Ye shall be as gods.

I was thinking about this today and I think something finally clicked. Whenever I read "ye shall be as gods" I think that it is a direct reference to Yahweh. But it's not it's "ye shall be like an Elohim". Animals do bad things all the time but their actions carry no weight of sin. But as soon as an Elohim sins, like the watchers, they carry a weight of sin that cannot be removed. They carry good or evil, they don't just know it, it's a part of their minds and soul. When Adam ate of the fruit he became like the Elohim, which means sin sticks and so since the action itself was a sin his soul immediately bore the weight of his iniquity. That iniquity could not be removed except by Christ who bore it all as the last Adam and conquered the weight by his righteousness. 

What do you think about this idea. Are there any scriptural or doctrinal conflicts? I wanna see if it's a good thought so tear it to pieces if it's flawed.

I agree (I think  ), if you can put 2 parallel conversations together. I can just give my understanding. You can decide if I came close to yours.

Where there is no knowledge of sin, then there is no sin. There are NT verses supporting this. I just have to wait on my memory.
When their eyes were 'opened', they became aware of their 'nakedness'.  (As with Noah and others, being 'naked' can mean having ones sins exposed-uncovered.)
And the Blood is the 'covering' for our sins so that we can again have Communion with Yahweh without danger of the All Consuming Fire.

So I agree, eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge..." made them as elohiym, knowing both good and evil.  At that moment sin entered into mankind; the earth was cursed.  All who are born into this world are automatically born into sin, and with a sinful nature.
The only escape is to be 'born again' of a new nature, mind and heart by God's Holy Spirit.   To rely on Him and not our own understanding.

Angels were never to partake of the Redemptive work.
Lucifer was at one point perfect in all his ways (or members) till he rebelled. From that moment he's been committed to the eternal lake of fire-no redemption ever.  So too with the 1/3 who rebelled with him.
The 2/3 who never disobeyed God need no redemption. Nor would Lucifer and the 1/3
had they remained obedient.
Reminds me again that what we call 'good' is as filthy rags.
That's as far as I can go on the topic of "elohiym".

We are not angels, but created a little lower than them.  Yet they were instructed to serve man and some day we will judge them on that. God has already judged satan and the 1/3.

i enjoyed reading the two above posts and i can't find a thing out of place in either one, but here is the scripture that i think you are hunting for, dove:

Romans 4:15 reads as follows: “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” Romans 5:13 says, “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Admittedly, these are difficult passages to understand within the Bible. However, I believe that once we look at the context in which these statements are made, we can clear up what it is that Paul is discussing.
First let us go to Romans 4:13. Here is the beginning of the immediate context of this passage. In verse 13 the apostle writes, “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” The discussion in this context is justification by faith. Paul uses Abraham as an example of how one may be justified by faith. Abraham was justified because he had faith in the promise of God. The scripture says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” (Romans 4:32). Paul, in continuing his discussion of being justified by faith, states that the promise was not made “through the law” (verse 13). The point that Paul is making in this regard is that the law cannot justify a person from sin. The purpose of law is to bring one to the knowledge of sin according to Romans 3:20. Since the law only brings the knowledge of sin and it cannot justify, then how is one to be justified? The answer is by faith. The promise of justification that was made by God to Abraham was thus by faith and one may be justified in that promise.
Verse 14 in this passage states, “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.” The two are mutually exclusive of one another. If the law justifies–if the law makes one an heir of salvation–then faith is void and the promise to Abraham is inconsequential. Why? Because the promise was not by law, but by faith.
Verse 15 says, “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” The law can only bring transgression and as a result of transgression, wrath. Law condemns sin, but law offers no justification from sin. The promise to Abraham was not made “of law,” but was made “of faith.” The statement “for where no law is, there is no transgression” is a principle that should be limited to the object under Paul’s consideration, namely, the promise of God to Abraham. Paul does not say there was no law in the day of Abraham or even before that. That is not his point at all. He merely says that where there is no law then there is no transgression. What then is the point? His point is that when God gave the promise to Abraham, that promise was given without law. Hence that promise was made to Abraham upon the condition of faith, not upon the condition of law. Abraham then believed God and was justified. Had Abraham failed to believe God, then he would have failed to be justified. But this would not be because he had transgressed God’s law, but because he would have failed in faith. So Abraham, in putting his faith in God, was justified by faith, not by law.
The statement “for where no law is, there is no transgression,” I take to mean “for where no law is, there is no transgression of law.” This principle, however, is limited to the promise made to Abraham by God and not to the general situation of the day. God did not give the promise based upon law, but based upon faith. God did not fulfill the promise based upon law, but based upon faith. This is not to say that there was absolutely no law in effect at the time and as such there was absolutely no transgression of any law because then we would have to reject the account of the garden of Eden, the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel and all the other places where sin is recorded prior to the coming of the law of Moses.
Now in Romans 5:13 we read, “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” I believe that I have already explained that the statement made in Romans 4:15 does not imply that there was no sin at all in the world and that there was no transgression at all in the world. The statement is limited to the context in which it was made which is in regard to the promise that God gave Abraham. What then do we make of this statement in Romans 5:13? Does this statement imply that there was no law prior to Abraham? Sin was no doubt in the world prior to the law and so was transgression, hence there had to be some kind of law. Paul does not contradict himself here. He says that sin was not accounted until the law came. The point is that there was no law from God to this point that had been codified, that is, placed into written form. God had given laws directly to the Patriarchs and God expected these men to live under these laws, but God had not written the law down. Hence there was no general accounting of sin, transgression by transgression. Under the Mosaic Law there was an accounting and those under that Law had to bring their sacrifices accordingly. Prior to the Mosaic law, the Patriarchs offered sacrifices to God, but not as a result of particular sins–not because God said to them if you do such and such sin then you have to offer such and such sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Patriarchs were offered based upon faith, not law. Hence, there was no accounting of sin in order to get the number of sacrifices that one had to offer right. I am not sure that I understand completely everything that is going on in this context, but that is currently my studied judgment on the matter. Time and further study will, no doubt, help me to refine my thoughts in this regard.

Thanks Michael.  That was a really good delineation of 'how it was' and what Paul had in his mind as he taught.

I'm thinking also of Paul saying, if it is a sin to him, then let him not.  And if it is not a sin to him then let him.  Do you remember where that is?  I'd love to hear that one explained out in the same manner as well.
Perhaps it is found accompanying Peter's vision of the tablecloth full of foods. (Another example, I think.)

Really great responses Dove and Michael! Those verses make it so much clearer.


"“For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."


So the law is the binding force of sin. What causes it to stick, without it sin does not stick or apply. It also says that the law and sin was in the world before it was given to Moses. So maybe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the law of the Elohim. Which when Adam ate of it he became like an Elohim making their law apply to him. So when he ate of the fruit he came under the law and at that moment was simultaneously convicted of sin. If the fruit did not have the property of the law, his action would not have required death, which was the law of the Elohim not man.



I think we traditionally think that Gods commandment not to eat of the tree was the law. But a king can command something outside the justice system, without penalty. There is only a requirement of Justice where there is a law, and the king is able to define what is punishable and what is not. So if the king has commanded no law then there is not necessarily a requirement of justice.

Dove wrote:

Thanks Michael.  That was a really good delineation of 'how it was' and what Paul had in his mind as he taught.

I'm thinking also of Paul saying, if it is a sin to him, then let him not.  And if it is not a sin to him then let him.  Do you remember where that is?  I'd love to hear that one explained out in the same manner as well.
Perhaps it is found accompanying Peter's vision of the tablecloth full of foods. (Another example, I think.)

i think you are talking about romans 14

maybe acts 10?

A Muslim doesn't consider it impolite to go into the kitchen of non-Muslim hosts to make sure milk and meat are not mixed in the meal preparations. So strong is our commitment to ethnic distinctives of diet, especially when they are grounded in religion. We do not readily leave the comfort zone of our religio-ethnic identity. But if Peter is to spearhead the Jerusalem church's Gentile mission, God must move him out of his Jewish comfort zone.A Culinary Vision (10:9-16)

Luke dovetails the actions of Cornelius's messengers with those of Peter. About noon (literally, the sixth hour, with daylight hours reckoned from six a.m.) on the following day, as they are approaching the city, Peter climbs, probably via an outside stairway, to the flat rooftop of Simon the tanner's house. His purpose is prayer, according to the pattern of pious Jews who prayed three times a day, though this was not necessarily one of the officially prescribed times (m. Berakot 4:1; Ps 55:17). The rooftop provides solitude, possibly an awning for shade, and the refreshment of breezes off the Mediterranean.
During his prayers Peter becomes very hungry. As the meal is being prepared (the normal Jewish pattern was a light meal in the forenoon and the main meal about sunset, so this was not a regular meal), a trance comes on him. It is not a dream (contra Williams 1985:173), nor does Peter lose control of his senses. Rather, the presence of the Lord so comes upon him that he is in a profound state of concentration. He is partially or completely oblivious to external sensations but fully alert to subjective influences as God communicates with him visually and audibly (Kistemaker 1990:377; compare 22:17). Commentators have suggested that Peter's hunger, his thoughts of conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the churches of the coastal plain, and the flapping of the awning or the sight of ships in full sail on the Mediterranean are psychological influences on the vision's details (Longenecker 1981:387; Marshall 1980:185). Luke, however, speaks only of Peter's hunger. What we do learn from this narrative's setting is that God is again taking the initiative to bring Peter and the Gentiles together.
Peter sees heaven opened and a "vessel" or "container" (NIV's something is too general) like a "linen sheet" (in Martyrdom of Polycarp 15.2 the word refers to a ship's sails) being let down . . . by its four corners. The four corners probably refer to the worldwide dimensions of the vision's significance ("four corners of the earth," Rev 7:1; less certain is an allusion to Noah's ark, as Derrett 1988:206).
The categories of animals it contains do correspond to a comprehensive Old Testament cataloging of the animal kingdom on land and in the air (Gen 1:24; 7:14; 8:19; Lev 11). Whether all kinds indicates that the assemblage includes both clean and unclean animals (E. F. Harrison 1986:178; Longenecker 1981:387) or just the unclean (Haenchen 1971:348; Marshall 1980:185) is not clear. Peter's protest at the command to kill and eat indicates that at least some unclean animals are present. The vision's purpose--proving a new freedom in association of Jew and Gentile--is best accomplished if a mixture is present.
Peter is commanded to slaughter these animals according to the proper method and eat (Deut 12:15-16; m. Hullin). Luke lets us know this mandated behavior change is from God by showing a rare free intercourse between heaven and earth (compare 1:10-11; 2:2; 7:55-56) and a direct voice from heaven (Lk 3:22; 9:35; Acts 9:4, 7; compare 7:31). Divine revelation is required if Old Testament revelation and the layers of ethnic prejudices built upon it are to be set aside.
In the strongest possible terms and appealing to Ezekiel 4:14, Peter faces what he may view as a temptation or test of loyalty. He refuses, announcing his firm resolve to live in ritual purity (compare Mt 16:22; Lk 22:33): I have never eaten anything impure or unclean (Lev 10:10; 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-21). That is, I have never eaten anything that is accessible to every human being (NIV impure, literally "common") but by divine mandate is forbidden to me as part of God's holy people. Such food is unclean, not only because God declares it to be such but also because if I eat it I will become ritually defiled, unfit to come into God's presence in worship.
The voice comes again, this time providing the rationale: God has declared all foods clean. Peter is not to go on declaring some foods profane or "common." Jesus' teaching and behavior had certainly prepared the way for such a declaration (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41), and the cross was the salvific basis for it (Eph 2:14-15; Col 2:14). The sheet from heaven and the voice both bear witness that all God's creatures are now to be viewed as clean and good, not to be refused (Gen 1:31; 1 Tim 4:3).
This whole transaction occurs three times. What is the basic truth here? It is divine mandate, not something inherent in the creature, that establishes the dividing line between clean and unclean.Divinely Sent Gentile Guests (10:17-23)

Peter is thoroughly perplexed (NIV's wondering about is too weak; compare 2:12; 5:24; Lk 9:7). Is he confused by an evident divine contradiction, a heavenly voice commanding him to disregard food laws that God had given Moses for Israel? Or is he wondering what significance this boundary abolition will have for his identity and behavior as a Jewish Christian?
By providential coincidence, Cornelius's men appear at the gate and call out for Peter just as he is puzzling over the vision. God the Holy Spirit speaks to Peter, telling him that three men are seeking him (compare v. 21). In describing their pursuit of Peter who will tell them how to be saved (11:14), is Luke presenting a model of the spiritual stance every Gentile should take (17:27; compare Rom 2:7)?
Peter is to go with them without making a distinction for himself (NIV do not hesitate; Greek diakrino). In the middle or passive voice this verb can mean either "to take issue with" or "to be at odds with oneself, to doubt, to waver, to have misgivings" and is so understood here by many (NIV; Bruce 1990:257; Kistemaker 1990:382; compare v. 29). But since Peter's objections are really based on continuing prejudicial distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and the vision as he comes to properly interpret it has to do with removing such distinctions (v. 28), it seems best to take the verb here in an intensified form of its active meaning, "to make a distinction, to differentiate" (compare 11:12; 15:9; Marshall 1980:187; Stott 1990:187; Krodel [1986:191] takes it as meaning both). So taken, the Spirit's instruction is Peter's focal point of illumination concerning the vision. If he will act out "not making distinctions" with these Gentiles even to the extent of table fellowship in their household, he will understand the vision and its implications. And today if we would understand God's Word, especially where it challenges our prejudices, we too must wrestle with its meaning and its implications. We may expect to understand it more and more fully as we obey it more and more readily.
Peter meets the men with a declaration that he is the one they are "looking for." He asks why they have come. Placing Cornelius in the most favorable light possible, the messengers describe their master's character, his reputation among all the Jewish people (compare Lk 7:5) and the angel's instruction.
Peter invites the men in to be his guests. In this he does not go beyond what a law-abiding Jew might do (Marshall 1980:187). Still, because of their visit's purpose, Peter's hospitality is a sign that he agrees to their request, which was not permitted for a Jew. Peter in this brief encounter grows in his discipleship. Obedience to the Spirit will lead to understanding. Understanding demands further obedience.
God by his word was breaking down prejudicial barriers as his witnesses obeyed. What breakthroughs does God want to bring about through us as we ob

Wow. Looking for a treatise on 'original sin' on google was a 24 page pathetic disaster.  Bing does a better job.

So when we move from quoting scripture to interpreting scripture we still need to take our ideas back to the written Word to see how they hold up. And even if the Word does not refute our ideas, our learning prospers by maintaining the language of Scripture as both the foundation and the building blocks of Right understanding.
God's intent  appears and is consistent from beginning to end.

We're looking at sin, original sin and the Law, and the elohim. I just googled 'the law of the elohim' as I've never heard that phrase and found:

"The Law of Elohim is a principle that Mormon men promise to obey during the endowment ceremony, which usually takes place in a temple. Mormon men promise to obey God's law, and in exchange God delivers to men the laws of obedience and sacrifice."

This is full of facts on references to Elohim in scripture:
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html

It says:

• "Elohim" is found 2602 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh, Old Testament). (It is not used in the Greek New Testament.)
  
  
• The word is used for: the true God, false gods, supernatural spirits (angels), and human leaders (kings, judges, the messiah).
  
  
• About 250 times elohim designates angels (non-human servants of the one God) or foreign, pagan deities. The Bible affirms that many beings exist in the same "elohim class" as the one supreme Elohim. That is, there are supranatural, semi-divine beings other than God. So "elohim" seems to mean simply "Deity" or "deity(ies)." And the term does not, inherently, tell us if they are good or evil.
  
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
• There's a new post, so I'll post this and switch to that one.
  
  

Yeah, that's the definition I take, not the Mormon part but Elohim as a classification.

Quoting Sansanoy, "What I mean is that there is a law in place for all Elohim, all the angels."

A Law beyond 'doing the Will of God"?


As I'm checking resources, the prevailing thought is that the "Original Sin" was "Disobedience" to God's Command.  satan disobeyed, and tempted Eve with lies into disobeying as well.

The only legitimate Law is God's Law which is eternal.

Disobedience led to the opening of a Pandora's box-the seed of the Forbidden Tree:
all things that exist in Opposition to Perfect Love. (God's Perfection)




In the book of Enoch the angels go against it and are strangely in a condition where they can't be forgiven.
Edited to fix my goofy wording.

From the eternal perspective God knew what was coming, but had it written out in 'time' for our sake.  It's as if 'disobedience' from any of His created ones was never on His radar.  But the Bible wasn't written for the angels. 



Forgiveness is for us alone. So I am wondering if by eating the fruit we became like an Elohim in such a way as to fall under this justice system.

Sure, I guess, as there is only one justice system-God's.  Judgement operates against all who disobey God's Laws-God's Rule, in whatever form that disobedience manifests. I think sin is the fruit (product) of disobedience.



So lets say the justice of the law falls upon anyone who knows what they are doing is wrong.

I'm good with that.  But also God says we are responsible for knowing,as He has given us all we need to know it!



When Adam eats of that knowledge he falls under the legalism of the law.

"Legalism is a worldly term, yes?  As opposed to God's Immutable Law.  I'd be more apt to say he
'fell" into the full responsibility of purity of all thought and action-something he was inherently incapable of.



The other possibility is that eating the fruit is like taking a pledge, like joining the military service where you willingly take on new responsibilities and duties when you are ready. So eating of it is like a swearing oneself into to whatever legal condition the Elohim are under. "

I don't see this one. The description of satan's conversations with Eve show her to be very naive.  Why wouldn't she be?  She at the time had no knowledge of evil!
She was flat out tricked.  Thus God has Mercy and has made Provision for Salvation for humans, but not for the angels who consciously rebelled, who thought to rise above Him.

Of course it was satan, the father of lies, who told Eve they would be as gods, knowing both good and evil.  God said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

⁴ And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: ⁵ for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Sansanoy wrote:

So I am wondering if by eating the fruit we became like an Elohim in such a way as to fall under this justice system.

When Adam eats of that knowledge he falls under the legalism of the law.

The other possibility is that eating the fruit is like taking a pledge, like joining the military service where you willingly take on new responsibilities and duties when you are ready.

So eating of it is like a swearing oneself into to whatever legal condition the Elohim are under.

It sounds like the birth certificates. When we accept them as our identity we come under the democracy of rules and statutes ... an old Mithraian trick. When we are able to claim our rightful birthright (and we can), we are back under the republic and the law of Jehovah. The mark will come out of rules and statutes btw.

Please pray for me!!! i’m almost there and will gratefully accept any and all of the support i can get (deadline's coming and much to do).  

Thanks!

Romans 4 out of context seems to say something contradictory to the rest of the Bible, and that can't be, so we need to look further, holding the part up to the whole for right understanding. 
In Romans, Paul is explaining to the Jews there why Righteousness is imputed by faith, not Law.  He makes the case:

The Law does NOT bring Salvation.
If one sought Salvation by Law keeping, it would have to be kept Perfectly, 100%, which God says is impossible for man.
Therefore, the Law always ends up condemning (imputes sin-guilt) those who seek Salvation by it. 
He who seeks  to be Justified by the Law will be Judged by the Law.
Bottom line, Law Keeping is an endeavor of imperfect man, and by the very nature of man will always fail.
Salvation by Faith is given by God and CANNOT fail, just rejected. (crazy how many do).

Verses:


From Romans 4: For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Romans 4 ESV (same thing, said another way)

¹³ For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. ¹⁴ For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. ¹⁵ For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.


A couple sentences earlier, In Romans 2, Paul said:
¹² For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;  ¹³ (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  ¹⁴ For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:  ¹⁵ which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)  ¹⁶ in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Romans 3
⁹ What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;  ¹⁰ as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  ¹¹ there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  ¹² They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 3 ESV  ²⁰ For by works of the law no human being^[c] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.


⁹ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.  ²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;  ²² even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:  ²³ for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;  ²⁴ being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:  ²⁵ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;  ²⁶ to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

²⁷ Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.  ²⁸ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.  ²⁹ Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:  ³⁰ seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.  ³¹ Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Romans 4
¹³ For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.  ¹⁴ For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:  ¹⁵ because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.  ¹⁶ Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,  ¹⁷ (as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.  ¹⁸ Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations;

i agree that the Law does not save but it can make one a lot more comfortable. Law gives us boundaries for our and society’s benefit. The closer to perfect (under the law) we get, the better the quality of our lives will be but that does not save us, as we by ourselves are not capable of the required perfection.

Like it or not, we’re all under law of one sort or another. My point in the previous post was, whose “law” or law do you wish to be under. One is harsh or has the increasing potential to become harsh, the other is a light burden. i would choose the law of the true salvator, the same yesterday and today and forever (no surprises). When Yeshua returns he will rule (with a rod of iron), i.e. there will be rules.

Ever notice how one’s life changes for the better (we increasingly lose the desire to do the sinful things we used to do) when we are born again in the spirit by the grace of Jehovah? That is Jehovah’s law being written on our hearts - of our own free will and by our faith in him, and not by our works which are only the evidence of that faith.

P.S. i was not meaning to change the subject of this thread in my previous post but was struck by and wished to point out the similarities.

Sansanoy wrote:

I was thinking about this today and I think something finally clicked. Whenever I read "ye shall be as gods" I think that it is a direct reference to Yahweh. But it's not it's "ye shall be like an Elohim". Animals do bad things all the time but their actions carry no weight of sin. But as soon as an Elohim sins, like the watchers, they carry a weight of sin that cannot be removed. They carry good or evil, they don't just know it, it's a part of their minds and soul. When Adam ate of the fruit he became like the Elohim, which means sin sticks and so since the action itself was a sin his soul immediately bore the weight of his iniquity. That iniquity could not be removed except by Christ who bore it all as the last Adam and conquered the weight by his righteousness. 

What do you think about this idea. Are there any scriptural or doctrinal conflicts? I wanna see if it's a good thought so tear it to pieces if it's flawed.

As regards your initial post. i wasn't aware of the translations, gods = Elohim, Elohim = sin sticks. That gives the text a clearer meaning. Thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge. It is enriching.