You are correct but not entirely.
Reading a scripture...from the bible...is getting the word straight from the mouth of Jehovah. Reading scriptures that are provided on a screen by someone who is part of a conversation is reading their interpretation of what they believe Jehovah to be saying. They have become the middleman between Jehovah and you the reader. For although the words are sourced from the bible, the intention of those words are supported by the reasoning of the one providing them. The problem arises when there is a misunderstanding of scripture, followed by a misapplication of it.
Bk Kevin posted scriptures to support
HIS view on why he felt bad/evil existed prior to the sin, based off of
HIS interpretation of Gen 3:22. Had he actually posted his thoughts, when he posted the other scriptures, we might have understood the intent. It's a wasted opportunity to expound on what he feels God is saying in those scriptures,
which then allows us to determine whether it agrees with what Jehovah has taught us regarding his creation.
If the premise is wrong, simply posting a scripture to support it doesn't solve the error, but rather whitewashes it. It's not
intellectual honesty.
@Bk Kevin, using the reason that most people don't read more than 100 words, to disqualify you from your responsibility to explain your intent when providing scriptures, does not absolve you of it. Of course, if somebody posts scriptures who is not part of a discussion, without intent, then those scriptures do stand as the word of God, but if you have already made a firm stand
regarding the meaning of those scriptures, even 'closing the case' as you said, then you are obligated to provide supportive reasoning to the table, or you have 'no case' to close.
(Mt 16:23) “. . .“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.””
(Mt 18:6) “. . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial for him to have hung around his neck a millstone such as is turned by an ass and to be sunk in the wide, open sea.”
So, I'm Satan, or should have a millstone around my neck, because I ask you to provide information what paradise is like and state you are evading the question?
You feign an appeal of emotion to suggest how dare I ask you of such a thing? Woman(certainly much more respectful than calling someone Satan)... let's be clear, the reason you didn't answer the question was because you cannot do so. When you can actually provide me with evidence that it is possible to know something that does not yet exist, then you can be as cocky as you want. Until then, perhaps you should try to understand what is being said, instead of arguing just for the sake of it.
To disprove the statement "it is impossible to know something that does not exist,"
You said "dragons don't exist, but you know of them." Yet did it occur to you, that the legend of dragons had
already existed for thousands of years? If these legends did not exist, would you know of a dragon Ana? If it is possible to know something that does not exist, then please, tell me of something that doesn't exist yet. Anything! A color, an object, an animal, a feeling, ANY creation that
proves the reality of something, that does not yet exist.
You know who else was clever, Satan, when he deceived Eve. He threw a tad of truth into his lie, to make it look good. Whether the three of you know it or not, you are bordering on the
verge of blasphemy to suggest that evil existed within the creation of God prior to the sin, or the knowledge of it. Hopefully that was a strong enough assertion for you to read, what I know will be more than 100 words.
This also is not entirely true Barnaby...my goodness how your swooning over this woman has blinded you to the simplest of expressions that it is 'impossible to know something that does not yet exist'. I would think you of all people would see the fundamental truth that lies within those words. Ay, Indeed!
Everything is a creation! Adam had NONE of the things you provide above except for conscience prior to the first sin by Satan.
How do we know? because they did not exist, for they had not been created yet. Shame, guilt, embarrassment, fear, remorse, reluctance etc... all only existed because their actions created them into being. Obviously, the thought must come first, but that does not condemn you until you manifest it into existence. Evil is the creation, and all the characteristics of it you list (guilt, shame, embarrassment, fear, remorse etc..) are the feelings that define the nature of it. They must be created.
To entertain what the three of you are postulating means we must accept that badness existed somewhere within Gods pure creation prior. Then tell all of us, from what source does the badness come? Where did evil exist for the angels to
know the feelings of guilt, shame, fear etc...? Did the angels create bad in heaven prior to the sin that we don't know about? If so, then why is Satans transgression called the 'original' sin? Therefore, if the angels didn't create sin prior to Satans transgression, where else would badness have come from?
Are you three suggesting that Jehovah and Jesus Christ created badness within creation somewhere? It certainly sounds as though you are, because in order for something to be known,
it must first exist,
and if badness exists...it was created. How dare you suggest the mere thought that badness existed within creation prior to the sin, or the knowledge of it, for this means it was created as part of Gods creation.
Having a God given conscious to understand something that is bad, which Satan most certainly had, does not also mean that he already had knowledge of the feelings that come along with the creation of sin prior to it. Does a child know the feelings of guilt he will experience when he steals something for the first time? Does he have knowledge of that shame before the act, or only until he does it? He knew it was wrong because his conscience told him so, but only until he commits the act will he understand the actual feelings of shame, and guilt, and remorse. Why, because
they didn't exist within him yet.
Adam also had a God given conscience; did he have knowledge of what shame was prior to the sin? "Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt
no shame." Why did they feel no shame? Because it did not exist until it was created. Did his conscience tell him it was wrong to eat the fruit, or course, but only until he ate would he have knowledge of the shame, fear, embarrassment, guilt associated with his creation of sin.
Your arguments are as empty as the case that Bk Kevin closed because they try to prove 'that it is possible' to know something that does not exist. This is no different from the WOKE mentality that somehow reasons that a woman can be a man, or vice versa. The fundamental truth is tossed aside, allowing for clever words that undermine that truth yet create a suggestion of it. No more!
