View Full Version : Eve’s Original Desire for Wisdom
In the story of the Garden, Adam and Eve’s innocence as to knowing 'Good and Evil' is established by the fact that God forbid them to eat of the fruit of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' lest they die. Every other desire they had was granted fulfillment if they wished, there would have been no guilt for enjoying any pleasure imaginable within their framework of desire. Obviously one of the desires innate within Eve was for wisdom – knowledge - that is why the serpent could tempt her with the 'fruit of knowledge'. The forbidden tree manifested all the innate desires already present within her such as 'good for food', 'pleasant to the eyes', and 'wisdom', which immediately evokes the question: 'Why would God place a desire for wisdom in Eve, if it was something innately bad?'
If God is God, why create humans with a desire for something that is innately bad and will ultimately cause their demise?
Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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. 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.
The woman's eyes were not yet "opened" when the serpent tempted her, but she still saw that the tree was desirable to make her wise, which again seems to imply that the desire for wisdom was innate within her…otherwise it would not have been there. Eve could not have known what wisdom was unless the knowledge of it was already present within her.
Rose
Hi Rose,
You bring out some interesting observations. I have in the past day being reading some articles which bring out in the neighborhood of the same.
It may well be that Eve was tempted by eye appeal the tree and fruit good appealing. I do agree with your oberservation that it seem to be innate, but it seem to be in remission until she saw the tree and then provoked by the serpent to eat.
If God is God, why create humans with a desire for something that is innately bad and will ultimately cause their demise?
It seems to come down to obedience.
Hi Rose,
You bring out some interesting observations. I have in the past day being reading some articles which bring out in the neighborhood of the same.
It may well be that Eve was tempted by eye appeal the tree and fruit good appealing. I do agree with your oberservation that it seem to be innate, but it seem to be in remission until she saw the tree and then provoked by the serpent to eat.
It seems to come down to obedience.
BUT...is that the way you teach obedience...by placing an object for which you have created a desire for within reach of naive children?
Obviously it was a temptation beyond their ability to resist, especially when it was desirable just like all the other fruits in the Garden, with the added enticement of "wisdom".
All the Best,
Rose
BUT...is that the way you teach obedience...by placing an object for which you have created a desire for within reach of naive children?
Obviously it was a temptation beyond their ability to resist, especially when it was desirable just like all the other fruits in the Garden, with the added enticement of "wisdom".
All the Best,
Rose
Beyond their ability to resist? Hmmm. But wasn't the tree of knowledge there before their fall. Why wasn't it a temptation then? I thought God would not place anything in front of us that we can't resist? (1 Cor.10:13) Why was it only when the serpent 'beguiled' Eve that she then eat of the fruit?
But to teach obedience one would have to set something that they would have to choose so that in their obedience they would choose to rather obey than to fulfill their own desires.
Beyond their ability to resist? Hmmm. But wasn't the tree of knowledge there before their fall. Why wasn't it a temptation then? I thought God would not place anything in front of us that we can't resist? (1 Cor.10:13) Why was it only when the serpent 'beguiled' Eve that she then eat of the fruit?
But to teach obedience one would have to set something that they would have to choose so that in their obedience they would choose to rather obey than to fulfill their own desires.
We know from the story that God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and we know from the story that the serpent was able to tempt Eve, so the obvious conclusion is that God placed something in front of Adam and Eve that they couldn't resist...because God created them with a desire for wisdom.
The serpent woke up the innate desire in Eve for wisdom by bringing it to her attention, she obviously already knew the fruit was desirable to make one wise.
I would never teach my children obedience by purposely tempting them with something that is beyond their maturity to resist, or with something that's a natural innate desire...that's irresponsible in my book.
All the Best,
Rose
duxrow
07-25-2011, 06:18 AM
We know from the story that God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and we know from the story that the serpent was able to tempt Eve, so the obvious conclusion is that God placed something in front of Adam and Eve that they couldn't resist...because God created them with a desire for wisdom.
The serpent woke up the innate desire in Eve for wisdom by bringing it to her attention, she obviously already knew the fruit was desirable to make one wise.
I would never teach my children obedience by purposely tempting them with something that is beyond their maturity to resist, or with something that's a natural innate desire...that's irresponsible in my book.
All the Best,
Rose
You'd think they would have sampled the "Tree of Life", wouldn't you? Though I usually think of trees as food for beavers.. ha. :pop2:
The Script calls for those Two Tree's to be special amongst the forest of trees, and leads to the Trees of Righteousness in Isa61:3. The Vine Tree, Numb6:4, was part of the Butler's Dream about 3 branches, and eventually we see how Jesus was not only the Vine, but also the Tree of Life which was guarded by the flaming sword in Gen3:24. (2 swords enough? - add in the one spoken of in Eph6.) :yo:
You'd think they would have sampled the "Tree of Life", wouldn't you? Though I usually think of trees as food for beavers.. ha. :pop2:
The Script calls for those Two Tree's to be special amongst the forest of trees, and leads to the Trees of Righteousness in Isa61:3. The Vine Tree, Numb6:4, was part of the Butler's Dream about 3 branches, and eventually we see how Jesus was not only the Vine, but also the Tree of Life which was guarded by the flaming sword in Gen3:24. (2 swords enough? - add in the one spoken of in Eph6.) :yo:
If the Garden story was real, one would expect Adam and Eve to have eaten from the Tree of Life, but since it's just a myth we can only comment on what's written. :winking0071:
All the Best,
Rose
We know from the story that God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and we know from the story that the serpent was able to tempt Eve, so the obvious conclusion is that God placed something in front of Adam and Eve that they couldn't resist...because God created them with a desire for wisdom.
If that's the case than they couldn't resist that temptation why didn't they partake of the tree eariler? If in fact it was irresistible. There's something about the serpents cunning deception of Eve toward the tree. In a sence telling Eve that God had lied to them. So it not so much of the tree of wisdom being irresistible, but more of choice to believe and trust a stranger rather than her Father. Eve choose to believe the serpent over God for if it was purely by eye appeal irresistible they would have succumb without deception.
The serpent woke up the innate desire in Eve for wisdom by bringing it to her attention, she obviously already knew the fruit was desirable to make one wise.
If Eve already knew that the fruit was desireable and desired it for it had eye appeal yet never partake of it until her deception, why? What does that say about the deception? I don't see Eve desire awaken for it was already desireable to her before the serpent bringing it to her attention, more so it an indication of the serpent deceving Eve.
I would never teach my children obedience by purposely tempting them with something that is beyond their maturity to resist, or with something that's a natural innate desire...that's irresponsible in my book.
All the Best,
Rose
Children's learning curve tends to grow from disobedince rather than odedeince at a young age as in this case of Adam and Eve. We give our children guidence to what is right and wrong [commandments] as God give to Adam and Eve and Moses to teach them in the ways to live.
Eve cuccumbs to deception rather than temptation. The deception was that Eve thought that what she was told by God was a mistake. The serpent deceive her into believing that she mistook what god said or meant by his commandments. In her deception she then partook of the fruit. Choosing to believe the serpent rather than God.
Joshua saw the same in the children of Israel and called them out to choose that day which god would they serve. We today have this same option of choosing to which master we serve and what is the serpent to us none other that our flesh which desires the things of this world.
Joshua 24:15And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
duxrow
07-25-2011, 10:20 AM
Have you not noticed how God planted the Garden in Genesis, and Reaped a harvest in Revelation? And since our Language has been confounded with many figures of speech and poetic expressions, the account in Genesis may be (and IS) contains Truth of a deeper meaning than you suppose. chow baby..
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 10:23 AM
Have you not noticed how God planted the Garden in Genesis, and Reaped a harvest in Revelation? And since our Language has been confounded with many figures of speech and poetic expressions, the account in Genesis may be (and IS) contains Truth of a deeper meaning than you suppose. chow baby..
Very nice insight! Your ducks are in a row on this one. :p
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 10:40 AM
You'd think they would have sampled the "Tree of Life", wouldn't you? Though I usually think of trees as food for beavers.. ha. :pop2:
Nah ... they weren't wise enough to figure out the proper order before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. But then again, they still didn't realize they had to make a dash for the Tree of Life after their eyes were opened. It seems pretty stupid to think you could hide from an omniscient God! So .... maybe the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil didn't included all knowledge, like the knowledge that "after eating this tree, you best make a bee-line for the Tree of Life before God notices what's going on!"
Of course the whole thing is obviously not real history. It's totally illogical if read in that way. It is pure myth, and if it is from God then we know it must have an intelligent meaning that ordinary folks with normally functioning brains could understand. So, the first thing we know is that it was a total setup. God intended Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree. But why then would God throw a temper tantrum and curse the earth and cause all the suffering in the history of the world? Hummm ... I would guess that's the way that God looks to us down here in "Dualistic Thinking" land. We do not have the Consciousness of Divine Unity of Everything and so we side with Yin over Yang or Yang over Yin and are attached to "half the picture" (androgynous Adam divided into male and female). Thus we fall into consciousness of the material world "far" from God and full of pain and suffering, eking out a living with sweat of our brow. The solution comes when we obtain the Mind of Christ by identifying with Christ as God. It is not I who live, but Christ (Consciousness) who lives in me.
That may be a promising line of thought. But it's pure speculation at this point.
The Script calls for those Two Tree's to be special amongst the forest of trees, and leads to the Trees of Righteousness in Isa61:3. The Vine Tree, Numb6:4, was part of the Butler's Dream about 3 branches, and eventually we see how Jesus was not only the Vine, but also the Tree of Life which was guarded by the flaming sword in Gen3:24. (2 swords enough? - add in the one spoken of in Eph6.) :yo:
I don't see any obvious "this leads to" because trees are used in many contexts. The axe is laid at the root of the tree. Bad tree brings forth bad fruit. The "trees of righteousness" don't seem to follow from the two trees in the garden because the trees of righteousness represent people, whereas the two trees in the garden represent principles or something like that.
In the story of the Garden, Adam and Eve’s innocence as to knowing 'Good and Evil' is established by the fact that God forbid them to eat of the fruit of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' lest they die. Every other desire they had was granted fulfillment if they wished, there would have been no guilt for enjoying any pleasure imaginable within their framework of desire. Obviously one of the desires innate within Eve was for wisdom – knowledge - that is why the serpent could tempt her with the 'fruit of knowledge'. The forbidden tree manifested all the innate desires already present within her such as 'good for food', 'pleasant to the eyes', and 'wisdom', which immediately evokes the question: 'Why would God place a desire for wisdom in Eve, if it was something innately bad?'
If God is God, why create humans with a desire for something that is innately bad and will ultimately cause their demise?
Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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. 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.
The woman's eyes were not yet "opened" when the serpent tempted her, but she still saw that the tree was desirable to make her wise, which again seems to imply that the desire for wisdom was innate within her…otherwise it would not have been there. Eve could not have known what wisdom was unless the knowledge of it was already present within her.
Rose
Rose,
Wisdom is something positive to be desired.......and the fact that she desired it is indicative that such a desire was placed within her.
To me, the key is in the source of the knowledge........they (the man and the woman) were not to have free access to it, nor, were they to acquire it from a source other than God direct.
Knowledge and wisdom (how to deal with the knowledge) was something to be disired, and something which would come from God at His timing and circumstances.
Joel
If that's the case than they couldn't resist that temptation why didn't they partake of the tree eariler? If in fact it was irresistible. There's something about the serpents cunning deception of Eve toward the tree. In a sence telling Eve that God had lied to them. So it not so much of the tree of wisdom being irresistible, but more of choice to believe and trust a stranger rather than her Father. Eve choose to believe the serpent over God for if it was purely by eye appeal irresistible they would have succumb without deception.
The Garden story gives us no clue as to how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the serpent tempted them, so once again we can't comment on an unknown.
The sense that we get from the story is that God did mislead Adam and Eve into believing the reason they should not eat from the Tree is because they would die. The truth of the matter is that God did not want Adam and Eve to posses the knowledge of good and evil, for if they did then God would cause them to die by kicking them out of the Garden and not allowing them to eat of the Tree of Life. The serpent only brought the point of not dying to their attention, Eve already knew the Fruit was desirable.
If Eve already knew that the fruit was desireable and desired it for it had eye appeal yet never partake of it until her deception, why? What does that say about the deception? I don't see Eve desire awaken for it was already desireable to her before the serpent bringing it to her attention, more so it an indication of the serpent deceving Eve.
Again, we don't know how long before the serpent exposed the fact that they would not literally die if they ate of the Fruit, which it seems they were unaware of because God had lead them to believe they would die if they ate of the Fruit. The main point is that God did not want Adam and Eve to possess knowledge, so he mislead them into believing they would die if they ate of the Fruit.
All the Best,
Rose
Rose,
Wisdom is something positive to be desired.......and the fact that she desired it is indicative that such a desire was placed within her.
To me, the key is in the source of the knowledge........they (the man and the woman) were not to have free access to it, nor, were they to acquire it from a source other than God direct.
Knowledge and wisdom (how to deal with the knowledge) was something to be disired, and something which would come from God at His timing and circumstances.
Joel
From the story it seems that God did not want them to ever possess knowledge of good and evil, which is in a sense knowledge of everything.
The story implies that God was willing to mislead Adam and Eve into believing the reason he forbade eating the Fruit was because they would die. It was the serpent who exposed the lie by saying to Eve that she WOULD NOT die by eating the Fruit...Eve seemed to already know the Fruit was desirable for wisdom.
All the Best,
Rose
From the story it seems that God did not want them to ever possess knowledge of good and evil, which is in a sense knowledge of everything.
The story implies that God was willing to mislead Adam and Eve into believing the reason he forbade eating the Fruit was because they would die. It was the serpent who exposed the lie by saying to Eve that she WOULD NOT die by eating the Fruit...Eve seemed to already know the Fruit was desirable for wisdom.
All the Best,
Rose
It has nothing to do with God misleading or forbading Adam and Eve.
God was testing Adam and Eve if they were skewed towards evil or good. It's like a parent testing their children if they would obey their advice and warning or not. If they decided to disregard the parents advice and warning, well, that's their decision and the parents will respect their children's decision but with a condition that they will have to suffer the consequence of their decision. And once the consequence have been met and the disobedient children have learned their lesson and repent, will the parent accept them back again and restore back their entitlement which they are supposed to receive before the fall.
Don't manufacturers subject their products to testing before they are allowed to be sold in the market to ensure they are safe, durable, functional and in good working condition?
May God forgive us and receive us back to our entitlement. Amen. :pray:
It has nothing to do with God misleading or forbading Adam and Eve.
God was testing Adam and Eve if they were skewed towards evil or good. It's like a parent testing their children if they would obey their advice and warning or not. If they decided to disregard the parents advice and warning, well, that's their decision and the parents will respect their children's decision but with a condition that they will have to suffer the consequence of their decision. And once the consequence have been met and the disobedient children have learned their lesson and repent, will the parent accept them back again and restore back their entitlement which they are supposed to receive before the fall.
Don't manufacturers subject their products to testing before they are allowed to be sold in the market to ensure they are safe, durable, functional and in good working condition?
May God forgive us and receive us back to our entitlement. Amen. :pray:
The bottom line in the Garden story is OBEDIENCE...basically God said "Obey me or I will kill you". It wasn't because they were going to die by gaining knowledge of good and evil...it was because they disobeyed God and he killed them with a slow death that passed onto all generations...:eek:
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 11:57 AM
The bottom line in the Garden story is OBEDIENCE...basically God said "Obey me or I will kill you". It wasn't because they were going to die by gaining knowledge of good and evil...it was because they disobeyed God and he killed them with a slow death that passed onto all generations...:eek:
All the Best,
Rose
Yowsers - that's exactly correct!
That's the message a lot of Christians get from the Bible. They say that God says "Believe in me! I love you so much! But if you refuse, I will torment you forever in the flames of hell!" To them, that is the "Gospel" - the "Good News."
When God said "you will surely die" he was issuing a divine threat that he would kill them, not that the tree itself would cause death. We know this because the exact form of the Hebrew phrase used is "mot tamut" translated as "surely die." This phrase is used when a ruler imposes a sentence of capital punishment. For example, King Solomon used this phrase:
1 Kings 2:36 And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Build thee an house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and go not forth thence any whither. 37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die [mot tamut]: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.
And King Saul used it when he condemned his son:
1 Samuel 14:43 Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die. 44 And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die [mot tamut], Jonathan.
And God uses it himself when he judges the wicked:
Ezekiel 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die [mot tamut]; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
So the meaning of mot tamut is perfectly clear. God was not saying that the tree would cause death, but that he himself would pass a sentence of capital punishment upon them if they disobeyed him.
The bottom line in the Garden story is OBEDIENCE...basically God said "Obey me or I will kill you". It wasn't because they were going to die by gaining knowledge of good and evil...it was because they disobeyed God and he killed them with a slow death that passed onto all generations...:eek:
All the Best,
Rose
Let me complete your statements.....
The bottom line in the Garden story is OBEDIENCE...basically God said "Obey me or I will kill you". It wasn't because they were going to die by gaining knowledge of good and evil...it was because they disobeyed God and he killed them with a slow death that passed onto all generations...and He will forgive those who repented and obeyed Him granting them eternal life with Him in the kingdom of heaven.
Won't a loving parent receive and forgive their children who have gone astray and then return to them after repenting for their errors?
Luke 15:11-32 He said, "A certain man had two sons.
The Younger Son
The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of your property.’ He divided his livelihood between them. Not many days after, the younger son gathered all of this together and traveled into a far country. There he wasted his property with riotous living. When he had spent all of it, there arose a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need. He went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs. He wanted to fill his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him any.
But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough to spare, and I’m dying with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants."‘ "He arose, and came to his father.
The Father
But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ "But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.
Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate.
The Older Son
"Now his elder son was in the field. As he came near to the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the servants to him, and asked what was going on. He said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and healthy.’ But he was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him. But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this, your son, came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ "He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found."
May God forgive us, His prodigal children. Amen.:pray:
Let me complete your statements.....
The bottom line in the Garden story is OBEDIENCE...basically God said "Obey me or I will kill you". It wasn't because they were going to die by gaining knowledge of good and evil...it was because they disobeyed God and he killed them with a slow death that passed onto all generations...and He will forgive those who repented and obeyed Him granting them eternal life with Him in the kingdom of heaven.
Won't a loving parent receive and forgive their children who have gone astray and then return to them after repenting for their errors?
May God forgive us, His prodigal children. Amen.:pray:
What about all those who lived and died before Christ came, along with all those since his coming who haven't heard, or don't believe for one reason or another? It seems that they are all getting severely punished for something Adam and Eve did...go figure that. :confused:
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 01:30 PM
What about all those who lived and died before Christ came, along with all those since his coming who haven't heard, or don't believe for one reason or another? It seems that they are all getting severely punished for something Adam and Eve did...go figure that. :confused:
All the Best,
Rose
I've got a few books concerning the question "What happens to those who never heard the Gospel?" Christians can't agree. The most fundamental say that you must hear the name of Jesus and believe the Gospel or it's off to hell with you! Others argue that God "judges according to the light you got" but then others say that they are just making up stuff that contradicts the Bible. And besides, wouldn't it be best if no one ever heard anything about God? That way, they can't be blamed for not believing. All I can say is I'm glad I don't believe that God chooses some to go to heaven and some to go to hell. It's a big load off my mind!
The Garden story gives us no clue as to how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the serpent tempted them, so once again we can't comment on an unknown.
The thing is if it's irresistible Adam and Eve both knew and saw it before the serpent came to decevie Eve for it was in the midst of the garden. No manner what the time table would have been. It wasn't until the serpent deceived Eve that she partake of the fruit, So even if it's desireable to the eyes of both Adam and Eve they never take of it's fruit until they were deceived.
The sense that we get from the story is that God did mislead Adam and Eve into believing the reason they should not eat from the Tree is because they would die.
What is misleading becasue when they eat of the fruit they broke the commandment of God while as Eve said, "Ye shall not eat of it neither shall tought it lest ye die". Did they not die that very day?
The truth of the matter is that God did not want Adam and Eve to posses the knowledge of good and evil, for if they did then God would cause them to die by kicking them out of the Garden and not allowing them to eat of the Tree of Life. The serpent only brought the point of not dying to their attention, Eve already knew the Fruit was desirable.
What knowledge? When they did eat of the fruit of wisdom they only realize from this increased wisdom that they were naked. What they realized is that they disobeyed God and their disobedience shown and they tryed to hid themselves. So who was misleading?
Howdy Richard,
Quote Richard: [if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. ]
Gil > This is what happened in the garden. God warned Adam prior to his iniquity.
But what of the warning itself? The serpent was the Spirit of iniquity.
After he ate, Adam would die in his iniquity. He would bring it upon himself.
I don't see conscience as a factor either. Conscience was not made manifest in man until the fall took place. The curse and blessing that comes of a cause and effect
system began at the fall.
I don't see it as a commandment of Law .
More important was the warning to the one who did not warn him.
His blood would God require at his hand.
Well, who's blood was then required at the tree scene? God had warned Adam (both) but the Serpent did not , but tempted Eve instead, but it the want to become as a god that enticed her . The knowledge of how one may become a god of their own volition , through works of their own.
It would be the serpent ,after the fall and birth of Cain, Satan .
His blood would be required of him.
If one has the individual spirit of Satan while in the flesh ,one is of his seed.
But who was the serpent/Satan?
We know he was an angel, a spiritual being.
So What. Anyone with their Spirit residing within them has the Spirit of Satan.
It says that the Angel fell from heaven into the earth.
Heaven is the dwelling place of Spirits ,be they good or evil.
I think that Adams individual spirit was of the whole. The whole
beginning with the fallen angel Adam.
Adam was a spiritual being at the beginning in the garden.
The Spirit as a whole is the Spirit of man in the Flesh as Paul would have it.
Adam after the fall, Adams spirit as an individual, became the Spirit of man in the flesh as a whole. Adam was not born but created in a spiritual form/bara'ed in a body of flesh.
The firstborn in the flesh was Cain, the first murderer.
Wasn't the blood of the first born of Adam in the flesh with the spirit of his father within him be required of him for iniquity induced upon Eve.
His blood, required, was taken at the cross. The blood of any part is the same as the blood of the whole.
It is the way that the looked at spirits/souls, flesh and blood.
Anyway it was the spirit/soul of man which had fallen, not the flesh per-say. Whether it be good or evil , sin is within the mind of the spirit/soul of man in the flesh ( Of the generations that be of that Adam in the garden anyway).
I still see sin as the for runner of that which is called good and evil.
Sin being the loss of a relationship with the Spirit of life, God.
It has nothing to do with good and evil.
They are the consequences of a departure from God.
Conscience made manifest to the scales of justice built into the mind of the soul.
We should all know that man has a spirit along side his soul.
If The Spirit of God the Father, has abanded one then what Spirit is left that a void is not formed?
The Spirit of man in the flesh himself.
This Spirit as a whole being the false God in the dualistic realm of
the two faces of God.
His voice is echoed throughout scripture . The words of man and the words of the true God.
One the God of war, hate, and vengeance, and the other
God of peace, love and forgiveness.
As is the Gods of Man so to is man, The two faces of man are but a reflection of his Gods.
Gil :pop2:
Howdy Richard,
Gil > "Eternity in their hearts" is a good one.
The only God that that Hebrews/children of Israel ever had was the
God they followed, that kept them in bondage unto himself.
The selfish God of this earth. The one who had the authority and dominion over it.
Satan, the Spirit of Man in the flesh himself. The killer war God of Sinai
who was the face of man.
Moses said he seen God face to face. Most likely referring to a reflection of himself as in looking into a mirror. The other time he only seen his backside.
God said that no man had ever seen him.
Jesus would reflect the image of his Father through him. If you have seen the son you have seen the Father.
There was another God who spoke through the prophets of God also.
The God of peace, love and forgiveness.
A representative of a God ,his Angel or angels, should act as a messenger
of him to whom he was sent.
Check out the dude ,called the angel of the Lord in the Exodus.
The angel who required the blood of circumcision or would kill.
Interesting enough is that Paul said he did not hear the message of the gospel through any angels but fro the Spirit of Jesus Christ himself.
He that they call the LORD in Exodus is a little shaky for me.
Interesting also is that the face of Moses shined or glistened in the light
when he came down. ( so doe's a snake ).
Some accounts say that there were little horns coming out of his forehead.
And then as it is said, Satan came to claim the body of Moses after his death. I wonder why?
They say to discern the Spirits. That's easy enough.
Just listen to what they have to say.
Gil :pop2:
What about all those who lived and died before Christ came, along with all those since his coming who haven't heard, or don't believe for one reason or another? It seems that they are all getting severely punished for something Adam and Eve did...go figure that. :confused:
All the Best,
Rose
When I was a young Christian, I have discussed this issue with my pastor and I was told that those who have not believed or no chance to believe in Christ will get another chance as in Revelation's millennium. And that is what many futurists believed. That also explains why Satan will be released again at the end of the millennium to test people again.
May God deliver us from the evil one, Amen. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 08:05 PM
When I was a young Christian, I have discussed this issue with my pastor and I was told that those who have not believed or no chance to believe in Christ will get another chance as in Revelation's millennium. And that is what many futurists believed. That also explains why Satan will be released again at the end of the millennium to test people again.
Are you saying that you believe that all unsaved humans will be resurrected in the Millennium and given another chance to believe before the final judgment? I've been reading Christian material for decades and I've never heard that one. Are you sure you got it right? If so, could you post a link to someone who explains it?
:signthankspin:
Richard Amiel McGough
07-25-2011, 08:17 PM
Howdy Richard,
Quote Richard: [if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. ]
Gil > This is what happened in the garden. God warned Adam prior to his iniquity.
But what of the warning itself? The serpent was the Spirit of iniquity.
After he ate, Adam would die in his iniquity. He would bring it upon himself.
I don't see conscience as a factor either. Conscience was not made manifest in man until the fall took place. The curse and blessing that comes of a cause and effect
system began at the fall.
I don't see it as a commandment of Law .
More important was the warning to the one who did not warn him.
His blood would God require at his hand.
Well, who's blood was then required at the tree scene? God had warned Adam (both) but the Serpent did not , but tempted Eve instead, but it the want to become as a god that enticed her . The knowledge of how one may become a god of their own volition , through works of their own.
It would be the serpent ,after the fall and birth of Cain, Satan .
His blood would be required of him.
If one has the individual spirit of Satan while in the flesh ,one is of his seed.
But who was the serpent/Satan?
We know he was an angel, a spiritual being.
So What. Anyone with their Spirit residing within them has the Spirit of Satan.
It says that the Angel fell from heaven into the earth.
Heaven is the dwelling place of Spirits ,be they good or evil.
I think that Adams individual spirit was of the whole. The whole
beginning with the fallen angel Adam.
Adam was a spiritual being at the beginning in the garden.
The Spirit as a whole is the Spirit of man in the Flesh as Paul would have it.
Adam after the fall, Adams spirit as an individual, became the Spirit of man in the flesh as a whole. Adam was not born but created in a spiritual form/bara'ed in a body of flesh.
The firstborn in the flesh was Cain, the first murderer.
Wasn't the blood of the first born of Adam in the flesh with the spirit of his father within him be required of him for iniquity induced upon Eve.
His blood, required, was taken at the cross. The blood of any part is the same as the blood of the whole.
It is the way that the looked at spirits/souls, flesh and blood.
Anyway it was the spirit/soul of man which had fallen, not the flesh per-say. Whether it be good or evil , sin is within the mind of the spirit/soul of man in the flesh ( Of the generations that be of that Adam in the garden anyway).
I still see sin as the for runner of that which is called good and evil.
Sin being the loss of a relationship with the Spirit of life, God.
It has nothing to do with good and evil.
They are the consequences of a departure from God.
Conscience made manifest to the scales of justice built into the mind of the soul.
We should all know that man has a spirit along side his soul.
If The Spirit of God the Father, has abanded one then what Spirit is left that a void is not formed?
The Spirit of man in the flesh himself.
This Spirit as a whole being the false God in the dualistic realm of
the two faces of God.
His voice is echoed throughout scripture . The words of man and the words of the true God.
One the God of war, hate, and vengeance, and the other
God of peace, love and forgiveness.
As is the Gods of Man so to is man, The two faces of man are but a reflection of his Gods.
Gil :pop2:
Hey there Gil,
That's a rather poetic post. I had never thought of Adam as a "fallen angel." Where did you get that idea? Is it in the Bible somewhere?
All the best,
Richard
The thing is if it's irresistible Adam and Eve both knew and saw it before the serpent came to decevie Eve for it was in the midst of the garden. No manner what the time table would have been. It wasn't until the serpent deceived Eve that she partake of the fruit, So even if it's desireable to the eyes of both Adam and Eve they never take of it's fruit until they were deceived.
What is misleading becasue when they eat of the fruit they broke the commandment of God while as Eve said, "Ye shall not eat of it neither shall tought it lest ye die". Did they not die that very day?
What knowledge? When they did eat of the fruit of wisdom they only realize from this increased wisdom that they were naked. What they realized is that they disobeyed God and their disobedience shown and they tryed to hid themselves. So who was misleading?
The misleading part is where God says if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in that day they would die. The fact is the eating of the Tree didn't kill them, it was God who killed them by kicking them out of the Garden for their disobedience. The serpent told Eve she wouldn't die from eating the fruit, it would only cause her eyes to be opened and be as God...and he was right, it was God who then kicked them out of the Garden and cursed them.
The story says the fruit of the tree was to give knowledge of good and evil, that is far more than realizing they were naked, to have that knowledge is to be as God.
All the Best,
Rose
The misleading part is where God says if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in that day they would die. The fact is the eating of the Tree didn't kill them, it was God who killed them by kicking them out of the Garden for their disobedience. The serpent told Eve she wouldn't die from eating the fruit, it would only cause her eyes to be opened and be as God...and he was right, it was God who then kicked them out of the Garden and cursed them.
The story says the fruit of the tree was to give knowledge of good and evil, that is far more than realizing they were naked, to have that knowledge is to be as God.
Rose, you continue to see things from a perspective that brings reproach to God.
God instructed Adam when Eve was not yet present. His instructions were specifically to Adam......not to Adam and Eve. The conversation of instruction was between God, Jehovah Elohim, and the man, Adam.
The instructions were clear. They were filled with grace in that he was to eat of any of a great variety of fruit.
Only the fruit that came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was he not to freely partake. This in no way indicates that the knowledge would never be given. To view it in that way indicates that God is grudgingly withholding a benefit.
Wisdom is sourced in God alone. Not in the fruit of a tree.
The instruction of obedience was protective, not arbitrarily holding back with a threat. It was cause and effect.
And, the effect was immediate when Adam ate. Not when Eve ate.
And, they both began to die at that instant, not at a later time when they were banished from the garden and guarded from the tree of life. This also was of a protective nature in that if they had access to the tree of life after beginning to die they would remain dying for the eon.
We look at this from very different perspectives. Without sin, there would be no need of a saviour. Without death, we would have no need of His life.
You continually view this wonderful story from a negative position.......God was withholding, God was unfair, God was.................is there anything good God has done?
In the garden, before the fateful incident, there is no indication that Adam and Eve were thankful.
Paul says in Romans 1 that through the creation we can "see" unseen things of God. He wants us to recognize His goodness, and be thankful to Him, giving Him glory for the ultimate positive outcome towards which He is working all things.
It is all for good......not for bad. This is knowledge that comes from Him, not from a tree, but from the source of all life.
Joel
duxrow
07-26-2011, 08:10 AM
:yo: Good stuff, Joel. I see it that way too, and would add about a Day being as a Thousand Years, so even when Adam lived to be 930 (70 shy of the thousand..), he did die on "Day One" of God's timing in 2Pet3:8 (cp Ps90).
I wonder if Adam felt "old" when he was 3-score and ten, or if that entire clan grieved when Enoch departed at age 365. ??
Rose, you continue to see things from a perspective that brings reproach to God.
God instructed Adam when Eve was not yet present. His instructions were specifically to Adam......not to Adam and Eve. The conversation of instruction was between God, Jehovah Elohim, and the man, Adam.
The instructions were clear. They were filled with grace in that he was to eat of any of a great variety of fruit.
Only the fruit that came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was he not to freely partake. This in no way indicates that the knowledge would never be given. To view it in that way indicates that God is grudgingly withholding a benefit.
Wisdom is sourced in God alone. Not in the fruit of a tree.
The instruction of obedience was protective, not arbitrarily holding back with a threat. It was cause and effect.
And, the effect was immediate when Adam ate. Not when Eve ate.
And, they both began to die at that instant, not at a later time when they were banished from the garden and guarded from the tree of life. This also was of a protective nature in that if they had access to the tree of life after beginning to die they would remain dying for the eon.
We look at this from very different perspectives. Without sin, there would be no need of a saviour. Without death, we would have no need of His life.
You continually view this wonderful story from a negative position.......God was withholding, God was unfair, God was.................is there anything good God has done?
In the garden, before the fateful incident, there is no indication that Adam and Eve were thankful.
Paul says in Romans 1 that through the creation we can "see" unseen things of God. He wants us to recognize His goodness, and be thankful to Him, giving Him glory for the ultimate positive outcome towards which He is working all things.
It is all for good......not for bad. This is knowledge that comes from Him, not from a tree, but from the source of all life.
Joel
Hi Joel
What I am bringing reproach to is a book that I have clearly shown is written from the hands and minds of Men. In this book called the Bible, one finds a masculine warrior god whose view of the female gender is slanted and biased, constructing laws that unfairly discriminate against the woman solely based on gender.
This masculine god also feels the only way to solve the problem of his human creation doing "bad" things is to kill them...the entirety of the Bible is filled with Yahweh commanding genocide, murder, slaughter, and killing as the "Final Solution" (I think someone by the name of Hitler said that too! Maybe he used the Bible as his guidebook?).
Somehow to my eyes the Garden story does not seem so wonderful, especially when it's the woman who gets the curse of being dominated by the male, which has lead to horrible abuse over the coarse of history...and you call that fair?
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-26-2011, 08:53 AM
Rose, you continue to see things from a perspective that brings reproach to God.
God instructed Adam when Eve was not yet present. His instructions were specifically to Adam......not to Adam and Eve. The conversation of instruction was between God, Jehovah Elohim, and the man, Adam.
The instructions were clear. They were filled with grace in that he was to eat of any of a great variety of fruit.
Only the fruit that came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was he not to freely partake. This in no way indicates that the knowledge would never be given. To view it in that way indicates that God is grudgingly withholding a benefit.
Rose and I are not talking about "God" per se, we are talking about things that the Bible says about God. There is a big difference. What if the Bible is being misinterpreted? We know with certainty that is happening because there are endless disagreements amongst those who claim to believe it. Therefore, many things that people say the Bible says about God are wrong. And worse, we don't have any reason to think that the True God wants us to take the story of the Garden literally like you do. And then there is simply logic and true knowledge that forces most modern folks to reject the story. And then there are problems with obvious sexism - indeed, the statement that the male shall rule over the female could be seen as a root source of sexism! And on it goes ... there are problems piled upon problems in the interpretation of the Bible and how it relates to the true God.
The instruction of obedience was protective, not arbitrarily holding back with a threat. It was cause and effect.
Why do you say that? There is nothing in the text that says the Tree posed any danger to Adam or Eve. And the form of the threat "mot tamut" is the form used when a king issues a death sentence. This is confirmed by what happened. There is no record in the Bible that the tree caused them any harm at all. It was God himself who caused their deaths by cursing them and casting them out of the Garden.
And, the effect was immediate when Adam ate. Not when Eve ate.
You don't know that. The text does not say how much time transpired after they ate.
And, they both began to die at that instant, not at a later time when they were banished from the garden and guarded from the tree of life. This also was of a protective nature in that if they had access to the tree of life after beginning to die they would remain dying for the eon.
That's pure speculation.
We look at this from very different perspectives. Without sin, there would be no need of a saviour. Without death, we would have no need of His life.
And why is there a need for a "need of a savior?"
Suppose there were no sin in the world, and we didn't need a savior. Why would that be bad?
You continually view this wonderful story from a negative position.......God was withholding, God was unfair, God was.................is there anything good God has done?
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that there are "problems" with this story. It looks like an obvious "set up." No parent would put poisoned candy on a table, tell their kids not to eat it, and then leave them alone knowing that they would eat it!
And the story shows God as throwing a "temper tantrum" - cursing everyone and the earth too! Why does God curse? That's not good. It makes him the root source of all the sin and suffering in the world. It is a very difficult story if taken literally.
In the garden, before the fateful incident, there is no indication that Adam and Eve were thankful.
Paul says in Romans 1 that through the creation we can "see" unseen things of God. He wants us to recognize His goodness, and be thankful to Him, giving Him glory for the ultimate positive outcome towards which He is working all things.
It is all for good......not for bad. This is knowledge that comes from Him, not from a tree, but from the source of all life.
Joel
You are correct - there is no sign that Adam and Eve were "thankful." But then, there is no mention in Genesis that they should have been, or that this was the cause of the problem.
And why should anyone be "thankful" if God is as presented in Genesis? He could have done anything he wanted, but he chose to curse his creation! And then he chose to order murder and mayhem to dominate history. He created a world of tears when he could have created any world he wanted to. This is a problem with the story, not reality. I have absolutely no problem with the fact that there is suffering in the world, it makes perfect sense and does not reflect badly on the true God. It is the Biblical story that reflects poorly on God, not reality. I say this because I do not believe that the suffering we experience is due to God's "curse" upon us, but rather a natural an normal outworking of a world that obeys natural laws, evolution, and so forth. It is not God's "fault" as it is presented in the Bible.
Great chatting!
The misleading part is where God says if Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in that day they would die. The fact is the eating of the Tree didn't kill them, it was God who killed them by kicking them out of the Garden for their disobedience. The serpent told Eve she wouldn't die from eating the fruit, it would only cause her eyes to be opened and be as God...and he was right, it was God who then kicked them out of the Garden and cursed them.
Hi Rose,
Oh I see your point now and I would agree.
The story says the fruit of the tree was to give knowledge of good and evil, that is far more than realizing they were naked, to have that knowledge is to be as God.
All the Best,
Rose
I then can only wonder about the connection from this tree of knowledge and the keys to the kingdom....What would you say?
Hi Rose,
I then can only wonder about the connection from this tree of knowledge and the keys to the kingdom....What would you say?
When the serpent told Eve that she would be as God by eating of the Fruit, it was right...knowledge is the "Key", nothing is impossible for those who have knowledge.
Peter was given the "Keys" to the kingdom and was told whatever he bound on earth or in heaven would be bound, and whatever he loosed on earth or in heaven would be loosed. The "Keys" he was given was knowledge.
All the Best,
Rose
When the serpent told Eve that she would be as God by eating of the Fruit, it was right...knowledge is the "Key", nothing is impossible for those who have knowledge.
Peter was given the "Keys" to the kingdom and was told whatever he bound on earth or in heaven would be bound, and whatever he loosed on earth or in heaven would be loosed. The "Keys" he was given was knowledge.
All the Best,
Rose
I'm trying to see the big picture, but my brain is to small and can't hold the knowledge :D But anyway why was knowledge death to Adam and Eve and Life to Peter?
I'm trying to see the big picture, but my brain is to small and can't hold the knowledge :D But anyway why was knowledge death to Adam and Eve and Life to Peter?
That's a good question...the only answer I have right now is that the authors of the Garden story had different ideas and customs they drew from in creating their myth, and their consciousness level was not as developed as were the ideas of Jesus.
All the Best,
Rose
Rose and I are not talking about "God" per se, we are talking about things that the Bible says about God. There is a big difference. What if the Bible is being misinterpreted?
Richard,
Obviously, there are obviously many translation errors in the written scipture. During the last 2,000 years the written scripture was made available in mass quantity only in the last 300 - 400 years.
From the original languages, translations were made into Latin, and then into other languages much later. I am not telling you something that you do not already know, but, just reminding you of the on-going process.
However, since God is God, and it is His Word, the process must also be under His control. He must be both aware and in favor of the seemingly faulty process of the translations.
What He doesn't control, however, if the manifold dissemination of faulty texts, and the preaching of erroneous "truth".
The truth that is meant to be conveyed, and is prepresentative of what He wants us to know can surely be preserved by His Spirit, and passed on to those who are seeking the truth.
Joel
That's a good question...the only answer I have right now is that the authors of the Garden story had different ideas and customs they drew from in creating their myth, and their consciousness level was not as developed as were the ideas of Jesus.
All the Best,
Rose
What I did think of was that the tree have both good fruit and bad fruit. This idea is similar to the NT teachings of fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of the flesh (Gal.5:16-26). Now Eve must have taken the bad [flesh] fruit since she desired it and was disobedient in partaking of the tree. Meaning that there are good knowledge and bad knowledge. hmm Like Jesus saying drink of my water and you will never thirst again.
What I did think of was that the tree have both good fruit and bad fruit. This idea is similar to the NT teachings of fruit of the Spirit and the fruit of the flesh (Gal.5:16-26). Now Eve must have taken the bad [flesh] fruit since she desired it and was disobedient in partaking of the tree. Meaning that there are good knowledge and bad knowledge. hmm Like Jesus saying drink of my water and you will never thirst again.
The problem with that is it's not what the story says. The Garden story clearly says that God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or even touch it lest they die.
According to the story God did not want them to have knowledge of either good or bad, and it was the serpent who introduced the idea of the reason God did not want them to have that knowledge, because then they would be like God...thus, revealing the truth that knowledge is the Key that opens every door. Once knowledge is gained it can never be taken away.
All the Best,
Rose
duxrow
07-27-2011, 02:11 PM
The problem with that is it's not what the story says. The Garden story clearly says that God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or even touch it lest they die. Rose
No way, Jose. God spoke to Adam (NOT EVE), and God didn't say anything about touching the tree -- that was info from Eve which she'd IMO received from her hubby. The moral of the story being we shouldn't take peoples word for what The Word actually says. amen, or do you differ on this?
Adam was deceived (apatao), but Eve was 'greatly deceived' (exapatao) -- by the serpent, but also by hubby IMO. That's why we can refer to the written word as Jesus did, for the genuine truth. Sobeit IJN. :highfive:
No way, Jose. God spoke to Adam (NOT EVE), and God didn't say anything about touching the tree -- that was info from Eve which she'd IMO received from her hubby. The moral of the story being we shouldn't take peoples word for what The Word actually says. amen, or do you differ on this?
Adam was deceived (apatao), but Eve was 'greatly deceived' (exapatao) -- by the serpent, but also by hubby IMO. That's why we can refer to the written word as Jesus did, for the genuine truth. Sobeit IJN. :highfive:
How do you know God didn't say anything about touching the tree to Adam? From the story we know that Eve told the serpent that "God said", so either God told Adam and Adam told Eve, or God told Eve...same difference. I am not taking peoples word for it...it's what the Bible says!
Gen.3:2-3 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-27-2011, 03:09 PM
Richard,
Obviously, there are obviously many translation errors in the written scipture. During the last 2,000 years the written scripture was made available in mass quantity only in the last 300 - 400 years.
From the original languages, translations were made into Latin, and then into other languages much later. I am not telling you something that you do not already know, but, just reminding you of the on-going process.
However, since God is God, and it is His Word, the process must also be under His control. He must be both aware and in favor of the seemingly faulty process of the translations.
What He doesn't control, however, if the manifold dissemination of faulty texts, and the preaching of erroneous "truth".
The truth that is meant to be conveyed, and is prepresentative of what He wants us to know can surely be preserved by His Spirit, and passed on to those who are seeking the truth.
Joel
Yes Joel, I certainly am aware of the issues with translations, but I do not think they are very important since the real problems arise from what the texts actually state in the original languages.
I find it very strange that you would think God supernaturally controls the "seemingly faulty process of the translations" but not the "the manifold dissemination of fault texts." He controls their production but not there distribution? Hummm ...
So what exactly is the "truth" that is "passed on" to the "truth seekers?" It seems very strange to say the "truth" is known only to the group of "truth seekers." What distinguishes Buddhist "truth seekers" from Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Jewish, or Christian "truth seekers." How would a person know if he or she is a "truth seeker?" What if I only think I am a truth seeker. Or what if you think your are truth seeker, but you are actually deceived like the Muslims and Hindus and Atheists. How would you know? What does it mean to be a truth seeker? Is there any objective standard here?
Richard Amiel McGough
07-27-2011, 03:21 PM
No way, Jose. God spoke to Adam (NOT EVE), and God didn't say anything about touching the tree -- that was info from Eve which she'd IMO received from her hubby. The moral of the story being we shouldn't take peoples word for what The Word actually says. amen, or do you differ on this?
Adam was deceived (apatao), but Eve was 'greatly deceived' (exapatao) -- by the serpent, but also by hubby IMO. That's why we can refer to the written word as Jesus did, for the genuine truth. Sobeit IJN. :highfive:
Very curious standards you have here. You believe Moses when he says that God said something. You believe Jeremiah when he says that God said something. But you don't believe Eve when she says God said something. What standard are you using to judge when you should believe what folks in the Bible say about God? This question is particularly poignant because Eve spoke about what God said BEFORE THE FALL. They were still in a "state of sinless perfection" so if we should believe what anyone said about God, I would think we should believe them. This makes it hard to imagine that Adam "misinformed" Eve, especially about the one and only prohibitive command they had received from God.
The text shows that God spoke directly to Adam (instructing him) before Eve was brought forth.
The text does not show that God spoke directly to Eve before the "fall". To say that God spoke the instructions to Eve is adding to the text an opinion of something that may or may not have occurred.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 08:05 AM
The text shows that God spoke directly to Adam (instructing him) before Eve was brought forth.
The text does not show that God spoke directly to Eve before the "fall". To say that God spoke the instructions to Eve is adding to the text an opinion of something that may or may not have occurred.
Joel
There are many things missing from Scripture so every interpreter has to try to "fill in" the missing pieces to make sense of what otherwise is nonsensical. That's one of the big problems with the Bible and it is a primary source of the crazy confusion of conflicting opinions about what the Bible is really saying.
I would be very curious to know your answer to the question I posed to duxrow. Here is is again:
You believe Moses when he says that God said something. You believe Jeremiah when he says that God said something. But you don't believe Eve when she says God said something. What standard are you using to judge when you should believe what folks in the Bible say about God? This question is particularly poignant because Eve spoke about what God said BEFORE THE FALL. They were still in a "state of sinless perfection" so if we should believe what anyone said about God, I would think we should believe them. This makes it hard to imagine that Adam "misinformed" Eve, especially about the one and only prohibitive command they had received from God.
What do you think really happened? Did Adam misinform Eve about "what God said?" That seems very very strange, especially since Adam was supposed to be in a state of sinless perfection at that time. So if Adam did not tell Eve that God said not to even "touch" the Tree, where did Eve get that idea? Did she make it up? Are you saying that Eve LIED about what God said? That would imply she was a sinner before the serpent deceived her, let alone before she ate of the Tree. Is that what you believe?
I trust you see the problems presented by this story.
I have expressed this view before and it didn't seem to register as a positive observation, but, I am not discouraged so as to refrain from repeating it;
God spoke directly to Adam. His instructions were clearly stated.
Adam, however, didn't listen intently, and failed to account for the exact, explicit details. How do I conclude this?
Paul says in Romans 5 (and if there is anyone, other than Christ, the Lord, to whom I should pay attention to what he says....it is Paul) that Adam was "disobedient". If you pay close attention to the actual meaning of the words, Adam didn't "hear right".....he heard "amiss".
It is my opinion that this is a fundamental, human weakness. And, that weakness was the reason (in my opinion) that Eve didn't express the accurate instructions.
I hold Adam responsible for the errors. The errors were magnified through Eve, and, the errors were the reason for his undoing, and for the undoing of his "help-meet".
The serpent knew the Word of God..............and took advantage of their lack of exactness. One "jot", and "one" tittle makes a difference. (It is my opinion that the serpent is the same adversary that confronted Jesus in Luke's narrative and used the Word of God in an attempt to stumble the Lord. But, Jesus "obeyed" the Father.........which to me indicates that He listened intently, and spoke only the words provided by the Father......this was part of the testimony of Himself throughout the gospel narratives).
Joel
Bob May
07-28-2011, 09:48 AM
Hi all,
We (Adam, Mankind) ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The fruit is the outcome or offspring of the coming together of two parents.
God warned us that the outcome or offspring of that knowledge of Good and Evil is DEATH.
We died.
We were spiritual beings to begin with androgynous. Similar, if not identical, to angels. We were alive.
Mt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
God warned us not to think a certain way; good and evil, cause and effect,
because it would lead to death.
We are body, soul and spirit. In the Garden we started out as spirit Adam. Our soul was split off from us Eve. Our soul, not taking it's lead from the voice of God through our spirit decided to go off on it's own, having been tempted by another spirit, the Serpent. Then we got bodies (coats of skins.
We were caught up in this maze of thinking in which we believe we are alive and are condemned by our very thoughts. Because this maze has grown to such proportions we cannot see our way out of it.
It is all based on one decision. A first movement which resulted in being cut off.
It is interesting that when someone in Scripture hears from God the first thing they say when their name is called by God is "Here am I." It is a realization.
The first thing God says to Adam after the eating of the fruit is where are you? It is not that God could not find him it was that God wanted him to take stock in his change of Consciousness.
Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Ge 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
The pinacle of the wrong way to view reality is the law. It leads to death.
Jesus came to show us a better way and if we follow that way we experience moments in which we come to realizations of "Here Am I" along the way.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Ro 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Ro 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Ro 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
This is what we were created for. His Spirit bears witness with our spirit. Our spirit should be directing our souls.
This is the way home. This is the way to life. This is partaking of the tree of life.
Did we die when we ate of that other tree? Yes, without a doubt. In a day or hour or did it take a week, or immediately? Who knows?
Natural man believes the lie that we did not die because he has nothing to compare it to. He is surrounded by other natural men who assume that what they are doing is living.
But, in those moments when we say to ourselves "Here am I", we catch glimses of that Life that the bible speaks of.
Bob
Richard and Joel,
Richard,
to get to the short of it, Adam was not yet separated into a spirit and soul
Adam and Eve. They both heard it simultaneously prior to their separation.
Gil :pop2:
---------------
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 10:49 AM
I have expressed this view before and it didn't seem to register as a positive observation, but, I am not discouraged so as to refrain from repeating it;
God spoke directly to Adam. His instructions were clearly stated.
Adam, however, didn't listen intently, and failed to account for the exact, explicit details. How do I conclude this?
Paul says in Romans 5 (and if there is anyone, other than Christ, the Lord, to whom I should pay attention to what he says....it is Paul) that Adam was "disobedient". If you pay close attention to the actual meaning of the words, Adam didn't "hear right".....he heard "amiss".
It is my opinion that this is a fundamental, human weakness. And, that weakness was the reason (in my opinion) that Eve didn't express the accurate instructions.
I hold Adam responsible for the errors. The errors were magnified through Eve, and, the errors were the reason for his undoing, and for the undoing of his "help-meet".
The serpent knew the Word of God..............and took advantage of their lack of exactness. One "jot", and "one" tittle makes a difference. (It is my opinion that the serpent is the same adversary that confronted Jesus in Luke's narrative and used the Word of God in an attempt to stumble the Lord. But, Jesus "obeyed" the Father.........which to me indicates that He listened intently, and spoke only the words provided by the Father......this was part of the testimony of Himself throughout the gospel narratives).
Joel
Wow - if Adam couldn't accurately hear a simple command straight from the mouth of God while he was still in his state of sinless perfection, what makes you think that fallen sinners like us have any chance of getting it right? And doesn't experience prove this point? How many people agree about what the Bible actually states?
And how is it that Adam failed in such a fundamental way? The words "error" and "missing the mark" are the most literal meanings of the Hebrew word for "sin." So it looks like you are saying that the original sin was not disobeying God by eating of the fruit, but Adam's failure to accurately hear and transmit God's commandment. But the Bible nowhere says this, and so it seems that you are "adding to the text an opinion of something that may or may not have occurred" which is exactly what you said we should avoid.
Now you are correct that the word "disobedience" in Romans 5:19 originally meant "hearing amiss" but it later came to mean active disobedience" by willfully ignoring what was commanded. This is confirmed by Paul's explicit contrast of parakoe with hupokoe:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience (parakoe) many were made sinners, so by the obedience (hupokoe) of one shall many be made righteous.
I checked seven Greek lexicons and they all agreed on this point.
Now I'm sure we can all agree that it is true that Christ listened intently, but is there any reason to think that Paul was talking about "hearing" as opposed to "obedience" in this verse? Let's try your interpretation and see how it reads:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's hearing amiss (parakoe) many were made sinners, so by the intent listening (hupokoe) of one shall many be made righteous.
Is that the meaning Paul intended? Is that how Christ made us righteous? Is "hearing intently" the essence of Christ's act of redemption, or was it his act of obedience unto death, even the death of the cross? And likewise, was Adam's sin "hearing amiss" or was it his act of disobedience against God when he ate of the fruit? I think the answers to these questions are pretty obvious from the text of Scripture. Is it not what Paul talks about everywhere in all his letters? Jesus Christ, and him crucified?
Great chatting!
Richard
Post 41
Quote Richard: [but I do not think they are very important since the real problems arise from what the texts actually state in the original languages.
I find it very strange that you would think God supernaturally controls the "seemingly faulty process of the translations" but not the "the manifold dissemination of fault texts." He controls their production but not there distribution? Hummm ... ]
Gil > Why would you say that Richard?
Within the Bible is found both the History of their generations
and concept of their origins.
A written record of their affiliations with their God .
It speaks with two voices , that of man and that of God.
The problem is within the discernment of which is the word of man and which is the word of God.
Translations:
Whether they be Aramaic, Hebrew , which had a limited vocabulary,
there had to be a choice made in their putting it down as their written word.
When the Greeks had acquired a much larger vocabulary, then they had to choose which words to use in their translations.
They would use words that suited their conception of what the ancients
were tying to tell us.
What we do not know is ,did the Greek concepts derive the correct meaning
when it was translated into the English.
The translators had to convey the Greek thoughts within their wording
to the English which was as close to the Greek thoughts as they could get.
If the English translators could not find an English equivalent to the Greek they would borrow from the Latin translation to try an express the meaning of the thought.
Don't you think Richard, that God knew that the words of the Bible
would change their meaning to the most recent thoughts with the
explosion of knowledge.
A fine tuning so to speak, narrowing down the thoughts of God
toward a greater knowledge and understanding of him.
Man is a work in progress. His spirituality and mentality .
His body of flesh remaining fairly constant.
It is Life that is evolving , and that life is within the individual.
Not that the ancients had it all wrong, but that they had it right, for their times according to their own understanding.
A limited concept carried over time to be refined and expanded on up until the present time.
Isn't the saying, "there is nothing new under the sun" pointed at the possibility that all were right from their own point of view ?
That would include Paul as a proponent of the use of Greek words to
establish a better concept more closer to the truth of the written word.
What about us today?
Does not science take us ever closer to our beginnings and origins.
There has been a progression of thought, ideas, concepts over the ages.
Can man understand the concepts of the Bible in the continuing search for God through science alone?
From a physical, material perspective perhaps, but science alone without
the progression of the understanding of the Spiritual realm that also is a reality could be lost for many that consider science as the new theology.
Sure there are many things that are suspect within the old testament.
The new testament tries to clarify the concepts found in the old testament.
The Spirituality that is present within the Bible should be taken hand in hand with present day science and concepts.
There is you know, an inner spiritual side to man that is a reflection of his
true self.
To me and Paul also (IMO) see the flesh body of man in present day lingo as a space suit, something needed in which to live upon this earth as a spiritual being.
Science is ever adding to their terminology of words to express their concepts and ideas.
So did Early man in the progression of his concepts and ideas.
This includes the concept of who is God as well.
Gil :pop2:
------------------
Post 46
Quote: Bob [ Hi all, We (Adam, Mankind) ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The fruit is the outcome or offspring of the coming together of two parents.]
Gil > The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil , is but one tree.
The family tree of fallen man. The two parents that would be the mother and father of the generations of the Hebrews / children of Israel.
It is the story of their generations and origins. I see Adam prior to the separation as being of that ADAM of the six day. He (Adam in the Garden) being but one Adam of the whole.
There are some that understand Hebrew better than myself, but it is of their opinion that the duality of the two parents , spirit and soul prior to their separation were an extension of the two God plurality El-Elohim and Land -Elohim.
EL being the Spirit and life giver and Land being the Soul and the former of the body of the dust of the Land/ground/Earth.
The masculine and feminine /Spirit and Soul through which Adam would come.
Much like the Indians that I knew up in the Pacific Northwest.
Father Spirit and Mother earth.
The way that I see the two trees, Knowledge and Life ,is that both would become family trees. Man in the flesh ( the old Adam) and Man in the Spirit (the new Adam).
The whole always begins with the one.
They, along with all the other trees all came up out of the ground.
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
How do you read Gen.2:9 Bob?
--------------
Quote Bob: [We were spiritual beings to begin with androgynous. Similar, if not identical, to angels. We were alive.]
Gil > The angels are spiritual beings. Man prior to his being thrown out of the Garden was an angel.
Our inner man, pneuma, psuche, psyche is an angel.
There are good and evil angels you know.
Paul doesn't take much stock in the outer man in the flesh
The relationship of consciousness and conscience to the soul and how it is reflected, made manifest into the outer world around the man in the flesh is interesting to.
Paul was an angel , messenger of God, the Spirit of Life and his only begotten son Jesus Christ.
Richard asked me a question about this. Will read it again and say something, as it becomes a compliment to Pauline thought.
------------------
Quote Bob: [We are body, soul and spirit. In the Garden we started out as spirit Adam. Our soul was split off from us Eve. Our soul, not taking it's lead from the voice of God through our spirit decided to go off on it's own, having been tempted by another spirit, the Serpent. Then we got bodies (coats of skins.
We were caught up in this maze of thinking in which we believe we are alive and are condemned by our very thoughts. Because this maze has grown to such proportions we cannot see our way out of it.
It is all based on one decision. A first movement which resulted in being cut off.]
Gil > The serpent is the spirit of Adam Bob. It was the soul which was taken out of Adam to become the spiritual Eve.
The covering of skins was the taking on of bodies of flesh, then the expulsion from the Garden. The first born in the flesh was Cain.
A fact to remember.
Long post, but interesting to see how others think.
The compliment to the Garden story of Genesis that is given by Paul
Tells of how the Spirit of Jesus Christ can led man back to the Garden.
The Body of Christ is the Tree of Life.
Are you familiar with Paul's Christology? Interesting stuff.
Guess you knew that Jesus Christ was called the last Adam.
Gil :pop2:
Wow - if Adam couldn't accurately hear a simple command straight from the mouth of God while he was still in his state of sinless perfection, what makes you think that fallen sinners like us have any chance of getting it right? And doesn't experience prove this point? How many people agree about what the Bible actually states?
And how is it that Adam failed in such a fundamental way? The words "error" and "missing the mark" are the most literal meanings of the Hebrew word for "sin." So it looks like you are saying that the original sin was not disobeying God by eating of the fruit, but Adam's failure to accurately hear and transmit God's commandment. But the Bible nowhere says this, and so it seems that you are "adding to the text an opinion of something that may or may not have occurred" which is exactly what you said we should avoid.
Now you are correct that the word "disobedience" in Romans 5:19 originally meant "hearing amiss" but it later came to mean active disobedience" by willfully ignoring what was commanded. This is confirmed by Paul's explicit contrast of parakoe with hupokoe:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience (parakoe) many were made sinners, so by the obedience (hupokoe) of one shall many be made righteous.
I checked seven Greek lexicons and they all agreed on this point.
Now I'm sure we can all agree that it is true that Christ listened intently, but is there any reason to think that Paul was talking about "hearing" as opposed to "obedience" in this verse? Let's try your interpretation and see how it reads:
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's hearing amiss (parakoe) many were made sinners, so by the intent listening (hupokoe) of one shall many be made righteous.
Is that the meaning Paul intended? Is that how Christ made us righteous? Is "hearing intently" the essence of Christ's act of redemption, or was it his act of obedience unto death, even the death of the cross? And likewise, was Adam's sin "hearing amiss" or was it his act of disobedience against God when he ate of the fruit? I think the answers to these questions are pretty obvious from the text of Scripture. Is it not what Paul talks about everywhere in all his letters? Jesus Christ, and him crucified?
Great chatting!
Richard
Consistently Christ said...."hear my words.........and believe the One Who sent me". I am merely applying the same process to Adam. He was to hear, believe, and then obey by not eating.
The first step of obedience is to come under the words and submit to them.
This is true of parents and children, employers and employees..........we are to heed the words, and then obey. Hupakoe means to hear right. Parakoe is to hear amiss.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 02:14 PM
Hupakoe means to hear right. Parakoe is to hear amiss.
Hey there Joel,
Could you please help me understand where you got the idea that those are the meanings of those words? I'm very confused, because I checked seven different Greek lexicons and none of them agreed with you statement. I also checked many translations, and none of them agreed either. And I then I looked at how the word hupakoe is used elsewhere, and noticed that it is always translated as "obey" or "obedience" and never as "hear right" like you say. And most important of all, I noticed that this word is used to describe Christ's suffering of death:
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience (hupakoe) by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Is this not the central message of Paul? Did he not say that he "determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified?" Is this not the plain and obvious meaning of Romans 5?
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience (parakoe) many were made sinners, so by the obedience (hupakoe) of one shall many be made righteous.
Can you explain where you got these ideas? Has anyone else ever suggested your interpretation, or is it unique to you yourself?
And finally, why didn't you respond to the questions I asked in my last post?
All the very best,
Richard
Strong's definition for parokouo is to "mishear", or, "neglect to hear" (by implication, to disobey).
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 04:40 PM
Strong's definition for parokouo is to "mishear", or, "neglect to hear" (by implication, to disobey).
Joel
Where did you get that version of Strong's definition? I've never seen one that says what you say it says. Here is what the standard Strong's definition says:
3876 parakoh, parakoe {par-ak-o-ay'}
Meaning: 1) a hearing amiss 2) disobedience
Origin: from 3878; TDNT - 1:223,34; n f
Usage: AV - disobedient 3; 3
And here is the definition of the word Paul used as an opposite:
5218 u`pakoh, hupakoe {hoop-ak-o-ay'}
Meaning: 1) obedience, compliance, submission 2) obedience rendered to anyone's counsels, an obedience shown in observing the requirements of Christianity
Origin: from 5219; TDNT - 1:224,34; n f
Usage: AV - obedience 11, obedient 1, to make obedient + 1519 1, to obey + 1519 1, obeying 1; 15
Look at that definition. The idea it communicates is obedience, not "hearing right." Furthermore, I showed in my previous post that the correct interpretation is confirmed by Hebrews 5:8:
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience (hupakoe) by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Doesn't that mean anything to you? Doesn't it fit perfectly with Paul's doctrine? Doesn't it contradict your interpretation about "hearing right?"
I really hope you can see that it is a grave error to use Strong's definitions as a foundation for a new and novel interpretation, especially if that new interpretation contradicts the conclusions of professional Greek scholars, most translators, and most commentators. Strong's dictionary has many errors, and it gives nothing like an adequate understanding of the meanings of the Greek words. It is more like a "hint" and is very misleading if it is used by people who don't actually know the language. This is why it is of first importance to always compare Strong's with other lexicons to get a better idea of the true meaning of the words - especially if you are using it to reject the uniform testimony of nearly all Greek scholars!
All the best,
Richard
gregoryfl
07-28-2011, 05:51 PM
Richard and Joe,
You are both right. The one comes right out of the other, both in Greek and in Hebrew.
Ron
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 06:02 PM
Richard and Joe,
You are both right. The one comes right out of the other, both in Greek and in Hebrew.
Ron
Hi Ron,
How does Hebrew figure into this? We are discussing the meaning of the Greek words parakoe and hupakoe.
And as for the Greek, yes, the original meaning of "parakoe" was to "hear amiss" but by the time of the first century, it meant "to disobey" because of willfully "hearing amiss." This is the meaning of this word in the NT, and it is confirmed by Paul contrasting it with hupakoe, and again by Hebrews 5:8 which made it clear that Christ "learned he obedience (hupakoe) by the things which he suffered." Paul contrasted Adam's act of disobedience with Christ's act of obedience. As far are I can tell, it has nothing to do with Adam getting confused about God's command whereas Christ properly interpreted it.
Can you cite any commentator who interprets Romans 5:19 as indicating that Adam had a problem properly "hearing" God's command? If so, I would be very interested to read it.
Thanks!
gregoryfl
07-28-2011, 06:50 PM
Hi Ron,
How does Hebrew figure into this? We are discussing the meaning of the Greek words parakoe and hupakoe.
And as for the Greek, yes, the original meaning of "parakoe" was to "hear amiss" but by the time of the first century, it meant "to disobey" because of willfully "hearing amiss." This is the meaning of this word in the NT, and it is confirmed by Paul contrasting it with hupakoe, and again by Hebrews 5:8 which made it clear that Christ "learned he obedience (hupakoe) by the things which he suffered." Paul contrasted Adam's act of disobedience with Christ's act of obedience. As far are I can tell, it has nothing to do with Adam getting confused about God's command whereas Christ properly interpreted it.
Can you cite any commentator who interprets Romans 5:19 as indicating that Adam had a problem properly "hearing" God's command? If so, I would be very interested to read it.
Thanks!
I see Hebrew as relating in that the word Shama means 'to hear'. To hear however, means more than simply the physical act of hearing something said. It includes the doing or following through of what is heard. That is the obedience you are talking about which is why it is translated that way in Romans, with the essential idea of hearing with 1 of 2 prefixes added.
Since the Greek word for 'obey', as I am sure you know, comes from 2 Greek words 'hupo' meaning 'under' and 'akuo' meaning 'hear', and since at least some Greek words came from Semitic concepts, I see the fact that they are both essentially related to the concept of hearing with a view to doing what is heard, that they are related, with Greek being more precise.
You expressed what I am trying to share when you said "it meant 'to disobey' because of 'hearing amiss.' The one [disobedience] comes out of the other [not hearing].
As to any commentator saying that Adam did not hear God correctly, I am not aware of any. He did not hear [Shama] God at all, in that he disobeyed. Yes, he heard the words, but did not truly listen. He heard [akuo] to the side [para]. Instead of staying under [hupo] what God said, he went to the side, not listening and thus not obeying. I believe that Adam's failure to hear was demonstrated when he ate of the tree. I cannot say, since scripture is silent on this, of how intently or not Adam listened to God when the command was given. But that disobedience to me shows that, at some point, he failed to hear.
Ron
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 07:12 PM
I see Hebrew as relating in that the word Shama means 'to hear'. To hear however, means more than simply the physical act of hearing something said. It includes the doing or following through of what is heard. That is the obedience you are talking about which is why it is translated that way in Romans, with the essential idea of hearing with 1 of 2 prefixes added.
Since the Greek word for 'obey', as I am sure you know, comes from 2 Greek words 'hupo' meaning 'under' and 'akuo' meaning 'hear', and since at least some Greek words came from Semitic concepts, I see the fact that they are both essentially related to the concept of hearing with a view to doing what is heard, that they are related, with Greek being more precise.
You expressed what I am trying to share when you said "it meant 'to disobey' because of 'hearing amiss.' The one [disobedience] comes out of the other [not hearing].
As to any commentator saying that Adam did not hear God correctly, I am not aware of any. He did not hear [Shama] God at all, in that he disobeyed. Yes, he heard the words, but did not truly listen. He heard [akuo] to the side [para]. Instead of staying under [hupo] what God said, he went to the side, not listening and thus not obeying. I believe that Adam's failure to hear was demonstrated when he ate of the tree. I cannot say, since scripture is silent on this, of how intently or not Adam listened to God when the command was given. But that disobedience to me shows that, at some point, he failed to hear.
Ron
Hi Ron,
That's pretty much how I understood your comments. But there is a huge difference between your interpretation and Joel's. Your interpretation is that Adam failed to "hear" which is a way of saying that he "disobeyed." He heard exactly what God said, but chose to disobey. Joel's interpretation is entirely different. He says that Adam literally failed to "hear" in that he failed to understand the precise details of what God actually said and so transmitted an invalid command from God to Eve. Here is how he explained it:
I have expressed this view before and it didn't seem to register as a positive observation, but, I am not discouraged so as to refrain from repeating it;
God spoke directly to Adam. His instructions were clearly stated.
Adam, however, didn't listen intently, and failed to account for the exact, explicit details. How do I conclude this?
Paul says in Romans 5 (and if there is anyone, other than Christ, the Lord, to whom I should pay attention to what he says....it is Paul) that Adam was "disobedient". If you pay close attention to the actual meaning of the words, Adam didn't "hear right".....he heard "amiss".
It is my opinion that this is a fundamental, human weakness. And, that weakness was the reason (in my opinion) that Eve didn't express the accurate instructions.
I hold Adam responsible for the errors. The errors were magnified through Eve, and, the errors were the reason for his undoing, and for the undoing of his "help-meet".
The serpent knew the Word of God..............and took advantage of their lack of exactness. One "jot", and "one" tittle makes a difference. (It is my opinion that the serpent is the same adversary that confronted Jesus in Luke's narrative and used the Word of God in an attempt to stumble the Lord. But, Jesus "obeyed" the Father.........which to me indicates that He listened intently, and spoke only the words provided by the Father......this was part of the testimony of Himself throughout the gospel narratives).
Joel
As you can see, Joel's interpretation is nothing like yours. Joel's interpretation is that Adam did not accurately "hear" the instructions that God gave, and that his "lack of exactness" was transmitted to Eve. This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of "obedience" as you interpret it. It seems to me that all the evidence confirms your interpretation.
All the best,
Richard
gregoryfl
07-28-2011, 07:29 PM
Ah, I see what you are getting at! When I said that you and Joel were correct, I was referring to the meaning of the word, not the previous post you brought up. I was trying to share how what you shared concerning obedience and disobedience, and what Joel shared regarding the meaning of the word having something to do with hearing or hearing amiss, that the two went hand in hand.
The only thing I can comment on with regard to what I had learned that might be what Joel is speaking of, is that God is recorded as saying to Adam that he was not to eat from the tree.
When Eve repeats what God said, she adds the prohibition of even touching the tree. That is the added jot or tittle that Joel speaks of.
From this it is concluded that Eve either did not hear Adam quite correctly, or that when Adam told her that, adding to the command and thus showing he did not truly hear (listen) to what God said.
Does this accurately describe what you are sharing Joel?
Ron
Ah, I see what you are getting at! When I said that you and Joel were correct, I was referring to the meaning of the word, not the previous post you brought up. I was trying to share how what you shared concerning obedience and disobedience, and what Joel shared regarding the meaning of the word having something to do with hearing or hearing amiss, that the two went hand in hand.
The only thing I can comment on with regard to what I had learned that might be what Joel is speaking of, is that God is recorded as saying to Adam that he was not to eat from the tree.
When Eve repeats what God said, she adds the prohibition of even touching the tree. That is the added jot or tittle that Joel speaks of.
From this it is concluded that Eve either did not hear Adam quite correctly, or that when Adam told her that, adding to the command and thus showing he did not truly hear (listen) to what God said.
Does this accurately describe what you are sharing Joel?
Ron
Hi All,
From my understanding the most likely solution is that because the Bible was written from the hands and ideas of men, they left out some important details in the myth they were recounting...that makes much more sense than endless speculations.
It seems pretty strange to think that a creator god who fine-tuned the universe would have such a hard time relating a simple story...so many ill fitting pieces and outright omissions, but then this is true for much of the Bible.
All the Best,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-28-2011, 08:14 PM
Ah, I see what you are getting at! When I said that you and Joel were correct, I was referring to the meaning of the word, not the previous post you brought up. I was trying to share how what you shared concerning obedience and disobedience, and what Joel shared regarding the meaning of the word having something to do with hearing or hearing amiss, that the two went hand in hand.
The only thing I can comment on with regard to what I had learned that might be what Joel is speaking of, is that God is recorded as saying to Adam that he was not to eat from the tree.
When Eve repeats what God said, she adds the prohibition of even touching the tree. That is the added jot or tittle that Joel speaks of.
From this it is concluded that Eve either did not hear Adam quite correctly, or that when Adam told her that, adding to the command and thus showing he did not truly hear (listen) to what God said.
Does this accurately describe what you are sharing Joel?
Ron
Eve stated that God said something. Is there a reason we should not believe her? We believe Moses and Jeremiah and Isaiah when they say that God said something. Why don't we believe Eve? Indeed, it seems we should be much more inclined to believe what Eve said because she said it while in a state of sinless perfection before the serpent said any falsehood to her. Likewise, Adam received the command from God when he was in a state of sinless perfection. If he could not get it right when he was sinless, why should we think that sinners like Moses, Jeremiah, or Isaiah could get anything right?
Bob May
07-28-2011, 10:54 PM
Post 46
Quote: Bob [ Hi all, We (Adam, Mankind) ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The fruit is the outcome or offspring of the coming together of two parents.]
Gil > The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil , is but one tree.
The family tree of fallen man. The two parents that would be the mother and father of the generations of the Hebrews / children of Israel.
It is the story of their generations and origins. I see Adam prior to the separation as being of that ADAM of the six day. He (Adam in the Garden) being but one Adam of the whole.
God called, created, formed and made man. Four worlds. The bible seems to begin in the creative world. In the Beginning.
Man is first Created in the image of God. Male and female in one. Then formed. Then he is put to sleep and something other is separated out of him. Soul? This something/soul called Eve is "female" because it is a recepticle. It recieves.
I never looked at it this way but as I am writing this I realize the Temptation, the words of the Serpent are actually a seed that began to grow in our souls.
It led to death. Just as the Word of God is the seed in us that leads to life.
So death is the "fruit" of that tree. Just as life is the "fruit" of the Tree of Life."
There are some that understand Hebrew better than myself, but it is of their opinion that the duality of the two parents , spirit and soul prior to their separation were an extension of the two God plurality El-Elohim and Land -Elohim.
EL being the Spirit and life giver and Land being the Soul and the former of the body of the dust of the Land/ground/Earth.
The masculine and feminine /Spirit and Soul through which Adam would come.
Much like the Indians that I knew up in the Pacific Northwest.
Father Spirit and Mother earth.
The Spirit is above our spirit as our spirit is above our soul. That which comes down from above is Grace. Influx from God is one definition. A Gift is another.
The way that I see the two trees, Knowledge and Life ,is that both would become family trees. Man in the flesh ( the old Adam) and Man in the Spirit (the new Adam).
The whole always begins with the one.
They, along with all the other trees all came up out of the ground.
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
How do you read Gen.2:9 Bob?
The ground in this verse, in my opinion, would not be physical Ground. Physical ground would be where we ended up after being cast out of the Garden. Where we needed physical coats of skins.
I hadn't thought of it but maybe it refers to the reflective nature of the universe. What we plant is what we get. What we believe is the reality we experience. God causes it to grow but we plant it.
So taking this back to what we were speaking about, God warned us not to take in the seed (which is within the fruit) because it would lead to the growing in us of an entire system (tree) that leads only to death.
Quote Bob: [We were spiritual beings to begin with androgynous. Similar, if not identical, to angels. We were alive.]
Gil > The angels are spiritual beings. Man prior to his being thrown out of the Garden was an angel.
Our inner man, pneuma, psuche, psyche is an angel.
There are good and evil angels you know.
Paul doesn't take much stock in the outer man in the flesh
The relationship of consciousness and conscience to the soul and how it is reflected, made manifest into the outer world around the man in the flesh is interesting to.
Paul was an angel , messenger of God, the Spirit of Life and his only begotten son Jesus Christ.
I think we can all act as angels to one another,..in the respect of being messengers. As can the Scripture and, in fact the whole of the universe around us. These are the ways the Spirit can speak to us and teach us.
These are the three witnesses.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
The Spirit speaks to our spirit. The water is the Word of God. The blood cries out from the Ground. (The physical world around us.)
Lu 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Ge 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
It is these "better things" that angels/messengers speak to us. But they are spiritually discerned. Sometimes you got to get a little crazy to understand these things. Because i you do not believe it it is crazy.
Gil > The serpent is the spirit of Adam Bob. It was the soul which was taken out of Adam to become the spiritual Eve.
The covering of skins was the taking on of bodies of flesh, then the expulsion from the Garden. The first born in the flesh was Cain.
A fact to remember.
[/COLOR]
I believe the Serpent is a spirit all on his own. And not a nice one.
Cain was definitely of the flesh. He thought he couldn't be forgiven.
That is our carnal man. The part of us which rebels against the idea that salvation is by Grace and Faith as opposed to works
Long post, but interesting to see how others think.
Yes, it is. I enjoyed it
The compliment to the Garden story of Genesis that is given by Paul
Tells of how the Spirit of Jesus Christ can led man back to the Garden.
The Body of Christ is the Tree of Life.
Are you familiar with Paul's Christology? Interesting stuff.
Guess you knew that Jesus Christ was called the last Adam.
Gil :pop2:
Not sure what you mean by Paul's Christology.
Ah, I see what you are getting at! When I said that you and Joel were correct, I was referring to the meaning of the word, not the previous post you brought up. I was trying to share how what you shared concerning obedience and disobedience, and what Joel shared regarding the meaning of the word having something to do with hearing or hearing amiss, that the two went hand in hand.
The only thing I can comment on with regard to what I had learned that might be what Joel is speaking of, is that God is recorded as saying to Adam that he was not to eat from the tree.
When Eve repeats what God said, she adds the prohibition of even touching the tree. That is the added jot or tittle that Joel speaks of.
From this it is concluded that Eve either did not hear Adam quite correctly, or that when Adam told her that, adding to the command and thus showing he did not truly hear (listen) to what God said.
Does this accurately describe what you are sharing Joel?
Ron
Yes, thanks Ron.
If you compare the instructions by God to Adam which took place prior to Eve's being brought forth, and, the conversation between the serpent and Eve after God instructed Adam, you will note some glaring differences, and, some subtle differences.
Deceit springs forth from words. Lying is twisting the truth and making it into something else.
I see the Word of God as a protection. Stay under it and seek safety. Come out from under it and be vulnerable to danger.
In this case, as in reference to the garden narrative, God knew how He made Adam. God knew what instructions He gave. He also knew that the serpent was the most crafty of all the animals.
The serpent's tactic focused on; what did they know and believe concerning God's instructions? If they didn't accurately know, then, the serpent could get them to believe a lie (which was.......eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil).
Hearing comes first,......then, doing what is instructed is to follow. Both are necessary. They listened to the serpent, and believed his lies, and came under his word, and obeyed him, not God.
Paul said that to whom you yield your members to obey, you submit to your master. I say, you first listen to your master, hear the words, and act on what is said.
Joel
Bob May
07-30-2011, 07:08 AM
Post 46
Quote: Bob [ Hi all, We (Adam, Mankind) ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The fruit is the outcome or offspring of the coming together of two parents.]
Gil > The tree of the Knowledge of good and evil , is but one tree.
The family tree of fallen man. The two parents that would be the mother and father of the generations of the Hebrews / children of Israel.
It is the story of their generations and origins. I see Adam prior to the separation as being of that ADAM of the six day. He (Adam in the Garden) being but one Adam of the whole.
There are some that understand Hebrew better than myself, but it is of their opinion that the duality of the two parents , spirit and soul prior to their separation were an extension of the two God plurality El-Elohim and Land -Elohim.
EL being the Spirit and life giver and Land being the Soul and the former of the body of the dust of the Land/ground/Earth.
The masculine and feminine /Spirit and Soul through which Adam would come.
Much like the Indians that I knew up in the Pacific Northwest.
Father Spirit and Mother earth.
The way that I see the two trees, Knowledge and Life ,is that both would become family trees. Man in the flesh ( the old Adam) and Man in the Spirit (the new Adam).
The whole always begins with the one.
They, along with all the other trees all came up out of the ground.
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
How do you read Gen.2:9 Bob?
Hi Gil,
Now you got me thinking. I need to back up a bit.
Those trees all came up out of the ground. But what ground??
Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ge 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
So, I think we agree that the ground we are talking about here is the ground of Eden. A different plane or way of percieving the reality around us.
And that Adam was soul and spirit in one.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life seem to be both occupying the same space. The midst of the Garden.
Could they be either the same tree or interwoven? Tangled as it were.
Adam, unseparated had no problem not eating of the one that was prohibited.
Once the soul was separated from the spirit, the soul (Eve) made the wrong choice or decision.
Now look at the Scripture in the same light. Both are interwoven. Those words that lead to life and those that lead to death.
It is a matter of untangling life from death in the scripture. It is in the way we read and understand what is written.
Since the fall, mankind has been allowing the soul to influence or lead the spirit when it should be the other way round. We look at good and evil relative to how it affects us, how it affects our souls and bodies. That is relative good and evil.
An adulteress is evil we must put her away from among the people. So we stone her. That is good. Etc., Etc.,
That is how Natural man divides scripture. That does not untangle the two trees.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
I think to understand these things we need to divide along the "horizontal", so to speak.
To rightly divide seems to direct us to divide between the soul and spirit rather than good and evil.
In order to see the "whole picture" and not just the appearance of things it is necessary to restore the contact and right relationship between our soul and spirit and the Spirit of God.
This process begins at being born of the Spirit or born from above and goes on in the process of growing into the full realization of sons of God.
Until this, our spirit is either dead to us or still asleep. When Eve was taken from Adam, Adam was put to sleep. It never says he was woken up.
In fact, that is the rest of the bible. Waking up.
The working of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil is all around us and pretty easy to see.
The Tree of Life, not so much.
To re establish the connection between soul and spirit and the restoring the correct polarity or direction of flow is the recieving of the gifts of the Spirit. Wisdom and understanding and knowledge in particular.
But that which comes from above, not the relative wisdom, understanding and knowledge of this earth which I think was the wisdom that our soul (Eve) desired and got us into this mess.
Bob
Howdy Bob,
Bob >
Hi Gil,
Now you got me thinking. I need to back up a bit.
Those trees all came up out of the ground. But what ground??
Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
----------------------
Gil > It was GOD who created ( God) and it was the Land who formed (Bara'ed) that which was to be given life and made manifest.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gil > The Elohim first mentioned.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
God is a Spirit ,and man in the beginning would be in the image of a spirit (within a spiritual seed).
The likeness was to be of the Land, given a body, formed of the dust of the Land/earth.
Earth not meaning planet, but the substance of which the Land was created.
"Bara" is seen by many to mean , to form of something already created.
If you notice ,it was God who created on the first 5 days and into the sixth.
The creation and bara'ing of man (ADAM) would be a joint undertaking of God and the Land. God would do his part in creating the spiritual inner man, which began as a living spiritual seed that all flesh man would eventually come.
They called it a living soul.
It would be the Land's part to begin the forming of the body of flesh.
After the flesh body of the soul was formed, it was a sarx in Hebrew thought.
An inseparable singular body as an animated (body) organism.
Greek thought and their expanded vocabulary was known to Both Jesus> Jesus Christ and Paul. Paul would separate the inner and outer man ,the Flesh from the pneuma, psuche, psyche . It was called a Soma body.
GOD (God) who created rested from all his work on the seventh day.
It would then bring into play LORD God. ( The plural/duality of an Elohim.)
Bob >
Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gil > The Sky, heaven was thought to be the dwelling place of the Spirits.
Be it the Spirit of God or the Spirit of man in the flesh.
The Earth/Land was seen as the former ( as within a womb) and the likeness of her (the dust thereof that formed the body of flesh)
There seems to be something implied within the term "made" and not created.
If heaven is the dwelling place of the spirit ,then heavens ( plural) was pointed toward the dwelling place of the spirit within Adam and Eve. The spiritual side of the inner man ,whether male or female. They to were both made of flesh that is of the Land/Earth.
They Adam and Eve, were the Heavens and Earth that would be the parents of the Generations of the Hebrews.
In other words, they Adam and Eve would take over the bara'ing after God rested .
Kind of hard to put these thoughts down, been a long time since I came to
These conclusions or gave them further thought.
Will leave a note to shorten the post.
God rested from his work, Lord God would come into play, This Elohim was referred to as Jehovah, The Spirit and soul of the inner man became Jehovah after the fall. ( The true God that is of life rested)
When the new testament, Jesus and Paul for the most part look back upon this and declare that there will be a new heavens and earth. The new heavens and earth would come of the last Adam.
It has nothing to do with this planet or the cosmos/universe from
A physical, material point of view.
-----------------------------
Bob >
Ge 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gil > Spiritually speaking.
Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gil > The garden was not Eden but within Eden.
Bob >
Ge 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
So, I think we agree that the ground we are talking about here is the ground of Eden.
Gil> The ground of the garden that God had planted in (within) Eden.
The whole Garden story is to be seen within a spiritual setting, not material.
Bob >
A different plane or way of percieving the reality around us.
And that Adam was soul and spirit in one.
Gil > That's the way it was Bob.
Bob>
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life seem to be both occupying the same space. The midst of the Garden.
Could they be either the same tree or interwoven? Tangled as it were.
Gil > No, they are two separate trees and should be seen as family trees of which man would be a part of. Through these trees would the generations
Of the first and last Adam come.
Bob>
Adam, unseparated had no problem not eating of the one that was prohibited.
Gil > No, he did not have any problem.
The Spirit was seen as the mind ,consciousness of the soul .
The spiritual Adam prior to the fall was to be of the tree of life,
( the story unfolds, through Paul's concept of the Body of Christ).
Adams consciousness and the consciousness of God that had created him in his own image, were merged together as one consciousness prior to the fall.
Bob >
Once the soul was separated from the spirit, the soul (Eve) made the wrong choice or decision.
Gil > It was the individuality of Adams own spirit even though the consciousness of God was within him that was the serpent.
His Spirit speaking to his own separated soul.
Bob>
Now look at the Scripture in the same light. Both are interwoven. Those words that lead to life and those that lead to death.
It is a matter of untangling life from death in the scripture. It is in the way we read and understand what is written.
Since the fall, mankind has been allowing the soul to influence or lead the spirit when it should be the other way round.
Gil > It is the other way around, The spirit leads the soul.
The Spirit of life or that of death. It is the spirit of death which finally showed his face at Sinai.
The consciousness of the flesh man is of the Land/earth.
The fall brought about the loss of the presence, consciousness of the
Giver of life within Adam. He choose to follow his own consciousness.
Bob >
We look at good and evil relative to how it affects us, how it affects our souls and bodies. That is relative good and evil.
Gil > Good and Evil are like the two sides of a set of scales,
Realized by conscience. Cause and effect are a result.
Bob >
An adulteress is evil we must put her away from among the people. So we stone her. That is good. Etc., Etc.,
That is how Natural man divides scripture. That does not untangle the two trees.
Gil > There is a natural man and a spiritual man.
Bob >
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Gil > We also should discern the Spirits.
The above is in reference to the Law and Grace through faith.
They are as a two edged sword.
Bob >
I think to understand these things we need to divide along the "horizontal", so to speak.
To rightly divide seems to direct us to divide between the soul and spirit rather than good and evil.
Gil > Again, the Law vs Grace through Faith. Circumcision of the blood of the foreskin or circumcision of the heart (mind). No one can serve two masters.
Bob >
In order to see the "whole picture" and not just the appearance of things it is necessary to restore the contact and right relationship between our soul and spirit and the Spirit of God.
Gil > True Bob, it is taking on the mind of Christ. (Anointed seed)
Bob >
This process begins at being born of the Spirit or born from above and goes on in the process of growing into the full realization of sons of God.
Until this, our spirit is either dead to us or still asleep. When Eve was taken from Adam, Adam was put to sleep. It never says he was woken up.
In fact, that is the rest of the bible. Waking up.
Gil > Hard to explain Bob, but the mind of Christ was within the first spiritual Adam in the Garden. ( God consciousness and individual consciousness being one within the other to that of a single mind which maintains its individuality.)
The promised seed was also two fold.
Christ is a spiritual seed, and we in Christ are being transformed into the image of a son of God as it was in the Garden prior to the fall.
We are not becoming Gods as was the desire of the first Adam but sons of God as was the first begotten of the Father. Jesus Christ the last Adam.
Bob >
The working of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil is all around us and pretty easy to see.
The Tree of Life, not so much.
To re establish the connection between soul and spirit and the restoring the correct polarity or direction of flow is the recieving of the gifts of the Spirit. Wisdom and understanding and knowledge in particular.
But that which comes from above, not the relative wisdom, understanding and knowledge of this earth which I think was the wisdom that our soul (Eve) desired and got us into this mess.
Gil > Close enough Bob, I understand what your saying.
Gil :pop2:
Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2011, 06:41 PM
The serpent's tactic focused on; what did they know and believe concerning God's instructions? If they didn't accurately know, then, the serpent could get them to believe a lie (which was.......eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil).
That's not correct Joel. The serpent did not lie when he said that "eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil." God himself confirmed that the serpent's words were true:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate the fruit. On the contrary, they lived for hundreds of years after that event. So everything the serpent said was literally true, and the statement attributed to God that they woudl die the "day" they ate was false.
Curious, isn't it? Folks have been saying that the serpent lied, but it seems no one can identify anything it said that was false.
gregoryfl
07-30-2011, 07:43 PM
They did die that very day.
(Gen 3:7 [TS98])
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.
I know the text here does not use the word 'muwth', but the scripture I originally shared in Isaiah points to this as being the death they experienced, and the death Father would remove.
Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2011, 08:04 PM
They did die that very day.
(Gen 3:7 [TS98])
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves.
I know the text here does not use the word 'muwth', but the scripture I originally shared in Isaiah points to this as being the death they experienced, and the death Father would remove.
I searched all your posts in this thread for a reference to Isaiah, but I could not find it. What verse are you talking about?
gregoryfl
07-30-2011, 08:17 PM
I searched all your posts in this thread for a reference to Isaiah, but I could not find it. What verse are you talking about?I did not realize that I had shared that on another post. Please forgive my forgetfulness. The thread I had in mind is here:
(Isa 25:7, 8 [TS98])
And He shall swallow up on this mountain the surface of the covering which covers all people, and the veil which is spread over all nations. He shall swallow up death forever, and the Master יהוה shall wipe away tears from all faces, and take away the reproach of His people from all the earth. For יהוה has spoken.
Can this perhaps help give understanding to the truths that are contained in both views being put forth? To me it appears to be a difference of words and how those words are being defined.
Notice the Hebrew parallelisms here which define the death that would be done away with.
Ron
Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2011, 09:00 PM
I did not realize that I had shared that on another post. Please forgive my forgetfulness. The thread I had in mind is here:
(Isa 25:7, 8 [TS98])
And He shall swallow up on this mountain the surface of the covering which covers all people, and the veil which is spread over all nations. He shall swallow up death forever, and the Master יהוה shall wipe away tears from all faces, and take away the reproach of His people from all the earth. For יהוה has spoken.
Can this perhaps help give understanding to the truths that are contained in both views being put forth? To me it appears to be a difference of words and how those words are being defined.
Notice the Hebrew parallelisms here which define the death that would be done away with.
Ron
Thanks! And no worries - many conversations are quite interconnected, so that kind of forgetfulness is very common.
As for that verse - I think it is an excellent example of the symbolic meaning of "death" in the Bible, and I do agree that it fits well with the "death" overcome by Christ in the Gospel. But on the other hand, there is a strong sense of "literal" death being overcome by Christ, and I suspect that is how most Jews and Christians have interpreted the "death" that God was talking about when he said "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I think a good case could be made for your view, but it would probably be rejected by most "orthodox" Christians.
gregoryfl
07-30-2011, 09:24 PM
Thanks! And no worries - many conversations are quite interconnected, so that kind of forgetfulness is very common.
As for that verse - I think it is an excellent example of the symbolic meaning of "death" in the Bible, and I do agree that it fits well with the "death" overcome by Christ in the Gospel. But on the other hand, there is a strong sense of "literal" death being overcome by Christ, and I suspect that is how most Jews and Christians have interpreted the "death" that God was talking about when he said "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I think a good case could be made for your view, but it would probably be rejected by most "orthodox" Christians.I can certainly understand that Richard, having been taught that in my younger years. Most of the things I believe now would probably fall outside of many people view of orthodox Christian beliefs, but they have enabled me to see things so very clearly now, and to view others differently as well, unlike in my past.
Ron
Bob May
07-31-2011, 03:15 AM
That's not correct Joel. The serpent did not lie when he said that "eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil." God himself confirmed that the serpent's words were true:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate the fruit. On the contrary, they lived for hundreds of years after that event. So everything the serpent said was literally true, and the statement attributed to God that they woudl die the "day" they ate was false.
Curious, isn't it? Folks have been saying that the serpent lied, but it seems no one can identify anything it said that was false.
That depends on your definition of Dead, Wisdom and good and evil.
The Serpent is a liar and the Father of it. Everything he said was false.
He used the fact that were two definitions or perspectives of those words to his advantage. To decieve. Two perspectives. Pre-fallen man's ignorance of the lower Reality they were about to fall into made them think that the "wisdom" they desired was a good thing.
They/we ate, they/we died. Both from their/our perspective and God's. They were separated from God. That is death.
Now we, as natural men, "think we live" for 70 or 100 years in a physical body even though separated from God. That isn't life.
I just read above two texts and addded this after.
A lot of what orthodox churches teach is still from that perspective that the Serpent wanted to convey. That of carnal men. We being surrounded by carnal men need to hold to God's perspective.
And only by Spiritual experience can we have something to contrast to this death we have entered.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Have a nice day guys,
Bob
Richard, if you look closely at the original text of Gen 3:5, and Gen 3:22. do you see any subtle difference between what the serpent said, and what God said?
Also, we now know that the serpent was a liar from the beginning, and the truth is not in him.
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
07-31-2011, 07:56 AM
Richard, if you look closely at the original text of Gen 3:5, and Gen 3:22. do you see any subtle difference between what the serpent said, and what God said?
Also, we now know that the serpent was a liar from the beginning, and the truth is not in him.
Joel
Good morning Joel,
The texts are:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods [Elohim], knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
I don't see any difference at all since "one of us" refers to Elohim. Could you please elaborate?
As for the identity of the serpent as Satan - the Jews don't believe that, so its not self-evident from the text. I know that Satan is typified as a serpent in Revelation, but how do you establish that the serpent in Genesis is Satan? It's not actually written in the Bible, and most of the stuff relating to Satan is just made up. For example, neither Isaiah 14 nor Ezekiel 28 say anything about Satan, but almost all Christians have been taught that they are about him.
Richard Amiel McGough
07-31-2011, 08:07 AM
That depends on your definition of Dead, Wisdom and good and evil.
The Serpent is a liar and the Father of it. Everything he said was false.
He used the fact that were two definitions or perspectives of those words to his advantage. To decieve. Two perspectives. Pre-fallen man's ignorance of the lower Reality they were about to fall into made them think that the "wisdom" they desired was a good thing.
I think the idea of the Fall as representing "falling into lower Reality" is a very intriguing interpretation. Perhaps a slightly better way to say it would be a fall into a lower state of consciousness. A fall from the consciousness of the divine unity of all things to the consciousness of duality symbolized by knowledge of "Good and Evil." The image is powerful, and coheres quite naturally with the Perennial Philosophy.
They/we ate, they/we died. Both from their/our perspective and God's. They were separated from God. That is death.
Now we, as natural men, "think we live" for 70 or 100 years in a physical body even though separated from God. That isn't life.
I just read above two texts and addded this after.
A lot of what orthodox churches teach is still from that perspective that the Serpent wanted to convey. That of carnal men. We being surrounded by carnal men need to hold to God's perspective.
And only by Spiritual experience can we have something to contrast to this death we have entered.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Have a nice day guys,
Bob
GOD'S PERSPECTIVE? I love it! What does God see? All is one. Works for me.
:sunny:
Howdy all,
Gil > Reference post 72
Howdy Bob,
Your post was directed at Richard, but will throw in a couple of thoughts.
---------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAM
That's not correct Joel. The serpent did not lie when he said that "eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil." God himself confirmed that the serpent's words were true:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate the fruit. On the contrary, they lived for hundreds of years after that event. So everything the serpent said was literally true, and the statement attributed to God that they woudl die the "day" they ate was false.
Curious, isn't it? Folks have been saying that the serpent lied, but it seems no one can identify anything it said that was false.
Bob > That depends on your definition of Dead, Wisdom and good and evil.
The Serpent is a liar and the Father of it. Everything he said was false.
--------------------
Gil > Evil was in the world long before Adam.
All that had been given life prior to Adam had no real awareness of the evil around them. They were a part of that evil.
Good was also a part of the world.
They ( Adam)were spiritual beings being formed of spiritual seeds.
After their separation into man and woman they were both almost fully formed in what would be made manifest as Flesh.
I would speculate that when they seen their own nakedness is when they
Found out for themselves that they were not the kind of Gods that they had desired.
They seen that they were but a higher order of the beasts themselves.
Bob > He used the fact that were two definitions or perspectives of those words to his advantage. To decieve. Two perspectives. Pre-fallen man's ignorance of the lower Reality they were about to fall into made them think that the "wisdom" they desired was a good thing.
Gil > I, like Richard don't think that they were deceived by a serpent.
More to the tune of self deception.
Bob > They/we ate, they/we died. Both from their/our perspective and God's. They were separated from God. That is death.
Now we, as natural men, "think we live" for 70 or 100 years in a physical body even though separated from God. That isn't life.
Gil > They were dead unto their own spirit. They still had life as a living soul but that would be mortal life , the same as all other creatures.
Jesus and Paul would say that man in the flesh could be made alive through the Spirit of his Father. The Spirit of Life.
Only when the consciousness of God the Father and the consciousness of man are one with each other that man may become attached to eternal life which is not mortal.
It is the spirit which quickens and gives life to the soul, be it mortal or eternal.
Bob > I just read above two texts and added this after.
A lot of what orthodox churches teach is still from that perspective that the Serpent wanted to convey. That of carnal men. We being surrounded by carnal men need to hold to God's perspective.
And only by Spiritual experience can we have something to contrast to this death we have entered.
Gil > Serpent sounds to much like a snake.
The one called a serpent was a spirit. ( check out how cool lucifer was before he fell from heaven, the dwelling place of God).
Gil > [ added : John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Gil > Physical , natural mother.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Gil > Water ( The word of God ,through Faith), Spirit ( The true Spirit of the Father, not the spirit of man.)
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gil > Natural man and Spiritual man.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Gil > One can hear the still, small voice of God the Father.
Within the true Christian, the still, small voice is not one to be heard orally.
The words are received as spiritual imagery. As thoughts ,that when one sees them ,he ( more or less talks to himself in the own language)as he interprets the images.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Gil > Added : John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Gil > It says that Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.
There's that old serpent again, the dirty dog. Ha Ha .
Moses exposed the serpent as to who he really was. ( the Spirit of Man in the flesh).
So to, the Son of man ( Jesus) who became Jesus Christ the first and only son begotten of the Father after his resurrection from the Grave must be lifted up. They were both exposed as to who they really were.
We as Christians are not begotten , but are transformed into the image of his Son.
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Gil > Through Christ ,the promised seed which was to be made manifest as the Body of Christ.
Quote Richard : post 74
As for the identity of the serpent as Satan - the Jews don't believe that, so its not self-evident from the text. I know that Satan is typified as a serpent in Revelation, but how do you establish that the serpent in Genesis is Satan? It's not actually written in the Bible, and most of the stuff relating to Satan is just made up.
Gil >
There is enough written about Satan that should convince anyone as to he being the Spirit of Man in the Flesh (then maybe it is hard to see).
Satan and the Devil were seen to be the same being as a Spirit who became a whole.
The discerning of the difference between Lucifer and Satan is a little subtle.
Still think that Lucifer was the fallen angel ( The individual spirit of the spiritual seed/being Adam in the Garden.)
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Ezekiel talks of the prince of Tyrus :
He is not the prince of peace.
He is the prince of death and war.
There were two princes you know.
Ezekiel 28:6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;
Ezekiel 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I [am] God? but thou [shalt be] a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
Ezekiel 28:14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth;
Ezekiel 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezekiel 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness:
Ezekiel 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never [shalt] thou [be] any more.
Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils.
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Gil > The "air" here means the spiritual side of the inner man.
His pneuma/ psuche/ psyche.
Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
The name changed to Satan after the fall , but the spirit of Adam and Eve would be
Passed along to their first born in the flesh. Cain would be the evil one in whom
The spirit Satan would dwell. He and his generations. He had killed Abel, and the lineage of Seth would carry forward the dual God (Elohim) that of both good and evil. [ Jehovah]. Not that the presence of God was still within them ,as he ,God was not. They would know him through the working of their own conscience.
John 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Acts 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
1 Peter 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
--------------------------
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. means hurt you.
Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.
The two verses above kind of spell it out.
Gil > there is the seed of the natural man, man in the flesh and the promised seed that be the Christ.
I think that our Lord Jesus Christ through the God of peace ,the LORD of our Lord done a pretty good job at the cross in stepping on the serpents head.
Gil :pop2:
Have a nice day guys,
Bob
________________________________________
Last edited by Bob May; Today at 03:40 AM.
[QUOTE=RAM]how do you establish that the serpent in Genesis is Satan? It's not actually written in the Bible,[QUOTE]
The serpent=Satan=deceiver=dragon
The serpent beguiled Eve (II Cor 11:3)
Satan beguiled Eve
Joel
Richard Amiel McGough
08-01-2011, 09:29 AM
how do you establish that the serpent in Genesis is Satan? It's not actually written in the Bible,
The serpent=Satan=deceiver=dragon
The serpent beguiled Eve (II Cor 11:3)
Satan beguiled Eve
Joel
Yes, the idea that the serpent in the Garden was Satan is consistent with a few verses in the NT, but that's not the same as proving it. For example, a Jew would agree with 2 Cor 11:3, but probably would not agree that the serpent is Satan because they generally don't believe in him.
The problem is this - the identification of Satan as a serpent is metaphorical, but many Christians do not believe that the Garden story is metaphorical. They believe that the story is literal, and that it explains why serpents have no legs (Gen 3:14). So am I supposed to believe that Satan is a literal serpent, and that he has no legs? That's impossible, because Revelation presents him as a dragon with legs. So obviously, these are metaphors, and we have no reason to identify the "serpent" in Genesis as an "incarnation" or whatnot of Satan. That is an ancient Christian tradition that is not shared with the Jews, and is not proven by the text. On the contrary, the text itself classes the serpent with the other "beasts of the field which the Lord God had made." Therefore, the serpent was not a "fallen angel" and so was not "Satan."
Hi Joel,
Quote Joel: [The serpent=Satan=deceiver=dragon
The serpent beguiled Eve (II Cor 11:3)
Satan beguiled Eve
Joel ]
Gil >
All of these names and others direct themselves to One Spirit
as a Whole.
It appears to be that of the individual spirit of Adam in the garden.
Though he had a consciousness of God and a consciousness of his own being (self) simultaneously.
Maybe it's just me, but It seems that it can be seen easier here.
From my post 76 above.
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.
The three verses above kind of spell it out.
The implication of who's head shall be bruised seems apparent.
Maybe it would be seen easier to see if one references a human body.
Man has both a conscious and a sub-conscious mind.
Other than motor mechanisms being within the sub-conscious mind that operate independently without our being aware of their functioning, the consciousness of God ( Will say, the true God which is of Life) finds his dwelling place within the sub-conscious of man in the flesh.
A meaningful relationship with his presence was lost in the Garden.
It was as if a veil/curtain was placed between the sub and our own individual consciousness.
Adam in the Garden of the origins of man in the flesh was as a heaven in which the spirit of God and man dwelt in a harmonious state.
( It was also a spiritual womb)
Through a work of the LORD of our Lord Jesus > Jesus Christ > Christ Jesus > Christ, a new Adam was established to replace the fallen Adam in the Garden.
Through this new Adam, after Jesus in the flesh was resurrected to be Jesus Christ ( new Adam ) the first begotten Son of his Father, the separation of the sub-conscious where God finds his dwelling place and his presence is to be found, and the consciousness of the individual man in the flesh are once again re-united the one with the other.
The Veil of separation was taken away.
The door that was the entrance unto the Garden that was guarded by the
Cherubim was unlocked that man in the flesh could once again converse with
the creator , the Spirit of Eternal Life.
This is to have the mind of Christ.
To be able to enter is to have taken on the mind of Christ. to re-enter a paradise lost.
Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luke 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
This merging of consciousness ,that of God and man is a return to the beginning, that man in the flesh may resume his journey within the plan and purpose of God for that which he had created.
There are futurists and preterists, but the path and the way Post AD70
is through the Body of Christ.
We are once again within a spiritual seed where the transformation begins.
The new heaven and earth is the spiritual body (Soma) of the new man in the flesh. ( Now).
The pneuma, psuche, psyche (the spiritual inner man) does not perish after we drop this body of flesh. A new body is to be given as a covering that is not physical, material flesh.
The one is being transformed and the other is to be given.
The body of Jesus Christ after the resurrection was not the same body as he had as Jesus.
Paul said ,that there was a natural body and a spiritual body.
Gil :pop2:
Bob May
08-01-2011, 10:01 AM
[QUOTE=Gil;33672]Howdy all,
Gil > Reference post 72
Howdy Bob,
Your post was directed at Richard, but will throw in a couple of thoughts.
---------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAM
That's not correct Joel. The serpent did not lie when he said that "eating the fruit would make them wise, and, they would be like God, knowing good and evil." God himself confirmed that the serpent's words were true:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate the fruit. On the contrary, they lived for hundreds of years after that event. So everything the serpent said was literally true, and the statement attributed to God that they woudl die the "day" they ate was false.
Curious, isn't it? Folks have been saying that the serpent lied, but it seems no one can identify anything it said that was false.
Bob > That depends on your definition of Dead, Wisdom and good and evil.
The Serpent is a liar and the Father of it. Everything he said was false.
--------------------
Gil > Evil was in the world long before Adam.
All that had been given life prior to Adam had no real awareness of the evil around them. They were a part of that evil.
Good was also a part of the world.
They ( Adam)were spiritual beings being formed of spiritual seeds.
After their separation into man and woman they were both almost fully formed in what would be made manifest as Flesh.
I would speculate that when they seen their own nakedness is when they
Found out for themselves that they were not the kind of Gods that they had desired.
They seen that they were but a higher order of the beasts themselves.
Bob > He used the fact that were two definitions or perspectives of those words to his advantage. To decieve. Two perspectives. Pre-fallen man's ignorance of the lower Reality they were about to fall into made them think that the "wisdom" they desired was a good thing.
Gil > I, like Richard don't think that they were deceived by a serpent.
More to the tune of self deception.
But you say that the Serpent is a spirit. We are recievers and as recievers we are inspired by something. Adam was cut off from God so what was he recieving from? Before he was cut off he/we recieved from God. After being born again and recieving of the Spirit we recieve from God.
So all of that time in between we are influenced (recieving an influx from) the spirit of this world.
Inside/ outside does not matter. It is what is the source of our knowledge and power (life) and awareness or consciousness. Our Reality.
We, through our soul, Eve, recieved (believed) the words (seeds) from another spirit. Afterwards that spirit was cursed to live in the dust.
"..upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
We were formed of that dust. That substance of the formative world. Where the serpent dwells.
But we were not created for that.
Bob > They/we ate, they/we died. Both from their/our perspective and God's. They were separated from God. That is death.
Now we, as natural men, "think we live" for 70 or 100 years in a physical body even though separated from God. That isn't life.
Gil > They were dead unto their own spirit. They still had life as a living soul but that would be mortal life , the same as all other creatures.
Jesus and Paul would say that man in the flesh could be made alive through the Spirit of his Father. The Spirit of Life.
The living soul influenced by the Serpent who also produces after his own kind. Our souls were impregnated by a spirit that was blind to the higher planes and the things of the Spirit of God.
Only when the consciousness of God the Father and the consciousness of man are one with each other that man may become attached to eternal life which is not mortal.
It is the spirit which quickens and gives life to the soul, be it mortal or eternal.
And the energy flow reverses. This also is the image of the serpent. He must be lifted up.
Jesus was lifted up over the earth. Lifted up from death, and, finally lifted up in clouds.
He promised to do the same for us.
Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he,
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Bob > I just read above two texts and added this after.
A lot of what orthodox churches teach is still from that perspective that the Serpent wanted to convey. That of carnal men. We being surrounded by carnal men need to hold to God's perspective.
And only by Spiritual experience can we have something to contrast to this death we have entered.
Gil > Serpent sounds to much like a snake.
The one called a serpent was a spirit. ( check out how cool lucifer was before he fell from heaven, the dwelling place of God).
Gil > [ added : John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Gil > Physical , natural mother.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Gil > Water ( The word of God ,through Faith), Spirit ( The true Spirit of the Father, not the spirit of man.)
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gil > Natural man and Spiritual man.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The spirit of man (the Serpent) cannot comprehend this.
Gil > One can hear the still, small voice of God the Father.
Within the true Christian, the still, small voice is not one to be heard orally.
The words are received as spiritual imagery. As thoughts ,that when one sees them ,he ( more or less talks to himself in the own language)as he interprets the images.
There are many ways the Spirit can communicate with us. Sometimes our own voice, sometimes dreams or the circumstances and words of people around us.
But the interesting thing to me about this voice you speak of is that it happens in the mouth of a cave.
1ki 19:12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
1ki 19:13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?
This brings to mind the idea of passing from life to death.
Plato's Cave allegory comes to mind but also Lazarus standing in the doorway of his tomb when Jesus said loose him.
And the angel at Jesus' tomb saying "Why seek you the living among the dead?"
These verses are pointing to the evidence that we have crossed over from death to life. The "Threshold" between the death we have been living and what Jesus meant by the word "Life."
The small evidences that we experience, that we are recieving from the correct Spirit. That of God rather than what we have been listening to all of our lives previous to this. God is in the voice. In the little revelations concerning His Words and This is the evidence of "things unseen." The substance of things hoped for.
It is the reversing of the flow. Hearing from the correct Spirit.
The same one Jesus heard from. His Father.
Have a great day,
Bob
Hi Richard,
Quote Richard :
Yes, the idea that the serpent in the Garden was Satan is consistent with a few verses in the NT, but that's not the same as proving it. For example, a Jew would agree with 2 Cor 11:3, but probably would not agree that the serpent is Satan because they generally don't believe in him.
The problem is this - the identification of Satan as a serpent is metaphorical, but many Christians do not believe that the Garden story is metaphorical. They believe that the story is literal, and that it explains why serpents have no legs (Gen 3:14). So am I supposed to believe that Satan is a literal serpent, and that he has no legs? That's impossible, because Revelation presents him as a dragon with legs. So obviously, these are metaphors, and we have no reason to identify the "serpent" in Genesis as an "incarnation" or whatnot of Satan. That is an ancient Christian tradition that is not shared with the Jews, and is not proven by the text. On the contrary, the text itself classes the serpent with the other "beasts of the field which the Lord God had made." Therefore, the serpent was not a "fallen angel" and so was not "Satan."
__________________
Gil >
It is all to be seen in a spiritual frame of thought (mind).
Lucifer, Satan are of the same Spirit as a Whole.
The dragon, that you say is of an ancient Christian tradition
is of the same fold.
The Garden story is in part, the way many ancient cultures
had been told the same story.
Why? synthesis is the probable answer.
Not only through the wanderings of the Hebrews did the story
continue ,but consider Cain.
The generations of Cain were cut off at the shorts in scripture and left dangling there.
Some try and pawn off their demise with the flood of Noah.
Cain and his generations are a part of the overall story
within scripture.
Cain had an inside seat as to what occurred in the Garden.
He was there also in Eden, in the beginning, though the story continued after Adam and Eve were given the heave ho.
There are many who say that the Jews took on a lot of what is written ,as though they were copy cats.
The descendents of Cain also wandered and a synthesis took shape among many peoples.
The Bible only has two main players. GOD (God) and Man.
Some look a origins ,beginnings from a material physical
perspective, like Darwinism and the evolution of man from
lower forms to the finality of man.
No doubt that there was a building block type sequence in his
being formed.
But to me is was an evolution of Life itself.
An evolution of the spiritual side of natural things.
All that which had or has life wasn't beamed down in its
final form some how.
What came first, the chicken or the egg ?
It or in other forms was brought up when I was growing up.
The spirit of Life must initiate the beginning of anything that has life.
If one can eliminate the baggage of the Literal and
look for the answers in the spiritual then he/she may
be able to embrace science from its early beginnings to the present state of its ideas and concepts.
The mind is the third member of a Trinitarian reality.
We can look into the past or future even though we are always in the Now.
The spiritual or material/literal and the understanding of the two is a mental function.
Science is searching for the same answers as were all peoples
in the distant past.
Who am I, and where and how did I come to be me.
The writings of scripture that are found within the Bible,
are to me , the words of truth, be it though some are the words of man and others the words of God.
Guess it comes down to he who has eyes to see.
They say all people are like snowflakes, no two are the same.
If the Bible and Science cannot stand side by side with each other, then scripture is being seen in the wrong light.
The ideas, concepts of the Bible show the progression of
both life and the mind of man in his search for the meaning of God and his own self.
Gil :pop2:
Re: post 80
Hi Bob,
After this post, will break these up into segments. They are way to long.
Bob >
But you say that the Serpent is a spirit. We are receivers and as receivers we are inspired by something. Adam was cut off from God so what was he receiving from?
Gil >
Himself, his individual spirit as a part of consciousness.
That was the difference between Adam and all the other beasts of the field.
Contrary to some, only man would have a soul, able to not only be aware of himself but also God. It would be Mans (Adams) spirit as an individual that got him
into trouble. He with the knowledge of self awareness, wanted to become as a God.
He , like the old adage , wanted to become the captain of his own ship and master of his own destiny. His own spirit deceived Eve ,his soulmate,not some boogie man or serpent.
Through the science of modern Dna and MTdna in the study of genetics etc.
Man and Woman are different. They use different sides of the brain . Right and Left.
When a child is formed within the womb ,a male or female will emerge.
The child will have the makeup of both parents.
The Bible would say a masculine spirit and a feminine soul.
Within the individual a male would have a dominant Spirit and subordinate Soul.
A female would have a dominant soul and a subordinate spirit.
In the union of marriage as being one, they become as an equal whole.
Bob, Thought I would throw this in here.
This is the imagery that I see. Others may see different images.
Is what I see correct. Only to me. It does not mean that I am right or wrong.
the being right or wrong is only to be seen by others.
Everyone walks through the valley of the shadow of death alone and naked.
The path that I have chosen is to walk in the foot steps of Jesus to Jesus Christ.
We are all on a separate quest or sojourn in this life.
I cannot say that I am right and others on the forum are full of it.
We all see things from our own point of view, from which we draw our own opinions from.
Bob >
Before he was cut off he/we received from God. After being born again and receiving of the Spirit we receive from God.
Gil > close enough, but I would say that we are in the process of being born again.
We are not a finished product.
In the eyes of the Father we are as his own son was while in the flesh.
Our way and path is the same way and path that Jesus walked upon.
Bob >
So all of that time in between we are influenced (receiving an influx from) the spirit of this world.
Gil >
The spirit of this world is the Spirit of man in the flesh.
This Spirit is internal to all man that is inside/outside of God.
We are no longer of the flesh of flesh man but now are of the flesh of
Jesus. We in Christ are all parts of the same flesh. His.
He as the last Adam was the first Adam to be raised, resurrected from the dead.
Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Gil > Paul did not consider us as being still in the flesh, but no longer of the flesh.
( We / they were a Soma (Spiritual Body).
we/they were previously in the flesh of a flesh man.
The ruler of the flesh body ,any flesh body is his own spirit, which is of the Whole Spirit of all his parts.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Gil > The children of the promise are the children of the promised seed.
This is as spiritual seed , not seed of the loins of man in the flesh.
Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Gil > Paul did not consider the Church to be his Body.
But individually are his flesh and bone where the spirit of the Father and son dwell here on earth now. The Spirit of the Father and his Son are the same spirit.
The mind of Christ is the joining together of those in Christ (anointed seed)
and the Spirit of the Father.
Bob >
inside/ outside does not matter. It is what is the source of our knowledge and power (life) and awareness or consciousness. Our Reality.
Gil > The spirit of man is inside.
The reality of man in the flesh is of his own being.
In Christ, our reality is seen from a different perspective.
We are not that life that is within us. That life that is within us is of God and not our own.
Bob>
We, through our soul, Eve, received (believed) the words (seeds) from another spirit. Afterwards that spirit was cursed to live in the dust.
"..upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
We were formed of that dust. That substance of the formative world. Where the serpent dwells.
But we were not created for that.
Gil > Close enough Bob. We from the beginning were to be as the children of God.
The true God and Father of us all.
Bob >
The living soul influenced by the Serpent who also produces after his own kind. Our souls were impregnated by a spirit that was blind to the higher planes and the things of the Spirit of God.
Gil > close enough.
Bob >
And the energy flow reverses. This also is the image of the serpent. He must be lifted up.
Jesus was lifted up over the earth. Lifted up from death, and, finally lifted up in clouds.
He promised to do the same for us.
Gil > My eyes are starting to cross. been staring at this monitor to long.
The Serpent was lifted up, exposed as to who he was by Moses.
So to would the Son of God be exposed as to who he was.
Those clouds are not as clouds in the sky.
They are clouds ( Multitudes) as witnesses.
Bob >
The spirit of man (the Serpent) cannot comprehend this.
Gil > there are natural and spiritual eyes.
Bob >
There are many ways the Spirit can communicate with us. Sometimes our own voice, sometimes dreams or the circumstances and words of people around us.
But the interesting thing to me about this voice you speak of is that it happens in the mouth of a cave.
Gil > So it did Bob .
1 Kings 19:7 And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise [and] eat; because the journey [is] too great for thee.
Gil > Keep an eye out for the angel of the LORD.
It is deceptive. The mass of titles given for divinity is large.
They all apply to only two Spirits in the end.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Gil > Elijah took a trip to the mountain of God ,so that he may speak to God.
1 Kings 19:9 And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD [came] to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?
1 Kings 19:10 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts:
for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, [even] I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
1 Kings 19:11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; [but] the LORD [was] not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; [but] the LORD [was] not in the earthquake:
Gil > This was a spiritual journey, much like what they in some circles call soul travel or a transfer of awareness.
Much like Paul and John a couple of times were away from their bodies and in the spirit.
1 Kings 19:12 And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
Gil > He went on a trip in the spirit to climb the same Mount as did Moses. The mount that Moses had received the Law. It was the LORD who came to him, not the angel of the LORD.
He was exposing the fact that the LORD was not he one who spoke to Moses upon the mount.
1 Kings 19:13 And it was [so], when Elijah heard [it], that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, [there came] a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?
1 Kings 19:14 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, [even] I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
1 Kings 19:15 And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael [to be] king over Syria:
Bob >
This brings to mind the idea of passing from life to death.
Plato's Cave allegory comes to mind but also Lazarus standing in the doorway of his tomb when Jesus said loose him.
And the angel at Jesus' tomb saying "Why seek you the living among the dead?"
These verses are pointing to the evidence that we have crossed over from death to life. The "Threshold" between the death we have been living and what Jesus meant by the word "Life."
The small evidences that we experience, that we are recieving from the correct Spirit. That of God rather than what we have been listening to all of our lives previous to this. God is in the voice. In the little revelations concerning His Words and This is the evidence of "things unseen." The substance of things hoped for.
It is the reversing of the flow. Hearing from the correct Spirit.
The same one Jesus heard from. His Father.
Gil > The story of life and death centers on the Two Adams.
Jesus in the flesh was how Adam in the garden was supposed to be had he
not fallen.
He had the spirit of his Father within him as well as his own spirit, and both were as one spirit with individuality being maintained. He had a soul that was of his mother Mary ,just as Eve had a soul that as of the dust of the earth .
Gil > The Bible is written within a world of imagery, thoughts before they are
spoken or written as words.
After written the words must be decoded if you will, to once again form the
imagery that was intended. This is a mental function.
If like me, who has a lack for reading Hebrew and Greek ( I can read and write Finnish ) then one is caught up in translation issues.
If a word can represent a few or many thoughts in the world of imagery, then
context must be referred to, and even with that, the concept must be consistent throughout scripture. Sometime it is a good thing to back track a word to its root
beginning, and then try and figure out the image.
It is kind of weird to read a Finnish bible that has words that look so different from English. They both though are seen through the image presented within the word or a running concept.
It is for that reason that I see the word of God presented as imagery.
Each can hear his word in their own tongue.
Have a good one,
Gil :pop2:
Bob May
08-02-2011, 09:12 AM
Re: post 80
Hi Gil,
Gil >
His own spirit deceived Eve ,his soulmate,not some boogie man or serpent.
Like I said it does not matter whether it is an outside spirit or inside.
Outside forces, people and ways of thinking affect us all of the time. Trying to get us to see things from fallen Adam's point of view after we have seen things from Jesus' point of view. The important thing is to Stand.
Gil> Through the science of modern Dna and MTdna in the study of genetics etc.
Man and Woman are different. They use different sides of the brain . Right and Left.
When a child is formed within the womb ,a male or female will emerge.
The child will have the makeup of both parents.
The Bible would say a masculine spirit and a feminine soul.
Within the individual a male would have a dominant Spirit and subordinate Soul.
A female would have a dominant soul and a subordinate spirit.
In the union of marriage as being one, they become as an equal whole.
Man and woman manifested are allegories in this world for the spiritual realities taught in scripture. That would apply to the DNA and, in fact all we come in contact with.
It is the language of God written large in the world around us.
Gil> Bob, Thought I would throw this in here.
This is the imagery that I see. Others may see different images.
Is what I see correct. Only to me. It does not mean that I am right or wrong.
the being right or wrong is only to be seen by others.
Everyone walks through the valley of the shadow of death alone and naked.
The path that I have chosen is to walk in the foot steps of Jesus to Jesus Christ.
We are all on a separate quest or sojourn in this life.
I cannot say that I am right and others on the forum are full of it.
We all see things from our own point of view, from which we draw our own opinions from.
Like you said, "close enough." As long as we see the basics the details will be taught to us by God. We all need different things at different times.Bob >
Before he was cut off he/we received from God. After being born again and receiving of the Spirit we receive from God.
Gil > close enough, but I would say that we are in the process of being born again.
We are not a finished product.
In the eyes of the Father we are as his own son was while in the flesh.
Our way and path is the same way and path that Jesus walked upon.
Early on in the ministry of Jesus both Nathaniel and Peter realized who he was. Yet later Jesus said to Peter,
"..Lu 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Believing is just the first step in sorting all this out. That is why it is called being "born" of the spirit or from above. It is a lifetime of learning.
Gil > The Bible is written within a world of imagery, thoughts before they are
spoken or written as words.
After written the words must be decoded if you will, to once again form the
imagery that was intended. This is a mental function.
It begins as a mental function, but goes beyond that. Both the symbols are "revealed to us" and the way they fit together as a whole. These functions are Wisdom and Understanding and are Spiritual gifts.
The "Tokens" of the circumcision and the "Earnest" of the Spirit.
These little "Revelations" are what keep us on track and remind us of the promise that "they shall all be taught of God."
Gil>If like me, who has a lack for reading Hebrew and Greek ( I can read and write Finnish ) then one is caught up in translation issues.
If a word can represent a few or many thoughts in the world of imagery, then
context must be referred to, and even with that, the concept must be consistent throughout scripture. Sometime it is a good thing to back track a word to its root
beginning, and then try and figure out the image.
I watch for patterns that fit other patterns in Scripture. Scripture explains itself.
Then I look for patterns in my own life.
There is a promise in the New Testament that the comforter will bring "all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have told you.." Sometimes when we get stuck on a word another instance of that word in a different context just "comes to us." This is not us doing it.
We are the temple the Lord is building. Not made with our own hands.
We were told to watch!!!
It is kind of weird to read a Finnish bible that has words that look so different from English. They both though are seen through the image presented within the word or a running concept.
It is for that reason that I see the word of God presented as imagery.
Each can hear his word in their own tongue.
Have a good one,
Gil :pop2:
You too Gil,
Bob
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.