View Full Version : The Man of God
I would like to start a new thread;
The Man of God.
We are in this wondrous work together.
There are men who have wives. There are women who have husbands.
We are a mixed group.....we must learn to grow together.
Women have a role to play. And, so do men.
Let's learn from the fountain of wisdom what we are to do.....this being in simple truth.....that which flows from Him....the source of all Wisdom.
I begin this discussion with;
The Lord God instructed Adam.....as to what He expected.
Let's start there....in the beginning.
joel
My simple request.....
Why did he not object?
He was there all the time,
he heard the lies....and yet he remained....
silenced...a man of sublime.
She took the bait,
She heard the refrain,
She believed, and was profaned.
I am told that he was not deceived.
What is the answer??....I do not want to accuse her
I love her, and yet she did
what I would not have done.
She was my beloved,
a part of me,
blood of my blood, flesh of my flesh,
a vital part of me,
my life.....my wife....my vital part taken from me.
And yet she took from the tree,
that which He had forbidden,
that which He said which should not be.
Did I not hear?
Did I not fear.....what would come if we took the fruit of that tree?
It is simpy not right,
that she should bear the shame,
of taking the fruit,
that which would cause the blame.
I simply could not see her go.....to see her fade from my gaze.....
my love....my life.....the light of my days.
Joel
Why did I not protest,
Why not stop the thief in his quest....
This...the great mystery...
why let him steal from you....and from me.
Why not stop his attack,
to take my home,
The garden of God, and the wondrous gift of my wife, the one
who watched my back.
The one beside me, the woman who with me did not lack......
she was made....to foil his subtle tack....
and yet, we listened to his lies.....
that we would be wise...
Did I hear right?
Did I not have fright...
that if I misunderstood...I would suffer His might....
His wrath against my lack of sight....
my weakness of light.
My disobedience, I see....
is that I failed to hear His word..the One Who would keep my free.
I simply did not hear aright,
and I failed to put the enemy to flight.
Can there possibly be....irony so replete that only
can make aright by Him so complete?
I want you to know....it was not her fault.....that caused our fall.
She only wanted to know wisdom.....of which I was devoid.
I should have stepped between them.....I failed to employ....
the word which He had given me.....and I should have told her so...
to make her able to overcome ....the thief of our abode.
Joel
Oh but to have again
that day when Yahweh Elohim
instructed me
I was alone with Him,
I did not have His gift of love
that she would be.
He told me exactly what to do,
what to take,
and what to eat
the garden through,
I heard Him, I'm sure,
say the words to secure
our garden home from those who may endure
in subtle lies
to tempt our eyes
seeking wisdom as a lure.
But I was dull
and failed to hear
that if I ate
my fate was clear
and when she took
and did partake
and did not die
I lost my fear
and lost my wife
and lost my life
to the one who lies
and twists His words
so that we would lose,
His gift of paradise.
Where we walked with Him
and talked with Him
and heard His voice so clear.
If only perchance to have again
that nearness, that dearness
that comes from Him.
He will come again,
we're sure,
our faith in Him now pure,
He redeems us, He secures us,
His wisdom will He feed us,
He was Yahweh Elohim,
He is now our dear Lord Jesus.
.
Joel
Joel,
The Man of God? What about the Woman of God?
I don't see how one can come up with any reasonable ,logical conclusions to
your opening statement , "The Man of God".
That is unless you separate the Man (ADAM) into the two personages man and woman, male and female or husband of wife to be.
It appears to me that the Man of God can represent either the Man of the Flesh or the Man of the Spirit in our way of Christian thinking.
Individual man, male has a spirit and a soul. Individual woman has a spirit and a soul.
The only way that I could make any sense of it all was to look at it from the perspective that ADAM of the sixth day was an Elohim (Spiritual/Mental- composed of a spirit and soul (male and female) . ADAM being the one Man who would be made manifest in two separate Images , of which the Flesh man would be first of which all Elohim would be made manifest.
The Adam (of that ADAM) that was placed into the garden was only one such Elohim that would be the Father of the generations of the peoples who through the process of remnants would in the end make up Israel. It is their story.
I personally take the Garden story to be ( I don't know what word to use ) so will say a metaphysical concept. Also, from my point of view, were not yet in manifested flesh bodies but would take on bodies of flesh as individuals at the transition point of being taken out of the Garden. ( much in the same manner as those in Christ, take on a new body after they die to their physical flesh ) (Note: that Adam and eve had both died in their spiritual/mental bodies just prior to taking on their literal flesh bodies.)
The soul was taken out of Adam and was called woman. That left Adam to be a spirit and was the man. Adam had lost his soul mate and Eve had lost her counterpart ,the spirit.
It was to be through marriage that they would once again become a whole person.
They had flesh bodies after they were outside the garden, and all their children would be whole individuals with a soul coming from their mother and spirit (within life) from their Father.
An aside: They both found themselves to be naked. I don't see that as being bare butt but finding themselves to be without their counterpart as a mate.
This is seen in other parts of the bible ,such as in Leviticus or the sin of Ham, Noah's son.
To see the Fathers nakedness was to go to bed with their Fathers wife.
This type of marriage concept is seen in the earlier verses of the creation/ bara'ing story.
Some of your questions could take on answers from this point of view.
Then again, maybe I got hit in the head with to many logs while I was in the woods.:winking0071:
Gil
The Man of God? What about the Woman of God?
I don't see how one can come up with any reasonable ,logical conclusions to
your opening statement , "The Man of God".
I opened the thread with;
"I would like to start a new thread;
The Man of God.
We are in this wondrous work together."
------------------------------------------
Adam, in the garden......where the Lord God placed him, and commanded him...........
that is what I wanted to talk about.
and, so I fashioned some simple prose to make some statements..........what specifically, Gil, is your objection?
Joel
Joel,
The Man of God? What about the Woman of God?
I don't see how one can come up with any reasonable ,logical conclusions to
your opening statement , "The Man of God".
That is unless you separate the Man (ADAM) into the two personages man and woman, male and female or husband of wife to be.
It appears to me that the Man of God can represent either the Man of the Flesh or the Man of the Spirit in our way of Christian thinking.
Individual man, male has a spirit and a soul. Individual woman has a spirit and a soul.
The only way that I could make any sense of it all was to look at it from the perspective that ADAM of the sixth day was an Elohim (Spiritual/Mental- composed of a spirit and soul (male and female) . ADAM being the one Man who would be made manifest in two separate Images , of which the Flesh man would be first of which all Elohim would be made manifest.
The Adam (of that ADAM) that was placed into the garden was only one such Elohim that would be the Father of the generations of the peoples who through the process of remnants would in the end make up Israel. It is their story.
I personally take the Garden story to be ( I don't know what word to use ) so will say a metaphysical concept. Also, from my point of view, were not yet in manifested flesh bodies but would take on bodies of flesh as individuals at the transition point of being taken out of the Garden. ( much in the same manner as those in Christ, take on a new body after they die to their physical flesh ) (Note: that Adam and eve had both died in their spiritual/mental bodies just prior to taking on their literal flesh bodies.)
The soul was taken out of Adam and was called woman. That left Adam to be a spirit and was the man. Adam had lost his soul mate and Eve had lost her counterpart ,the spirit.
It was to be through marriage that they would once again become a whole person.
They had flesh bodies after they were outside the garden, and all their children would be whole individuals with a soul coming from their mother and spirit (within life) from their Father.
An aside: They both found themselves to be naked. I don't see that as being bare butt but finding themselves to be without their counterpart as a mate.
This is seen in other parts of the bible ,such as in Leviticus or the sin of Ham, Noah's son.
To see the Fathers nakedness was to go to bed with their Fathers wife.
This type of marriage concept is seen in the earlier verses of the creation/ bara'ing story.
Some of your questions could take on answers from this point of view.
Then again, maybe I got hit in the head with to many logs while I was in the woods.:winking0071:
Gil
Hi Gil,
I've been thinking along those very same lines lately....it's so nice to find another doing the same..:yo: Instead of taking the Garden story as literal, I too, take it as being as you called it "Metaphysical", that is to say - beyond the physical.
When God said "Let us create man in Our image", He created a being that was both masculine and feminine - complete -...that was Adam. When Adam was placed in the metaphorical Garden, God saw that it was not good for this Adam to be alone without a partner. From Adam God took the feminine side, to create Adams complement - Eve - who now contained the feminine qualities that Adam now no longer possessed. This would be the attraction that would continually pull Man and Women back together to try and fulfill that desire to be again - one flesh.
This could very well explain the story of the Serpent tempting Eve instead of Adam. The feminine side which was given to Eve contained a desire for wisdom, and things beautiful to the eye, which is why she could be tempted. Adams desire was for his complement, the feminine part that was taken from him....so when Eve offered the desired fruit to Adam he took it, wanting to re-establish unity with his complement...:winking0071:
Rose
This could very well explain the story of the Serpent tempting Eve instead of Adam.
It seems to me, Rose, that the serpent approached the woman to determine if she knew the word of God.
She was not present when the Lord God commanded the human, Adam.
The Lord God's words to him were very specific.
and yet.....she did not repeat the very specific words back to the serpent.
There is no doubt about her gifts, and abilities being the complement of the man. The issue is authority and rule.
Joel
It seems to me, Rose, that the serpent approached the woman to determine if she knew the word of God.
She was not present when the Lord God commanded the human, Adam.
The Lord God's words to him were very specific.
and yet.....she did not repeat the very specific words back to the serpent.
There is no doubt about her gifts, and abilities being the complement of the man. The issue is authority and rule.
Joel
Hi Joel,
The issue of authority and rule had not entered the picture concerning Adam and Eve, only that of God's rule and authority. The Serpent would have been well aware of Eve's knowledge and desires, that is why he approached her.
Remember, the Serpent was the wisest of the beasts of the field, knowing that God made made Eve from Adam as a complement to him, and possessing qualities that were taken from him.
The text of Gen.3:6 leaves one with the impression that Adam was right by Eve's side when she ate of the fruit, and then gave it to her husband that was with her....and it says both their eyes were opened, implying at the same time.
.
Gen.3:6-7 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
.
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 09:35 AM
It seems to me, Rose, that the serpent approached the woman to determine if she knew the word of God.
She was not present when the Lord God commanded the human, Adam.
The Lord God's words to him were very specific.
and yet.....she did not repeat the very specific words back to the serpent.
There is no doubt about her gifts, and abilities being the complement of the man. The issue is authority and rule.
Joel
Hi Joel,
I'm familiar with the approach you suggest, but I've still got some questions. Why should we think it was a test to see if Eve "knew the word of God?" That is not stated anywhere in the Bible, and it seems she knew the commandment well enough. She repeated the essence of it, and then went on to violate the very command that she obviously knew. Folks make an issue about her slight variation when she added "and thou shalt not touch it" as if that were significant, but I don't understand why that would be significant since that is not what caused her to violate the command.
The story of Adam and Eve is designed to force us to wake up and recognize that the Bible is not supposed to be interpreted as if it were a literal history. Basically, the story seems to go like this ...
A father places a poisoned piece of candy before his five year old twin children. He makes it look like the best candy that could ever be imagined and tells his children not to eat it or they will die. He then leaves the children alone and sends in an expert child psychologist to convince them to eat the candy. The psychologist is successful, of course. Then the father returns and berates and curses the children for their disobedience and kicks them out of the house to live and die in misery as guilty rejects justly condemned by their wise father.
How are we supposed to understand a story like that? Nothing about it makes any sense at all. Who amongst us would blame the children?
Richard
I'm familiar with the approach you suggest, but I've still got some questions. Why should we think it was a test to see if Eve "knew the word of God?" That is not stated anywhere in the Bible, and it seems she knew the commandment well enough. She repeated the essence of it, and then went on to violate the very command that she obviously knew. Folks make an issue about her slight variation when she added "and thou shalt not touch it" as if that were significant, but I don't understand why that would be significant since that is not what caused her to violate the command.
Why did the serpent approach her??
Rose has previously suggested that Eve, Adam's mate, symbolized wisdom. I agree with that assessment.......wisdom is knowing what to do.....which path to take.....which food to eat.....wisdom is the guiding principle of our actions....right?
God's words are very specific........He says exactly what He means. When you look closely at what the Lord God said to Adam......and in so doing, consider that Adam was remain "under" those words, which would protect him from the that which would come to take away............otherwise what is the function of "keep" the garden?....
It seems to me if Eve didn't know what God said.......His words could not be shelter of safety that they were meant to be.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 10:25 AM
I was reading a blog (http://rambling-rosemarie.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-god-really-say.html) concerning something completely unrelated, and found this synopsis of what happened in the garden. She interprets what happened in terms of a broken line of authority as suggested by Joel:
It took one question put together by the best wordsmith the world has ever known. It probably happened something like this: "Did God really say.... ?" Adam, who was given instructions directly, let the first bit line up when he relaxed his place of leadership and let Eve answer the question or rather let her answer it incorrectly. Eve embellished the answer. She told the serpent not only can't they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they can't even touch it! That's the next bit that lined up. I think it's important because it is a twisting of what is true and it sounds so dramatic. It sounds as if Eve is an authority on the subject... as if she is the one who got the instructions directly from God. But she didn't and she knows she didn't. That probably made the serpent's next statement seem more plausible to Eve. She knew she had exaggerated a bit, perhaps that exaggeration could happen in reverse too. Perhaps the serpent was right, they wouldn't really die if they ate from the tree. Because he [Adam] had already relaxed his leadership role, abdicating completely was made easier.... so when Eve offered, Adam bit.
I find it fascinating that this approach seems so natural to folks. It is like everyone is programed to believe that men should rule over women. There is no mention in the story about Adam "abdicating" his "leadership role!" No male-dominated hierarchy had been established at this point in Scripture, unless you want to attempt to establish it upon the order of creation (Adam first, Eve taken from Adam). But even so ... the thing that is so fascinating is that the broad outline of the story is ignored while a non-existent issue (male leadership) is added and some minutia are magnified and made the central issue.
Richard
Richard, leadership, rule, and authority are at the center of the issue in the garden.
Adam, and his mate, were to exercise dominion over all of the animals.
But, the serpent reversed that........
Dominion is expressed.....by words.
If man is created in God's image, then, the One Who speaks and it comes about must also expect His image, man, to speak as well......not just any words, but, the exact words.
If you look at the exact words (at least as exact as we can determine) that the Lord God spoke to Adam.........then,.........
compare the words offered by the crafty serpent.......
and......compare the words offered by the woman........
and......compare the additional words spoken by the serpent....and the woman's reply.......
comparing these words, to those spoken by the Lord God to the human, Adam, then.......you realize that the accuracy (or lack thereof) must play a vital role in the events.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 11:19 AM
If man is created in God's image, then, the One Who speaks and it comes about must also expect His image, man, to speak as well......not just any words, but, the exact words.
If you look at the exact words (at least as exact as we can determine) that the Lord God spoke to Adam.........then,.........
compare the words offered by the crafty serpent.......
and......compare the words offered by the woman........
and......compare the additional words spoken by the serpent....and the woman's reply.......
comparing these words, to those spoken by the Lord God to the human, Adam, then.......you realize that the accuracy (or lack thereof) must play a vital role in the events.
Joel
OK - let's look:
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
Genesis 3:1-7 which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2 And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'"
At this point, Eve accurately reported the command not to eat, but then added her own (or Adam's) words "or touch it." We don't know if this was her own addition, or if it was something she learned from Adam. Perhaps he added the words to keep her from even touching the tree, just to be safe. But I don't see how this variation is significant, since the "or touch it" actually strengthened the command.
4 And the serpent said to the woman, "You surely shall not die! 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Now the serpent flat out LIED to Eve (and presumably to Adam, since it seems he was there). But his lie has nothing to do with the addition "or touch it" as far as I can tell.
6 When the woman saw that 1) the tree was good for food, and that 2) it was a delight to the eyes, and that 3) the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
God totally "stacked the deck" three times against Eve. She took the fruit in accordance with the nature that God created in her. 1) God gave her the desire for food and 2) God gave her the desire for things that "delight the eyes" and 3) God gave her the desire to be wise, and to top it all off God left her and Adam alone and ignorant and unprotected in the Garden to be seduced by the Serpent to whom God had given Wisdom that he had denied to his own children so that the serpent could dominate them!
It looks like God designed it all so that the serpent would have a total advantage over Adam and Eve so that he could dominate them. I see nothing in the slight variation "or touch it" that relates to the outcome. Please explain that to me.
Thanks bro - this is a very interesting study,
Richard
Howdy again.
Joel, sorry about that.I seem to have jumped the gun :pop2:
By the way, I'm now in Hilliard,Florida. Wifes decision ,not mine.
I still miss the northwest.
Rose, I think that the garden story need's to be re-visited.
Let me give it some more thought.
To me, I think the beginning of man must be understood to
make any sense of Paul's Christology.
His thoughts on the last man Adam who would become both
the first once again and then the last Adam can only be seen
if looked at from both directions simultaneously.
It is a direct reflection on both images of ADAM of the sixth day.
Will be back with you on this.
Gil
It looks like God designed it all so that the serpent would have a total advantage over Adam and Eve so that he could dominate them. I see nothing in the slight variation "or touch it" that relates to the outcome. Please explain that to me.
First, my feisty administrator, one who sees his position as to playing a role, and, one who, in the end, must have the last word (as far as this forum is concerned);
It is the Lord God Who commanded the human, Adam.
This has to do with....Who He is.....the Lord God (the One Who arranges and sets in order that which Elohim created).
and...
what He does as He speaks to the human, Adam (as pertaining to what he is to eat).........commands (i.e.....He instructs).
The serpent, the crafty one (who became crafty.....and was not made that way it appears)........referred to Elohim, the Creator, not Yahweh Elohim, the placer, subjector......
and...
did not use the word for command (instructions which set in order and are to carefully heeded)....but used a more general term, to answer, or to publish (something which you may or may not necessarily need to do).
The serpent's question emphasized the negative.....whereas the Lord God's
initial words to the man specified the positive. This, I believe, is the contrast of grace and law. If.....we were to season our conversation with grace, "of every tree"......and not insist on the law........"thou shalt not".....our communication between each other would be enhanced considerably.
It is not only "what you say"....but....."how you say it".
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 03:40 PM
First, my feisty administrator, one who sees his position as to playing a role, and, one who, in the end, must have the last word (as far as this forum is concerned);
I hope that never happens! If I have the last word, it would mean I'm the last person here, and I don't like that idea.
So speak on brother! This is your platform.
It is the Lord God Who commanded the human, Adam.
This has to do with....Who He is.....the Lord God (the One Who arranges and sets in order that which Elohim created).
and...
what He does as He speaks to the human, Adam (as pertaining to what he is to eat).........commands (i.e.....He instructs).
The serpent, the crafty one (who became crafty.....and was not made that way it appears)........referred to Elohim, the Creator, not Yahweh Elohim, the placer, subjector......
and...
did not use the word for command (instructions which set in order and are to carefully heeded)....but used a more general term, to answer, or to publish (something which you may or may not necessarily need to do).
The serpent's question emphasized the negative.....whereas the Lord God's
initial words to the man specified the positive. This, I believe, is the contrast of grace and law. If.....we were to season our conversation with grace, "of every tree"......and not insist on the law........"thou shalt not".....our communication between each other would be enhanced considerably.
It is not only "what you say"....but....."how you say it".
Joel
I am very confused by your distinction between Elohim as Creator and YHVH ELohim as "the placer, subjector." I've never heard of that idea before. Does it correlate with any traditional categories like the persons of the Trinity? Is Elohim the Father and YHVH Elohim the Son or something like that? Is this something you read somewhere, or is it an original insight of your own?
Thanks,
Richard
By observation, elohiym is mentioned throughout Genesis 1.......the account of the creation. Then, in the beginning of Chapter 2, elohiym rests from His work of creation.
Yahweh elohiym comes forth in Chapter 2, verse 4....and continues throughout the 2nd chapter as things are set in order.
Theos in the Greek has the root meaning of Placer......it comes from the Greek work, to place.
This corresponds to the work of Yahweh elohiym who sets things in order.......the creation continues to function in the order, and under the orders of the Word of God who upholds all things.
This has come to me through a study of the various roles of God.:D
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 04:41 PM
By observation, elohiym is mentioned throughout Genesis 1.......the account of the creation. Then, in the beginning of Chapter 2, elohiym rests from His work of creation.
Yahweh elohiym comes forth in Chapter 2, verse 4....and continues throughout the 2nd chapter as things are set in order.
Theos in the Greek has the root meaning of Placer......it comes from the Greek work, to place.
This corresponds to the work of Yahweh elohiym who sets things in order.......the creation continues to function in the order, and under the orders of the Word of God who upholds all things.
This has come to me through a study of the various roles of God.:D
Joel
OK - so you are simply saying that God uses different names in Scripture when he is performing different functions? The Jews have a tradition rather like that. They associate Elohim with God's role as Creator (like you do) and also as Judge, whereas YHVH is associated with God's Mercy, as in the famous verse from Exodus:
Exodus 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Now getting back to the point you had been making - your wrote:
It is the Lord God Who commanded the human, Adam.
This has to do with....Who He is.....the Lord God (the One Who arranges and sets in order that which Elohim created).
and...
what He does as He speaks to the human, Adam (as pertaining to what he is to eat).........commands (i.e.....He instructs).
The serpent, the crafty one (who became crafty.....and was not made that way it appears)........referred to Elohim, the Creator, not Yahweh Elohim, the placer, subjector......
and...
did not use the word for command (instructions which set in order and are to carefully heeded)....but used a more general term, to answer, or to publish (something which you may or may not necessarily need to do).
The serpent's question emphasized the negative.....whereas the Lord God's
initial words to the man specified the positive. This, I believe, is the contrast of grace and law. If.....we were to season our conversation with grace, "of every tree"......and not insist on the law........"thou shalt not".....our communication between each other would be enhanced considerably.
It is not only "what you say"....but....."how you say it".
Joel
I don't see why you think the serpent "became" wise. Gen 3.1 says the serpent was (hayah) more subtil." The verb is the qal perfect tense, and this conveys the idea of "was" not "became." Where did you get the idea of "became?"
Now you said that the serpent "did not use the word for command." I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about the grammatical form of the command ... "thou mayest freely eat" as opposed to the grammatical form the serpent used when he said "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" If so, what is it about the difference in grammar that you see as significant?
Richard
I have a big fat question...:D Why didn't God warn Adam and Eve of the craftiness of the Serpent?
We have two innocent babes in the Garden, and a wise Serpent who knows things that God has forbade Adam and Eve access to. The least any parent would do would be to warn their child of the dangers that could pose a threat to them, but it seems as though Adam and Eve are given a command and then just left to the mercy of the Serpent...:eek:
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 05:01 PM
I have a big fat question...:D Why didn't God warn Adam and Eve of the craftiness of the Serpent?
We have two innocent babes in the Garden, and a wise Serpent who knows things that God has forbade Adam and Eve access to. The least any parent would do would be to warn their child of the dangers that could pose a threat to them, but it seems as though Adam and Eve are given a command and then just left to the mercy of the Serpent...:eek:
Rose
Left to the mercy of the serpent! Now there's an image.
Your questions are excellent. They are so obvious it makes me wonder why it seems that no one ever mentions them. Have people closed their eyes to what the Bible actually states?
Richard
kathryn
06-22-2010, 08:04 PM
Richard and Rose made an excellent point about God setting up Adam and Eve to fall. I was facinated when I did a study on the Law, just how God set it up (the law) in such a way to make Himself liable for it (Adam and Eve's fall). The divine laws of liability say a man is responsible for that which he owns. (God is creator and owner of all creation)
In Ex. 21:33, for example, if a man digs a pit and doesn't take basic safety precautions ,and the neighbour's ox falls into it, the owner is of the pit is liable and must make restitution to his neighbour. Essentially, God dug a pit and Adam and Eve fell in it. No one can say the ox fell in of his own free will. :D
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 08:11 PM
Richard and Rose made an excellent point about God setting up Adam and Eve to fall. I was facinated when I did a study on the Law, just how God set it up (the law) in such a way to make Himself liable for it (Adam and Eve's fall). The divine laws of liability say a man is responsible for that which he owns. (God is creator and owner of all creation)
In Ex. 21:33, for example, if a man digs a pit and doesn't take basic safety precautions ,and the neighbour's ox falls into it, the owner is of the pit is liable and must make restitution to his neighbour. Essentially, God dug a pit and Adam and Eve fell in it. No one can say the ox fell in of his own free will. :D
Now that's an interesting spin! And it makes sense too ... is this your own insight or did you read it somewhere?
Richard and Rose made an excellent point about God setting up Adam and Eve to fall. I was facinated when I did a study on the Law, just how God set it up (the law) in such a way to make Himself liable for it (Adam and Eve's fall). The divine laws of liability say a man is responsible for that which he owns. (God is creator and owner of all creation)
In Ex. 21:33, for example, if a man digs a pit and doesn't take basic safety precautions ,and the neighbour's ox falls into it, the owner is of the pit is liable and must make restitution to his neighbour. Essentially, God dug a pit and Adam and Eve fell in it. No one can say the ox fell in of his own free will. :D
Good point Kathryn....:hysterical:
Another thing I've often thought about is the fact that the Tree of Life existed in the Garden all along, and the fruit could have been eaten by Adam and Eve, or the Serpent at any time since there was no restrictions on any tree except the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Apparently the Serpent had free access to the Garden since he was offering the fruit to Eve, so it stands to reason that the Serpent would have already eaten of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Good and Evil.
My question is why bar access to the Tree of Life at this point when the Serpent and Adam and Eve already could have eaten of it?
Rose
kathryn
06-22-2010, 08:29 PM
No...it wasn't mine. :p I did a course on the Law through Dr. Stephen Jones ministry. You'd be surprised at how many doctrinal issues...like the salvation of ALL mankind...is to be found in a study of the law.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2010, 09:21 PM
No...it wasn't mine. :p I did a course on the Law through Dr. Stephen Jones ministry. You'd be surprised at how many doctrinal issues...like the salvation of ALL mankind...is to be found in a study of the law.
I thought you might have learned that from him. Some day I'll have to read more of his articles. He has some good (though brief) outlines of the meanings of the Hebrew letters that you linked for me.
Since we know;
1.) The Lord God instructed the human as to the eating process in the garden,
2.) all of the trees were good for food,
3.) he, the human, was to freely eat from any tree except......the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
4.) If and when he did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the death process would ensue within him which would lead to the end of his life in the garden.......death.
Joel
Since we know;
1.) The Lord God instructed the human as to the eating process in the garden,
2.) all of the trees were good for food,
3.) he, the human, was to freely eat from any tree except......the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
4.) If and when he did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the death process would ensue within him which would lead to the end of his life in the garden.......death.
Joel
Yes, we know that is what the Bible says, but there are many problem with the Garden story if read from a purely literal standpoint - as we have pointed out.:p
That is why we must be lead from what we know God's character to be from the witness of the Holy Spirit, when we attempt to interpret what is being said. Since we know it can't be as simple as eating from a poisonous tree that is placed before you by your parent, whose fruit is the most scrumptious imaginable....all the while a cunning con-man is trying to coerce you to eat of it, telling you it will make you wise (maybe if you would have been wise in the first place you wouldn't have been deceived :p).
Rose
P.S. Giving this some more thought it appears to be worst than I thought. If something is poisonous the first thing done is to make that substance taste and smell BAD! So why didn't God make the Tree of Knowledge smell and taste like a pile of stinking MANURE?
Why must we assume that the story of the garden is not literal?
If it is "meta-physical", or, "allegorical".....or any other "....cal" that you may imagine......then,.......everything in the scripture can be adjusted to an illusionary plane........that...seems to me to be yet another "trick" of the "crafty" serpent.
I am saying that what happened is true, real, actually historical.......that is the premise from which I am studying the story.
Since we know it can't be as simple as eating from a poisonous tree that is placed before you by your parent, whose fruit is the most scrumptious imaginable....all the while a cunning con-man is trying to coerce you to eat of it, telling you it will make you wise (maybe if you would have been wise in the first place you wouldn't have been deceived ).
Who said that the tree was poisonous?
they (both he and her) were obviously not wise.
Isn't that the main issue? Obeying God's Word which is the road to wisdom....or being tricked into believing that there is a short cut?
There is no unrighteousness with God. He has the right to place them anywhere He desires, subject to any circumstances He may deem appropriate.......and ask the man to simply obey the instructions given to him.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-23-2010, 10:27 AM
Why must we assume that the story of the garden is not literal?
If it is "meta-physical", or, "allegorical".....or any other "....cal" that you may imagine......then,.......everything in the scripture can be adjusted to an illusionary plane........that...seems to me to be yet another "trick" of the "crafty" serpent.
The idea that "symbolic" and "allegorical" mean "illusory" is the fundamental misunderstanding that causes people to misinterpret the Bible.
When Christ is described as the Lamb of God, the literalist must conclude he has four hooves and fleece. When Christ is described as the Door, the literalist must conclude that he has hinges and a knob. Such examples could be greatly extended, such as Christ as Temple, as Star, etc.
The primary modes of expression of spiritual truth in the Bible are symbolic and allegorical, as seen in the examples concerning Christ as Lamb and Door. The story of Adam and Eve contains symbolic language that no one should take literally any more than they would think that Christ has hinges and four hooves. It has a talking snake a tree that makes you wise if you eat it's fruit and another tree that gives you unending life. Why should we assume that a snake was the "most crafty" of the animals of the field? Animals have not wisdom! That is ancient mythology. Snakes are not actually wise, but they have been used as symbols of wisdom in many cultures for thousands of years. The connection is symbolic - not literal!
I am saying that what happened is true, real, actually historical.......that is the premise from which I am studying the story.
The sacrifice of Christ remains "true, real, actually historical" even when it is spoken of as the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. This does not mean that Christ has four hooves and fleece.
The historicity and truth of an event has nothing to do with whether it is represented by "literal" vs. "symbolic" language. Symbols - like these letters that I am typing - represent literal truth, but they themselves are SYMBOLS, not the literal truth themselves.
Case in point: You do not believe that Satan is literally a snake like the legless animals we see in nature, do you? I presume you think that the serpent is a SYMBOL of Satan, correct? Or do you really believe that Satan was a literal snake? How then did he talk? Snakes can not talk, they don't have vocal chords!
Who said that the tree was poisonous?
In general, a plant is called "poisonous" if you die because you ate it. The tree of knowledge may not in itself be poisonous since the death could have been caused by God as punishment for eating and not by the fruit itself, but the effect is the same, so the tree of knowledge was "poisonous" to Adam and Eve.
Of course, most people seem to think that the Tree was not poisonous, and the only reason they died was because God killed them as punishment for disobeying him.
they (both he and her) were obviously not wise.
Isn't that the main issue? Obeying God's Word which is the road to wisdom....or being tricked into believing that there is a short cut?
Interesting suggestion ... but does it cohere with the story? There is no mention of becoming wise by obeying God. On the contrary, the only path to wisdom presented in Genesis 2 is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And we must ask if there is any statement elsewhere in Scripture that supports your interpretation?
It seems to me that the "main issues" are quite clear: God set up the situation and left them alone with the serpent so that his ignorant and isolated children would be irresistibly tempted from both inside (desire for food, wisdom, enlightenment) and outside (by the serpent) to eat of the tree. Why he wanted this to happen is the "main issue" to me.
There is no unrighteousness with God. He has the right to place them anywhere He desires, subject to any circumstances He may deem appropriate.......and ask the man to simply obey the instructions given to him.
Joel
I agree. I am not charging God with "unrighteousness" for what he did in the Garden. But neither am I ignoring what he has given us in Scripture, or trying to "look the other way" when the "main issues" are plain to see.
Great digging into this with you my friend. We are obviously coming from very different angles. I hope we can continue the conversation without frustration so we can both get a better understanding.
Richard
Yes, we know that is what the Bible says, but there are many problem with the Garden story if read from a purely literal standpoint - as we have pointed out.:p
That is why we must be lead from what we know God's character to be from the witness of the Holy Spirit, when we attempt to interpret what is being said. Since we know it can't be as simple as eating from a poisonous tree that is placed before you by your parent, whose fruit is the most scrumptious imaginable....all the while a cunning con-man is trying to coerce you to eat of it, telling you it will make you wise (maybe if you would have been wise in the first place you wouldn't have been deceived :p).
Rose
P.S. Giving this some more thought it appears to be worst than I thought. If something is poisonous the first thing done is to make that substance taste and smell BAD! So why didn't God make the Tree of Knowledge smell and taste like a pile of stinking MANURE?
On the same note, why would God put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If God did not put the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place then Eve would not be tempted and both would not have sinned. Why allowed Satan to deceive Eve? Which parents would put a gun on the table and tell their children, "Children, this gun can be used for good or for bad; it could protect you or it could kill you, Never use it!". Then why put the gun on the table, parents??? And why allow a stranger to encourage the children to use it? That's not what a loving parents would do! And not only that, when the children used the gun, the parents instead of pardoning the children, punished them a whole life of pain and hardship! What parents are these? However, if you see God as a Creator instead of a Loving parents, then the situation seems more logical. Imagine God to be a robot maker who loves all the robots he have made. Those robots that are faulty, the robot maker will of course try his best to repair them so that they becomes good perfect robots; but if the robots are beyond economical or technical repair, then the robot maker will destroy them and reuse their spare parts and materials to make new good perfect robots. Got the picture?... He is the potter, we are the clay. What good is a bad pot except to shatters it and make a new one.
Many Blessings.
If you approach the garden experience from the perspective of......the fruit of the of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.....
it is poisonous,
there is something wrong with it,
it is like a loaded gun sitting on the table in front of curious children,
etc., ...........then, it is proper to conclude that it seems grossly unfair to place such a dangerous object in clear view and access to the first humans.
But......every tree in the garden was good for food.
At least, this is what the Lord God said to the human, Adam.
What was wrong with the fruit of "that" tree was that unhindered access was denied.
There is nothing in the instructions that would indicate that the fruit itself was harmful in any way.
You are interjecting your view into the narrative.
Joel
kathryn
06-24-2010, 11:33 AM
Just because it is good, though Joel...doesn't mean it could be ingested by Adam and Eve. Perhaps it would be better to compare it to putting a plateful of peas in front of a baby. It would be a choking hazard because it hasn't developed the capacity to swallow them properly. There was nothing wrong with the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve at this point in time, didn't have God's ability to interpret the "fruit".
kathryn
06-24-2010, 11:45 AM
I've been thinking of your example above, Cheow. I'm not sure we can take the "loving parent" out of the equation. I'm more inclined to see the eating of the fruit as something God had planned all along. I'm not sure He would purposely make a bad pot, just to smash it and make another. Perhaps it was like putting an irritant (the fruit) in an oyster. (and maybe this is the role of satan in all of this) Maybe we were meant to go through this whole process to form that pearl.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-24-2010, 11:57 AM
On the same note, why would God put the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If God did not put the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden in the first place then Eve would not be tempted and both would not have sinned. Why allowed Satan to deceive Eve? Which parents would put a gun on the table and tell their children, "Children, this gun can be used for good or for bad; it could protect you or it could kill you, Never use it!". Then why put the gun on the table, parents??? And why allow a stranger to encourage the children to use it? That's not what a loving parents would do! And not only that, when the children used the gun, the parents instead of pardoning the children, punished them a whole life of pain and hardship! What parents are these? However, if you see God as a Creator instead of a Loving parents, then the situation seems more logical. Imagine God to be a robot maker who loves all the robots he have made. Those robots that are faulty, the robot maker will of course try his best to repair them so that they becomes good perfect robots; but if the robots are beyond economical or technical repair, then the robot maker will destroy them and reuse their spare parts and materials to make new good perfect robots. Got the picture?... He is the potter, we are the clay. What good is a bad pot except to shatters it and make a new one.
Many Blessings.
Your summation of the oddities of the story (blue text) is well stated. But your idea that God is not "Father" but rather "robot maker" is altogether foreign to Scripture. God calls himself "our father" and this is what Christ teaches us in the Lord's prayer, and all the Apostles taught that God is the father of believers. And throughout the NT we are called "children of God." And in Acts 17 Paul said everyone is "God's offspring." We even see this in the immediate context of the pot and potter analogy:
Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto >>> his father <<<, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
We are not robots. The Bible does not teach we are robots.
All the very best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
06-24-2010, 12:23 PM
If you approach the garden experience from the perspective of......the fruit of the of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.....
it is poisonous,
there is something wrong with it,
it is like a loaded gun sitting on the table in front of curious children,
etc., ...........then, it is proper to conclude that it seems grossly unfair to place such a dangerous object in clear view and access to the first humans.
But......every tree in the garden was good for food.
At least, this is what the Lord God said to the human, Adam.
What was wrong with the fruit of "that" tree was that unhindered access was denied.
There is nothing in the instructions that would indicate that the fruit itself was harmful in any way.
You are interjecting your view into the narrative.
Joel
Good point Joel. You are correct, the text does not indicate that the fruit itself would cause death. Romans 5 explains that the death was caused by violation of God's command since it says that "death entered through sin" and we know that sin is the violation of God's command. Therefore, there is no indication that the tree itself would have caused any death or other problem if God had simply allowed them to eat of it like all the other trees.
And this leads to the next question - why did God place such temptation before them and then deny it to them? And why did God leave them alone with the Serpent to be tempted even more? It still looks like a setup to me. The common answer is that God wanted to "test" them. But the Almighty does not need to "test" them because he already knew they would fail.
Therefore, it looks like God wanted them to disobey his command. It looks like this is the key to God's purpose. And then when we look into the NT we see that the "law" (typified by the command in the garden) was only a schoolmaster to lead us to freedom on Christ. And now the picture is beginning to become clear. God does not want ROBOTS who "obey" external commands. He wants children that make up their own minds! He wants us to think for ourselves. But there was a problem, because he did not want wild barbarians for children, so he had to form us with the law, and when the law had done its work, he freed us from it, and now we are self-determined independent thinkers made in the image of God our father!
There's a lot to think about here.
Richard
...why did God place such temptation before them and then deny it to them? And why did God leave them alone with the Serpent to be tempted even more? It still looks like a setup to me. The common answer is that God wanted to "test" them. But the Almighty does not need to "test" them because he already knew they would fail.
Richard,
When you look at the original text, where the Lord God is addressing the human, Adam concerning what he is to eat.........what in the original words indicates that "you" is singular in the Hebrew, and not in the "plural"?
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-25-2010, 09:50 AM
Richard,
When you look at the original text, where the Lord God is addressing the human, Adam concerning what he is to eat.........what in the original words indicates that "you" is singular in the Hebrew, and not in the "plural"?
Joel
Hi Joel,
When I first answered, I misunderstood your question. I'll get a correct answer out asap.
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
06-25-2010, 10:16 AM
Richard,
When you look at the original text, where the Lord God is addressing the human, Adam concerning what he is to eat.........what in the original words indicates that "you" is singular in the Hebrew, and not in the "plural"?
Joel
Hi Joel,
The singular and plural are built into the verbs. The Hebrew personal pronouns do not exist as independent words in those verses - they are indicated by the grammatical forms of the words.
For example the phrase "you may freely eat" is akol tokel. This is an infinitive absolute (akol) followed by an imperfect second person masculine. When Eve said "God said, ye shall not eat of it" she simply used toklu - the masculine plural imperfect - to refer to herself and Adam.
Richard
Richard,
As It was pointed out, and it appears that Rose is looking into it from
the same point of view, that at the time God was speaking to Adam ,Adam had not as yet been separated into a man and woman. Adam had a spirit that appeared to be in accordance with the Spirit of God. Adam had within him a soul that was not yet the female Eve. Adam was a meta-physical Elohim. Both spirit, man and soul, woman.
When God spoke of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil both the spirit and soul of Adam had heard it. As an Elohim (plural).
It would be after their separation that the serpent entered the picture.
My question would be , why do you take God's word in this case as a command in the sense of the Law.
It sounds more like an advisement than a command.
God could have just said , Thou shalt not eat of that tree. Period.
By telling them that if they did eat, they would die, sounds more like me saying to my son, "don't put that loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, it will kill you."
Beside that ,they had a choice to begin with. They could have left the tree alone and ate from the tree of life instead. They knew that it was there also.
They had a choice. As it turns out , the wrong one.
Their desire to become Gods was more powerful than their desire to
just attain wisdom.
Wasn't it just about the same situation when God told man to let him rule over there lives, but they wanted their own King to rule over them.
God didn't much like the idea but he granted them their choice.
God also told them that they would now have to accept all the consequences that went along with that choice.
gil
Taking this whole idea back to the point of God creating the first complete being (male and female) Adam, we see that God made man in His image. We know that didn't mean in God's physical image, so the only other image left is the spiritual image....if Adam was created in the spiritual image of God why did he not already know good from evil? If God really did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree, He would have never put it in the Garden.
The second part of the idea is looking at the Tree of Life as something that Adam and Eve continually ate of - which is what sustained their life, so when they were kicked out of the Garden because of eating of the Tree of Good and Evil they no longer had access to the Tree of Life, hence they eventually died physically. It sort of seems like when Adam and Eve reached a point of being mature enough to where they were ready to leave home and make it on their own they were able to be tempted into eating of the Tree, knowing what the consequences would be. Much like our own children who are ready to leave home when they become mature and have desires to start lives of their own.
Rose
Some points of interest regarding the garden story;
all of trees in the garden were good for food, including the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil,
the human, before he had a mate, could freely take of any of the trees and eat,
only one tree, bearing fruit of knowledge...of good and evil, the human was not to freely eat,
there was no indication that the human, Adam, would never eat of that fruit which was excluded, but,
that the human was not at liberty to take it freely as he was able to take of the other fruit of the other trees.
can we conclude that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must only come directly from God....when at such time He deems the time to be appropriate. Otherwise, taking of the fruit is detrimental and opposing God's intended purpose......i. e. gaining knowledge, separate from Him, renders death.
Since we do not know how long the lapse of time occurred between the time when the Lord God instructed the human concerning the trees, .....and.....when it was appropriate to supply a helper to him to dress and keep the garden......he, Adam, the human, must have eaten freely of all trees within the garden except that one to which access was denied,..otherwise, had he eaten.....he would have experienced death.
Joel
Your summation of the oddities of the story (blue text) is well stated. But your idea that God is not "Father" but rather "robot maker" is altogether foreign to Scripture. God calls himself "our father" and this is what Christ teaches us in the Lord's prayer, and all the Apostles taught that God is the father of believers. And throughout the NT we are called "children of God." And in Acts 17 Paul said everyone is "God's offspring." We even see this in the immediate context of the pot and potter analogy:
Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto >>> his father <<<, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?
We are not robots. The Bible does not teach we are robots.
All the very best,
Richard
RAM,
Of course humans are not robots but create beings that have the power to make own decisions. I used robots thinking that a computer mind like yours would appreciate. Robotics is now the in thing and to use potter and clay sounds rather old fashion when we are now living in the 21st century. I would like to present passages which do say what I am trying to say that God have the right to destroy us if we are not deemed to be His standards and we are all made for some purposes:
Jeremiah 18:3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Romans 9:Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Many Blessings.
We need to change our thinking.....and our expressions concerning certain matters if we are to progress in the scriptures, seeking the mind of God and an understanding of His glorious salvation process.
One particular, such word is "destroy". When modern man uses the phrase, it means to annilihate, or utterly put out of existence.
When applied to people, if the term is used in the common expression of annilihate......when it doesn't mean that.......then, the wrong conclusion is drawn, and God is not glorified.
I find the word to mean....."to put out of the way". When used in that manner, I can understand that certain ones will be set aside, and put out of the way who do not believe....they are not "destroyed".
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-27-2010, 10:03 AM
RAM,
Of course humans are not robots but create beings that have the power to make own decisions. I used robots thinking that a computer mind like yours would appreciate.
Hey there my friend,
I understand your intent, but if my experience with computers has taught me anything, it is that they are not anything like us humans! :p
Robotics is now the in thing and to use potter and clay sounds rather old fashion when we are now living in the 21st century. I would like to present passages which do say what I am trying to say that God have the right to destroy us if we are not deemed to be His standards and we are all made for some purposes:
Jeremiah 18:3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.
Romans 9:Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
Many Blessings.
I agree completely that God has a "right" to destroy us if he wants. That was never an issue as far as I recall.
But I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the pot & potter metaphor. It is not telling us that we are like dead clay with no will of our own. We know that is not the point because the same passage tells us that we are like children and God is our father. Obviously, the primary truth about God is that God is a free moral agent, and that is the primary attribute we find in his children. That is why we are like God.
God can guide our lives so that we are like vessels for his use - that does not mean we are totally limp like a lump of dead clay. He molds our lives so that we can be living clay in the hands of the potter.
All the very best,
Richard
So.....we are free to do whatever we want to be.
We are free, .....to live ....or to die.....or to fade into obscurity.
The choice is ours alone, you see,
and nothing He chooses makes any difference, ...it is absurdity,
to think that the One Who planned it all, left the choice unto the clay,
to be whatever it wants to be,...to decide....to choose....to have the last say.
free will is what He gave to me....
to make the choice that makes me free....
I have right, you see.....
and having that right,.......it can only be
up to me......
not up to Him.....as to my destiny.
But two vessels I see,
one made to please, ...one made to betray,
His chosen path, .......His only way.
could it be, for me.....and for you as well,
He wants you to succeed......His will to excel,
It is up to you to make the choice,
to be a reject, .....or one whose voice
proclaims the glory of His domain,
taking the cross in spite of the shame.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2010, 12:55 PM
So.....we are free to do whatever we want to be.
Not really! I can't be an instant Millionaire :mad:
We are free, .....to live ....or to die.....or to fade into obscurity.
Nope. I'm already living in obscurity ... and I probably won't have a choice about when to die ... I expect it will happen against my choice.
The choice is ours alone, you see,
and nothing He chooses makes any difference, ...it is absurdity,
to think that the One Who planned it all, left the choice unto the clay,
to be whatever it wants to be,...to decide....to choose....to have the last say.
free will is what He gave to me....
to make the choice that makes me free....
I have right, you see.....
and having that right,.......it can only be
up to me......
not up to Him.....as to my destiny.
But two vessels I see,
one made to please, ...one made to betray,
His chosen path, .......His only way.
could it be, for me.....and for you as well,
He wants you to succeed......His will to excel,
It is up to you to make the choice,
to be a reject, .....or one whose voice
proclaims the glory of His domain,
taking the cross in spite of the shame.
Joel
I think I understand your main point, and I have no problem with God having a "plan" that is bigger than we can see or understand and that is not subject to our own "choosing."
But how does he accomplish that plan??? ~~~~ I think he uses our "choices" ... :p
Richard, thanks for the response......when trying to express my thoughts in prose, the rhyme may not say what I intended, and it ends up a surprise to me.......that causes further inspection.
So, let me revert to an old method through a simple chart, or diagram;
......................+...........................
the + is the place of the cross for me
when I saw Him suspended on that tree
All things were rearranged, becoming new,
From that point on, each day a new view.
------------------------------------
Before that + my will was sin's control,
How can I say my will was "free will" to extol?
The servant of God, freed by His divine role,
Hung with Him on the cursed pole,
Now, I'm free
to be what He wants me to be
a vessel of honor, a man of that tree.
Joel
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.