, and thus created  HIS Bride et al evil.]

Therefore everyone always interprets this verse which says that Adam's original Edenic state was not good, in a way that makes “not good” mean that Adam was without sin.[8] Obviously this is quite opposite to the view of things espoused by wee pre-conceptionists. Therefore, I believe it bears some investigation, for obviously, both cannot be correct. My investigation shall be twofold.

First, I would like to examine the proofs put forward to the effect that Adam was originally good, to see if they are any good.

Second, I will attempt to show you that Adam's moral condition was not good on the sixth day as it traditionally has been interpreted as being.

To do this, I am going to try to show that Adam could not have been innocent, that he had to be either righteous or unrighteous.

Then I am going to try to show you that he could not have been righteous.

Thus it should be obvious that I am going to get something out of these verses that you have never seen before. Therefore you had better prepare yourself for either a new interpretation or some sly hermeneutical tricks. You watch it real close and see if you can pick out an error in my reasoning, because, if you can't, then we will have some good proof as to the fallacy of the idea that Adam was good until he disobeyed in the garden. In other words, if I can pull this one off, all the other theologies have to be in grave error in regard to the beginning of sin among mankind, that is, in regard to the fall of mankind, that is, in regard to the root of our problems with GOD.[9] Ready?

What really happened back then is not readily apparent because there are two creation accounts.[10] In the first one, this ungodliness is passed over and thus, in 1:26, we read of Adam and Eve's “creation”, and in 1:28, of HIS blessing upon them, and in 1:31, of GOD's appraisal of everything HE had made as being “very good”. Thus our first impression is that the whole creation was completely pure.

It is only when we look at the second account (Genesis 2) that we learn of this “not good” (2:18) situation, which needed made good. When we harmonize[11] the two accounts, we can see that the “pre-fall” Edenic state of Adam was “not good” in GOD's sight.

Now then, in regard to the idea that Adam was good at the time of his beginning in Eden, the verse usually put forth as proof of his goodness is Genesis 1:3 And GOD saw everything that HE had made, and, behold, it was very good. Now, in regard to this “everything”, it becomes apparent upon some investigation that the traditional interpretation fails to prove that Adam was originally good on three counts.

First, it is presumed that 1:31 describes Adam's original condition, that is, most fail to realize that the situation had already been changed from being “not good” to being “very good”.

Second, it is presumed that this “everything” includes Adam, that is, most fail to realize that only those things are included which GOD made at that time. For example, no one includes the evil angels of the satanic rebellion [who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.] in this “everything”. So then, if Adam were likewise created before that time, he would not necessarily be included either.

Third, it is presumed that the purpose that “everything” was “very good” for, was not of a chastening, converting and sanctifying nature.[12] So then, 1:31 does not prove that Adam was “originally” good at all. In addition to 1:31, sometimes Genesis 1:28 And GOD blessed them; is put forth to show that Adam was good.

This one fails on two counts. First, it is again presumed that the situation had not been changed. Second, it is presumed that GOD would bless them only if they were good.[13] But this is quite contrary to the attributes of GOD, for GOD blesses evil people: HE maketh HIS sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[14] Another one that is put forth to show that Adam was good is Genesis 2:25b ...and (they) were not ashamed. This one fails to prove that they were originally good because they might have been unashamed because they were unconvicted, that is, they might not yet have had a true or full appreciation (horror) of the sins they had already committed.[15]
Sometimes it is asserted that Adam had to be originally good, for if he was not, GOD would be guilty of imperfection in that HE created something that was not good. Well, this argument fails because it is based on the presumption that GOD created him on Earth, and one can hardly use such an unproven premise to prove that such a conclusion is true.

Well, I believe that this critic gives very good proof that the traditional view of this creation, that is, of Adam's original Edenic moral state, is not so much based on the message of the Scriptures as it is based on the “created on Earth” theology's necessity of (hence, presumption of) complete original goodness in Eden, that is, at the earthly beginning.

Well then, in regard to the proof that Adam was not so morally good, I know that you have never come across any before but you will have to admit that you have never looked for any before, and as I’ve said previously, when you are watching for fish in the river, it is very easy to miss the elephants on high.

First, let's look at Genesis 2:18, which says straight out that Adam's situation in Eden was “not good” in GOD's sight. Of course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible to interpret “not good” so that it means something other than “Adam was in rebellion to GOD's will for him”. Genesis 2:18 also says straight out that Adam was “alone” in the omnipresent GOD's garden.

Of course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible to interpret “alone” so that it means “unable to produce children” or "without a wife" rather than “separated in spirit from GOD like after a big fall”. Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD had to make an “help meet” (NIV: suitable helper) to fix Adam's bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof either because it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means “reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion”.

And “suitable” is not irrefutable proof either, because it too can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else whom he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn about his spiritual marriage to HIM”. It almost looks like wee pre-conceptionists are going to be held to a stalemate by the giant known as “Four Other Possible Interpretations”,[16] but fear not, we do have a David in the camp.[17]

First of all, it is possible for Adam to be in only one of the three moral states right? [He could only be: in conformity with GOD's will (good, faithful, righteous); or innocent (not good, not bad, morally untested - hence, undecided); or, in opposition to GOD's will (faithless, bad, unrighteous)]. Now it stands to reason that if we can eliminate two of these, Adam would have to be in the third one right?

Well now, this being the case, let's look at Genesis 2:15,16 And the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man, saying... Well now, in regard to the possibility of Adam still being innocent, in 2:16 we receive witness to the effect that Adam had already accepted YHWH as his GOD (for he accepted the command to not eat the fruit of a certain tree as GOD's command) which means that he was no longer innocent. So then, even if Adam was still innocent when he arrived in the garden, he did not stay innocent for very long for he quickly had to make choices regarding whether he would accept YHWH as his GOD, whether he would dress and keep the garden, and whether he'd stay away from the fruit.

So then, Adam was either righteous or unrighteous right after GOD commanded him. Now, in regard to the possibility of Adam being righteous, if Adam was righteous (like  Michael and Gabriel were righteous) he would be faithfully following GOD's will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?
Well, it seems that in addition to dressing and keeping the garden etc, GOD wanted him to get married and that to get his wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly conscious[18]) sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first and they had all been shown to be unsuitable. (Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.)

Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted? Moreover, just whose idea was it that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have been GOD's, could it?

Well now, it seems that we are at the point where we must either admit that Adam was off course (unwilling to do GOD's will, ie, unrighteous) in a very weird sort of way (to wit: already looking among the animals for a wife and not very willing to listen to what GOD had to say about it) or admit that GOD was taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS helpmeet and suggesting an animal instead after which HE would tell him about getting married to Eve. Either way it would seem that God was convinced that Adam was reluctant (unwilling) to fulfill HIS will for him,[19] to the point that certain steps had to be taken before (so that) he would become willing.

Well now, since this was the situation, how can we believe that Adam was righteous (preferring to comply with GOD's will above all else)? How can Adam be this reluctant (rebellious) to doing this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to fulfil HIS purpose for him?

So then, this davelephmant shows us that Adam could not have been innocent (for sure upon the first command in Eden) and it also shows us that he could not have been faithful about getting married to the Eve to come. Well, to my way of seeing things, there is only one possible moral state remaining for Adam. Adam had to be unrighteous, that is, in rebellion to the leading of the Holy Spirit, for sure at the time when GOD brought him the animals and quite possibly even before that time. In other words, Adam needed to repent,[20] and be converted[21] to GOD's purpose for him, for sure in the matter regarding his marriage to HIS helpmeet, and perhaps in other areas too.

Now, having established that Adam had an unrighteous character on the sixth day,[22] I suppose that the next thing to determine is when this unrighteous character had its beginning, for it is incompatible with the attributes of GOD that he be created in such fashion. In other words, was Adam given life in this fallen condition, or was he given life in a good condition and had fallen by the time of the animal parade?

Well, when we look at the second account, we learn first, from 2:15, that GOD put Adam in Eden to fulfil a specific purpose. Next, in 2:16,17 we learn of God's provision for him and the command regarding the poison unto death. Next in 2:18 we receive the comment that GOD disliked Adam's aloneness. Next, in 2:20, we are told that Adam was still alone because he was in rebellion to GOD's purpose for him, to wit: his marriage to Eve.[23]

Now, if Adam was innocent when he was given life, should we not expect some direct witness to his choice that brought him out of his innocence? And if Adam's righteous condition changed, should we not also expect to receive some direct witness to his fall on earth, that is, to his becoming rebellious? It would seem like such momentous events should receive more than a passing, indirect comment, should they not? If these very important events happened at that time, that is, between the time of his being given life on earth and his rebellion regarding his marriage partner, how come we do not receive any witness about them?[24]

In other words, doesn’t the fact that we receive no such witness at all, lead one to believe that his moral condition had not changed from the time he was given life? Well, I think it does but, like I said before, this is almost a proof verse, that is, it does not quite prove to us that Adam was given life in an unrighteous condition (although I believe the next one in 2. Genesis Study Continued... will satisfy just about everyone who is at all open minded).

Even so, we definitely can say that it is not unreasonable to postulate that Adam's character might have been unrighteous right from the earthly start. And even though we have yet to prove that he was unrighteous from the earthly start, we have come far enough to realize that all previous theologies might be in error in regard to the beginnings of sin on Earth, and that, that being the case, the whole Adamic fall episode obviously needs to be looked at again, for it sure looks like the traditional view might be based on an inadequate interpretation of the Scriptures.

------------------------------
Notes for:  Genesis
1.   In fact, if it’s the truth, we should be able to find lots of witnesses to it.

2.   If you sat down and studied these two examples for a month or so, I think that you would almost know it all, for the rest of the Bible just enlarges upon or clarifies these two great themes, to wit: GOD's purposes for HIS elect people (both the original and the exilic) and HIS remedies for sin (especially the sins of unholiness and rebellion).

3.  Backwards exegesis, sometimes known as isogesis. Very akin to the way so many handle the verses regarding the unique deity of the Lamb.

4.   My apologies to the sermon on the mount.

5.   But not quite the same as I define it, to wit: hating sin and the devil somewhat akin to the way GOD hates sin and the devil.

6.   Besides the fact that GOD did not want the delusion disturbed.

7.   Sin: anything that is contrary to the creative purpose or character of GOD.

8.   In other words, they interpret it in a way that makes “not good” mean “not bad”!

9.   And if their diagnosis of the cause of our malady is wrong, it also stands to reason that they might be attempting to cure our disease in the wrong way.

10.  Amazing eh!! And everyone wonders why there are two creation accounts. Well now you know of at least one very good reason, to wit: HE wrote it that way to hide some elephants. And you have to admit that it works, because you have never seen any in there before!

11.  Try this for a harmony order: insert 2:4a before 1:1 (in every other usage in Genesis, “generations” begins a section); 2:4b-6 (NIV is best) after 1:2; and 2:7-25 after 1:26 (Eve was created on the sixth day).

12.  No doubt He was also looking on the area outside of Eden in which HE had given Adam life, as being “very good” for HIS purpose too, that being a place of exile for the Adamic race. 

13.  Be careful not to fall into the error of believing that the holy GOD would not or could not bless unholy people, or else you might pay the same price as Balak (Numbers 22-24). This was one of his errors remember?

14.  Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Romans 5:8  But GOD commendeth HIS love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

15.  The proof for this conclusion is given in the arguments for 2:25, which comes right after this one.

16. Sometimes known as OPI4. When he gets together with his twin brother, they rightly get called the OPI8 of the masses!

17. Yes indeed! GOD must have known about this giant because HE put in a ringer. Of course, nobody has ever seen him or realized the true nature of his qualifications, but this is our hour of great need so we'd like you to meet our first elephant. His friends call him Dave the dinoslayer. (I bet you guessed!) I'm sure you will find him to be a very interesting and thought provoking davelephmant!

18.  Adam seemed to know exactly where she (her body) came from (Genesis 2:23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.)

19.  Maybe to give HIM a bone? Major surgery always was real scary. Anyway, we end up with a witness that the first fall happened because of an unwillingness to marry (to bear the surgical pain involved, which resulted in a preference for one of the “beasts”) the mate GOD created us to marry.

20.  Repent: to think differently or afterwards, ie, reconsider (morally, feel compunction): repent. Strong's(#11).

21.   Convert: to revert (literally, figuratively or morally):  come (go) again, convert, (re)turn (about, again). Strong's(#12).

22.  Well, have I done it or not? If you don't think so, please read it again and find my mistake.

23.  In other words, when did his aloneness become bad, or was it always bad?

24.  That Adam was rebellious to GOD's marriage plans is also shown by his assault on GOD after he had been seduced, when he blamed his fall on the woman GOD had insisted on sending him. (See Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom THOU gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.) He wasn't the one who had chosen her. He wanted a nice faithful animal.

You right PJ, the Bible does not say "Apple". This is only one of the many fallacies that appear in this article. As I stated, I'd advise anyone to run away from this article just as fast as they can.