Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Translation--Eden
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 76 of 305 (459112)
03-03-2008 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by autumnman
02-25-2008 10:47 AM


Falsely Blaming Paul
Autumnman writes:
Christian dogma is founded on the idea that the Deity's command was intentionally disobeyed by the human archetypes in the Garden of Eden.
You do not have to await "Christian dogma" to inform us. Genesis itself informs us that the command was intentionally disobeyed.
"And He [God] said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?
And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree, and I ate.
And Jehovah God said to the woman, What is this that you have done? And the woman said, the serpent deceived me, and I ate."
(Gen. 3:11-13)
"And to Adam He [God] said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you saying, You shall not eat of it: Cursed is the ground because of you ... etc." (Gen. 3:17a)
So I ask the reader. That man intentionally disobeyed God's command - is that an invention of the Apostle Paul or is that what the book of Genesis clearly tells us?
It is what Genesis says and we cannot claim this as a concoction out of the imagination of Paul.
Automnman goes on to write:
St. Paul states in Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned ... 5:14, "Yet death exercixed dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam ...". As I have shown above, however, for literally thousands of years the Deity's "commands" of Gen. 2:16 & 17 have not been translated accurately or fully understood.
The main question is was it Paul's invention that death came into the world through Adam or is this what the book of Genesis reveals?
Let's read it:
" By the sweat of your face you will eat bread Until you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." (Gen. 3:19)
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God. (5:1)
And all the days of that Adam lived were nine hundred thirty years, and he died (v.5) ....
And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died (v.8) ...
And all the days of Enosh were nine hundred five years, and he died (v. 11) ...
And all the days of Kenan were nine hundred ten years, and he died (v.14) ...
And all the days of Methusalah were nine hundred sixty-nine years, and he died. (v.27)
The repeated phrase "and he died, and he died, and he died, and he died ..." should not be taken for granted. The writer of Genesis is establishing that one after another all the descendents of the first man Adam eventually died.
The only exception is Enoch in verses 22-24 who was raptured by God away from the earth. He walked with God and escaped physical death as a testimomy of God's ability to rapture the righteous man.
So, was it Paul's invention that death entered into the world through Adam's transgression? No indeed. We cannot credit Paul with inventing the idea. It is expressed in Genesis.
What about sin? Is it Paul's invention that sin entered into the world through Adam's one trangression? We have no mention of sin being a problem to man in Genesis until Cain reacts with furious envy that his offering is rejected by God while Abel his brother's offering is accepted.
"And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen. 4:5-7)
Sin crouching at the door probably means that sin was crouching at the door of Cain's heart. Cain was the firstborn child of Adam and Eve. It is not insignificant that the writer of Genesis highlights that terrible act of murder resulted in the firstborn son Cain not being able to resist the crouching sin. He could not master the power of sin.
So how can we ascribe the intrance of sin into the human race as the concoction of Paul? Paul merely stated the facts as he read them in Genesis.
Long before Paul wrote Romans, David wrote that as a born human being he was conceived in sin:
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5)
And the wise Solomon wrote long before Paul wrote that though God created man upright man has sought out many deceitful devices:
" See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)
God made man upright. After the fall of Adam man became deceitful and sinful devising many tricky schemes. Even as the prophet Jeremiah also writes that man's heart has become desperately wicked.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, It is incurable; who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart and test the inward parts, even to give to each one according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:9)
There is a salvation for the "incurable" heart of man through the new covnant. And God is able to save man from the indwelling sickness of the sin which polluted him from the fall of Adam.
But we have here in this discussion another case of someone trying to say "Paul messed up the truth" or "Paul got it all wrong with his Christian dogma." This is a false alarm.
Paul reported what Genesis taught. And the further revelation brought about by the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and indwelling of the Son of God was built upon the foundation of the previous revelations of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by autumnman, posted 02-25-2008 10:47 AM autumnman has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 77 of 305 (459122)
03-04-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by autumnman
03-02-2008 2:02 PM


Re: Heb. tense
It is my understanding that if the Eden Text is being rendered as "historical prose" it is the "vau conversive" that changes the "imperfect tense" into the "perfect tense".
If the Eden Narrative is being rendered as a "Wisdom Text {an allegory)" then the "imperfect tense" denotes that the "Command" is still being issued; the "Command" is being issued to the individual ">adam=human being/entity" who is currently reading the text. That ">adam" would be you or me or both of us at this point in time.
I think you are referring to the "vav consecutive" or "preterite" form. This is a standard narrative form, relating consecutive events. It follows a fixed pattern. The first event is described with a verb in the perfect form. All subsequent events start with vav ("and") with an imperfect verb appended. These imperfect verbs actually have the sense of perfect verbs and are translated as perfects.
In Gen 2:16, the verse starts with a vav-consecutive, "and then the Lord God commanded ...". But the command itself is not in the vav-consecutive form, so the imperfect tenses in the command remain as imperfects. So I don't see that this affects the sense of the command itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by autumnman, posted 03-02-2008 2:02 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2008 7:34 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 80 by autumnman, posted 03-04-2008 10:57 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 78 of 305 (459135)
03-04-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by kbertsche
03-04-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Heb. tense
Autmnman, seems to be examining the Hebrew grammer to emphasize the there is allegorical significance to the intructions of God today to the reader of the Bible.
With this I agree. I agree that throughout the Bible we are told particularly by God to turn to Him for divine life. For example in Jeremiah:
"For My [God's] people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, To hew out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns which hold no water." (Jeremiah 2:13)
God is the source of the divine life and all the well being of His people. But the nation of Israel has turned away from Him as the fountain of life and replaced God with "broken cisterns". That means idols and all other substitutes which usurp the place of God.
God as the source of divine life cannot be replaced. In Genesis He is represented by the tree of life. And here is Jeremiah He is the fountain of life.
I may agree with Autumnman as far desire of God for created man, and particlarly Israel to turn to Him to partake of His life. I don't think denying the historical flow from Genesis is at all necessary to establish this.
Furthermore there is no reason to think the Apostle Paul's teaching leads us away in any sense from this. In fact he establishes it strongly. Here in Ephesians he says that fallen man was alienated from the life of God:
" ... being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God ..." (EPh. 4:18)
Paul teaches that the fallen man was estranged not only from knowing God or knowing about God. He was estranged and alienated from God's own very life. He was alienated from the life of God. God's as the fountain of divine life, from the beginning, wanted man to take into himself His divine, uncreated and eternal life.
In other words God created man in His own image for the purpose that God could live within man. This is to make man not only one who lives the human life, but one who lives the life of God also within his human life.
God created man to be a God-man. He created man to be a deified man. He placed man before the tree of life that man would become a divinized man. That is a man like the God-man Jesus Christ.
This desire for God to impart Himself into man as divine life is today realized in the incarnated, crucified, and resurrected Son of God - Jesus.
"In Him was life, and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4)
"I have come that they may have life and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10b)
"I am the bread of life" (John 6:48)
"It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63)
"I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25a)
"I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6)
"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
"If anyone loves Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Gal. 2:20)
"For to me to live is Christ ..." (Phil 1:21)
"For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ our life is manifested, then you also will be manifested with Him in glory" (Col. 3:3,4)
These, and many other verses demonstrate that God's life today is not embodied in a tree in a garden but in the resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2008 1:40 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by autumnman, posted 03-04-2008 12:29 PM jaywill has replied

graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 79 of 305 (459146)
03-04-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Otto Tellick
03-02-2008 9:05 AM


Re: Hebrew Text
Otto,
It is frankly ridiculous to assert that such a method -- strict, mechanical substitution of a given word in language X (e.g. Hebrew) by a single chosen word in language Y (e.g. English), in all occurrences regardless of context -- should "minimize translation errors".
Thanks for your strong opinion of the Concordant Method. I stand by it. I would rather have the raw translation based on the limited vocabulary of the original language, instead of having the translator add their spin on the meaning with their interpretation of the context.
In the Hebrew they had to interpret based on the context of the words, and that is what we should have to do as well, not have the translator do it for us... I think that's where error gets introduced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-02-2008 9:05 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by autumnman, posted 03-04-2008 11:34 AM graft2vine has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 80 of 305 (459148)
03-04-2008 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by kbertsche
03-04-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Heb. tense
kbertsche: You are quite right
I think you are referring to the "vav consecutive" or "preterite" form.
I get my words twisted together sometimes; I meant "vau consecutive." Thanks for the correction.
According to Gesenius' Heb. Grammar, pg.318, Gen. 2:16 falls under the "Use of the Imperfect." "le>mor=in regard to saying" is an "infinitive construct" of the "imperfect tense". It is my understanding that the preformative opening clause, "vayetzav=and he lays charge", would remain in the imperfect tense being so indicated by the infinitive construct "le>mor=in regard to saying".
This protion of the "Command" does indeed denote "permission", but it is "permission" in the setting of a "Command." The repetitive verbal clause at the conclusion of Gen. 2:16 expresses intensifying the expression {the Command} to the highest degree.
At least that is how I translate Gen. 2:16.
I look forward to your thoughts;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2008 1:40 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 81 of 305 (459155)
03-04-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by graft2vine
03-04-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Hebrew Text
graft2vine: I agree with you completely in regard to this statement:
In the Hebrew they had to interpret based on the context of the words, and that is what we should have to do as well, not have the translator do it for us... I think that's where error gets introduced.
That is exactly what I intended this thread - Biblical Translation-Eden - to accomplish; learn the actual "context" of the Eden Narrative by examining the "Hebrew words" that are actually conveyed in the BHS Masoretic Hebrew Text.
If you are most comfortable employing the "Concordant Method" then by all means use it. We can then share with each other what we find and together we may be able to discover what "context" the ancient Eden Narrative is conveying.
I look forward to what you discover.
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by graft2vine, posted 03-04-2008 10:52 AM graft2vine has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 82 of 305 (459164)
03-04-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
03-04-2008 7:34 AM


Re: Heb. tense
jaywill: I am so glad that we can agree on something;
Autmnman, seems to be examining the Hebrew grammer to emphasize the there is allegorical significance to the intructions of God today to the reader of the Bible.
With this I agree. I agree that throughout the Bible we are told particularly by God to turn to Him for divine life.
Prior to any of us learning to read {in this case English}, however, the Holy Bible actually tells us nothing. If we cannot read what God is saying, what God is saying falls on deaf ears. If we are also too young to "know" what "calamity" or "death" actually mean, even if we can read the words we cannot comprehednd what we are reading.
Parents {or, a parent} cannot simply rely on what they "tell" their children. Words have little to no meaning without some kind of experience to further emphasize their actual, real-time, meaning. Many, if not most, parents know this when it comes to their children. It is based on this reasoning that such parents go the extra step and "child-proof" their house; matches are kept out of reach of the child, drain cleaner is kept out of reach, electrical sockets are capped, sharp instruments are kept out of reach, and so forth.
This brings us back to the "command(s)" issued in Gen. 2:16 & 17. At the time God the "command(s)" it is the "tree" that possesses the knowledge of good and evil/right and wrong/benefit and calamity. The human archetype, "ha>adam", does not possess this knowledge. These "commands" are not so simple that a "toddler" or "child" can grasp what is being said.
The only other place in the entire Heb. O.T. where the clause "tob vara0" is used is in Deuteronomy 1:39, and there the clause "to not know tob vara0" denotes "doddlers and children" who do "not know good and evil/right and wrong/benefit and calamity".
Therefore, according to the Heb. Eden Narrative it certainly appears as though the human archetype, "ha>adam", would fall into the category of being a child who does not know good and evil, right and wrong, or benefit and calamity. It is the "tree" that possesses this knowledge at the time the "command(s)" are issued.
I look forward to your reply.
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2008 7:34 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 1:15 AM autumnman has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 83 of 305 (459251)
03-05-2008 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by autumnman
03-04-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Heb. tense
Prior to any of us learning to read {in this case English}, however, the Holy Bible actually tells us nothing. If we cannot read what God is saying, what God is saying falls on deaf ears. If we are also too young to "know" what "calamity" or "death" actually mean, even if we can read the words we cannot comprehednd what we are reading.
God taught Adam how to speak human language. There was no one else to teach him that. And as far as we know the command came to Adam in the way of spoken words rather than written ones.
It is true that we can read the Bible and not comprehend what is being said. I think this is true even after years of study because there are layers upon layers of deeper significances which require experience and the assistance of the Holy Spirit's guidance to appreciate.
I didn't mean that a child could easily understand the technicalities of ancient Hebrew grammer. I meant that the command was simple.
Here is a line. On on one side of the line is NOT eating of the forbidden tree. On the other side of the line is EATING of the forbidden tree. Adam's instructions were to stay on the side of not eating of the tree.
Whatever else Adam did made no difference. He could sing about the tree. He could dream about the tree, talk about the tree, write a make up stories about the tree, watch the tree, etc. whatever. AS LONG as he did not EAT of the tree Adam remained innocent.
That much was simple. Paul writes of this simplicity in this way:
"But I fear least somehow, as the serpent deceivd Eve by his craftiness, your thoughts would be corrupted from the simplicity and purity toward Christ." (2 Cor. 11:3)
The Apostle makes clear that the simplicity of devotion can be lost in the cunning craftiness aimed at the thought life, to entice man away from the obedience of love and trust of God.
"[T]he simplicity of devotion" is what I mean by a child understanding what was permissible and what was not for Adam. I do not mean that the conseqwences of disobedience were not profound. Nor even that the obedience to the command had profound significance. Each of these clearly did have extraordinarly profound consequences. But what Adam and his wife's action's were prescribed concerning the tree and all the trees, including the tree of life, were a matter of simplicity.
Parents {or, a parent} cannot simply rely on what they "tell" their children. Words have little to no meaning without some kind of experience to further emphasize their actual, real-time, meaning. Many, if not most, parents know this when it comes to their children. It is based on this reasoning that such parents go the extra step and "child-proof" their house; matches are kept out of reach of the child, drain cleaner is kept out of reach, electrical sockets are capped, sharp instruments are kept out of reach, and so forth.
It is difficult for me to put myself completely in the place of Adam in this record. He was a perfect created human being. Surely, his mind was marvelous. He was able to name who know how many animals. And their names were significant.
Adam was no dummy. Eve his wife - a perfect created female, was most likely brilliant by our standards also. They were the first human beings and God said that all that He made was "very good." (Gen.1:31).
Just how much Adam understood is hard for me to know. Probably, the first created man understood the proprieties of human life mmuch better than we do. At any rate they were the first humans, undamaged as of yet by the corruption of sin.
We may never know what exactly it was like to be in that innocent and neutral position. But we know that the first couple moved from the standing of being innocent and neutral between Divine Life and the knowledge of good and evil, to a position of being at enmity with God and enslaved to sin.
Today, we read on this side of Eden as those who have been poisoned by this knowledge of good and evil. We read from the position of the fallen human race. How much Adam was aware of is hard to detect.
The Apostle Paul does say that Eve was deceived but Adam sinned deliberatly. And the greater of the weight of responsibility seems to be placed on the man by the apostle.
This brings us back to the "command(s)" issued in Gen. 2:16 & 17. At the time God the "command(s)" it is the "tree" that possesses the knowledge of good and evil/right and wrong/benefit and calamity. The human archetype, "ha>adam", does not possess this knowledge. These "commands" are not so simple that a "toddler" or "child" can grasp what is being said.
I see one command there. I don't know why you think it was not a simple one.
Here is a line. You are to stay on this side of the line. Do not go over to the other side of the line. What is the line? The line concerns your action towards the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Don't eat of it.
All the other trees are for your eating. Especially the tree of life which is also into the middle of the garden.
I don't know why the command or if you wish command(s) are not simple. And Paul said that the thoughts could be corrupted from the simplicity of devotion towards Christ (in this case of Genesis, Christ pre-incarnated as God).
At one time I was not clear about whether these were physical trees. And I do not pretend to understand everything about them if they were. However, elsewhere in the Bible God placed considerable spiritual significance to physical objects. For example, the ark of the covenant. How the priests and the people of Israel related to that material ark of the covenant was not insignificant. To touch it in the wrong way caused someone to die.
Only the priests were to carry it about. Not only thier hearts had to be right towards God who designed it. But their hands had to be right in their handling it.
In the same manner, I now believe that these two trees - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - had profound consequences associated with them physically depending upon how Adam and Eve related to them.
The knowledge of good and evil was something that God possessed.
" And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ... (Gen. 4:22a)
This was an attribute of God Himself. But only God is self existing, eternal, totally autonomous and non-contingent. He is the ever existing and self existing ground of being.
The error of Adam and Eve was to rebel against dependence on God and to seek independence from God.
And though I suspect that you may join the group of people who erroneously do not realize that God's enemy Satan was involved in this matter - Adam and Eve stepped under the authrority of Satan. They entered into his kingodm. They were infested with him and attached to him.
In eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man became joined to Satan. Man became "Satanified."
Man was meant to be "sonized" - "organically joined and mingled with God through the tree of life. Instead of being joined to God in a mingled way, man became mingled with Satan.
More can be said about this latter.
But what I would really like to emphasize is the there was a line. Adam was to remain on one side of the line. As long as he remained on the right side of the line he was not guilty.
How much morality and whatnot Adam had on this proper side of the line is not the point. As long as he did not eat of the tree that God forbade him to eat he was innocent. His eating of it constituted him not only guilty but also poisoned. A foriegn element entered into man. The evil spirit began to operate in man's being as the Apostle tells us.
The spirit that now operates is the evil authority of the air driving man against the better knowledge of his good conscience:
"And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, in which you once walked according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience ..." (Eph. 2:1,2)
This operating spirit is a ruler, an evil ruler. He is Satan. And he was the serpent who enticed the first humans to join him in his ancient rebellion against God.
The rest of the Bible is about how the faithful God delivers man with His power and absolves man with His redemption. He bring man back to the life of God that man may be filled with God, having the Satanic nature dealt with through Christ's extensive salvation.
We do not today look for a garden or a tree of life in that ancient sense. To day we come to Jesus Christ for the life of God.
The only other place in the entire Heb. O.T. where the clause "tob vara0" is used is in Deuteronomy 1:39, and there the clause "to not know tob vara0" denotes "doddlers and children" who do "not know good and evil/right and wrong/benefit and calamity".
Therefore, according to the Heb. Eden Narrative it certainly appears as though the human archetype, "ha>adam", would fall into the category of being a child who does not know good and evil, right and wrong, or benefit and calamity. It is the "tree" that possesses this knowledge at the time the "command(s)" are issued.
I have no other comment at this time. But the reference to Deuteronomy is interesting. Maybe I'll repond latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by autumnman, posted 03-04-2008 12:29 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 10:56 AM jaywill has replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 84 of 305 (459273)
03-05-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by jaywill
03-05-2008 1:15 AM


Re: Heb. tense
jaywill: you state;
God taught Adam how to speak human language. There was no one else to teach him that. And as far as we know the command came to Adam in the way of spoken words rather than written ones.
Where in the Heb. Eden Narrative does the author ever mention "God teaching Adam to speak human language"? I guess God taught "the serpent of the field" to speak human language also. Boy, did God ever make a terrible error in judgement there. If God had not taught the snake to speak human language you and I would have never come into existence. "Adam and Eve" would have remained immortal {or with access to immortality} the garden would have soon become over populated with humans {all that go forth and multiply stuff God said}, and all those humans would have polluted the garden with their refuse {apples, plumbs, oranges, ect.} and God's paradise would have become one big human cesspool. No one would have ever made it to earth, to go forth and multiply, and if they did, their immortality would have soon caused earth to become another festering human cesspool.
Even today, with mortality as part of our experience, human beings are over populating planet earth and turning it into a festering human cesspool.
Your superstition apparently does not allow you to project context and fact into any part of your interpretation of the biblical creation account(s). If God "blesses the humans" and then tells them to "go forth and multiply and fill the earth {not the garden} and these humans are immortal, or have access to immortality, God is making a very big mistake. That is a fact. Furthermore, "Adam" does not go back "to the ground from which he was taken" until after "The Fall". Perhaps being denied access to "the tree of life" and immortality, was God's way of "blessing" the humans with mortality?
In my next post I'll address the simple "command(s)" and we can talk about them as well.
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 1:15 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 1:21 PM autumnman has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 85 of 305 (459279)
03-05-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by autumnman
03-05-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Heb. tense
Where in the Heb. Eden Narrative does the author ever mention "God teaching Adam to speak human language"?
Genesis does not specifically tell us that. I am assuming that. Is there some other passage stating otherwise that you'd like to draw my attention to?
I guess God taught "the serpent of the field" to speak human language also.
This account is mysterious. However the being either behind the serpent or who was utlizing the serpent or who was the serpent, learned to speak from his Creator also. Genesis does not specifically say that. I think it is a reasonable assumption.
Boy, did God ever make a terrible error in judgement there.
This is the opinion of your attitude that you don't like the way God did some things, if He did them. This is just you saying, that you don't like the way God governed His affairs.
It could be that your charge of God's "error in judgment" just reflects your own misuse of the knowledge of good and evil. It is a fact that we get mixed up sometimes and take evil for good and good for evil.
The old saying is:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
If God had not taught the snake to speak human language you and I would have never come into existence.
I don't see how that follows. Eve was given the name Eve because she was the mother of all living [people] that is.
I think we have Eve to thank for our existence not the serpent. Of course Eve needed the help of her husband. And both in turn relied on thier Creator to have brought them into being.
I don't see the serpent in any way responsible for the basic existence of any human who was born.
"Adam and Eve" would have remained immortal {or with access to immortality} the garden would have soon become over populated with humans
That is one possiblity. But to assume that I would have to surmise that God was not too smart. Since I think His wisdom, knowleddge, and understanding are without limit, I assume there were plans that we may not know of, which were on the horizon.
I believe that the whole universe was created for God's purpose. A fully cooperative Adam could request of God whatever was needed for the establishing of God's purpose. Afterall it was God's mandate. He should be able, with Adam's deputy authority, to fulfill the divine plan.
Though I concede some unknowns about how the situation would have been handled, it is hard for me to imagine that an eternal uncreated Creator of infinite wisdom would have overlooked such things.
In the New Testament we can see the great allowance God grants to those who are one with Him:
"If you abide in Me and My words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you." (John 15:7)
"Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be made full." (John 16:24)
We should never under estimate the power of the team of God and His cooperative and harmonious people. We see in the book of Joshua to what extent God assisted the Hebrews as they cooperatively worked along with God for the fulfillment of His plans.
Did you not notice that the the Creator even went SO far as to cause the SUN to standstill and the MOON to remain in its place. Now you have to admit, that is some real divine assistance!
The message should be clear to the Bible reader -where God secures for Himself a cooperative people who are in one accord with His heart's desire, He can and will go to encredible lengths to assist them. After all, they are only doing what He Himself requested of them.
Now only does the New Testament show that God is eager to assist His people who are in one accord with Him. In the Old Testament too we see God instructing His people not only to ASK Him for things but COMMAND Him for things:
Thus says Jehovah, The Holy One of Israel and the One who formed him,
Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And concerning the work of My hands, COMMAND Me. (Isaiah 45:11, my emphasis)
For some reason we always tend to do our reasoning without taking the faithfulness and power of God into account. The problem that you site, I don't think is an obstacle for the the divine team of the all-powerful God and a subject and cooperative creature man.
The power of this coordination is witnessed in many instances in the Bible, both New and Old Testaments.
{all that go forth and multiply stuff God said}, and all those humans would have polluted the garden with their refuse {apples, plumbs, oranges, ect.}
Cute stuff. You grilled me about where it says God taught Adam to speak. Now in turn please point out any mention of either apples, plumbs, or oranges in the text.
I think your tone here is really "The account of Genesis is ridiculous." Well, I don't think it is ridiculous.
And it seems perculiar to me that if the same writer also wrote the other four books which are traditionally attributed to him, that is Moses, he certainly was no dummy. The discription of the tabernacle with all of its measurements practicelly parallels the details of some modern operating systems. The writer had a incredible eye and recall of techincal details. This is seen in Exodus and Leviticus.
So it is hard for me to dismiss Genesis as ridiculous or the product of a foolish and uninformed mind, albeit there are some unusual things recorded there.
and God's paradise would have become one big human cesspool.
Your reasoning on THIS side of the fall of man. You're applying your post fall scenario onto a pre-fall contract the success of which we could hardly imagine.
Of course we can look to the latter books of the Bible to get an idea of how powerful this divine and human coordination will be in eternity when God restores the proper relationship with the saved ones:
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the coming glory to be revealed upon us.
For the anxious watching of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it.
In hope that the creation itself will be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now. And not only so, but we ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, eagerly awaiting sonship, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:18-23)
In a nutshell, when God and man are in harmony the whole creation of nature is lined up favorably for the execution of His eternal purpose. In fact the creation is await for the people of God to be headed up in God first that they (all creation) may be released from corruption and vanity.
This is hard to take for a generation raised to believe that we are second hand accidents on a second rate planet circling a second rate star which eventually must burn out - no purpose, no goal, no direction, and no hope other than to perhaps blow ourselves up with weopons of mutually assured destruction.
Don't under estimate the success of God plus a people in harmony and coordination with Him in one accord with His eternal purpose.
No one would have ever made it to earth, to go forth and multiply, and if they did, their immortality would have soon caused earth to become another festering human cesspool.
You're looking on what the rebellion of Adam has wrought and accusing God of planning the same things.
I can't take your too criticism seriously.
Even today, with mortality as part of our experience, human beings are over populating planet earth and turning it into a festering human cesspool.
The universe is a big place. And eternity is a long time. If we do not know what was on page 1,000 of the divine blueprint, it does not mean that there was no plan.
You mentioned the little baby before not being given more than it could handle. Why not apply that principle now. The multiplying and subdueing of the earth could have only been the beginning.
We do know that created man is itching within to explore other worlds. And your tax dollars are going to fund such possibilties. Is that desire within man altogether not a part of his creative makeup?
I don't know how this or that problem would have been handled. I trust that it was not overlooked when God made His plans before creating the universe and man in it to have His image and His dominion over His work.
Your superstition apparently does not allow you to project context and fact into any part of your interpretation of the biblical creation account(s). If God "blesses the humans" and then tells them to "go forth and multiply and fill the earth {not the garden} and these humans are immortal,
I've been reading and studying the Bible for over 30 years. If you think stuff like you mention has never crossed my mind, you insult my intelligence.
I have thought about things like that apart from needing a sassy skeptic like you bring it to my attention, thankyou.
Now you go and meditate a little on this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1)
Is anything too hard for God? I think He'll do what He needs to do. And I think the authority and power which enables Him to create a universe out of NOTHING speaks for His ability and wisdom to govern it.
I guess you didn't catch it when the Apostle Paul wrote:
"But as it is written, Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard and which have not come up in man's heart; things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9)
This verse applies specifically to the redemptive work of Jesus the Son of God. But I think we can borrow it and apply it to His whole eternal purpose. For we are told that God is able to do far exceedingly above all that we ask or think.
But to Him who is able to do super abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power which operates in us ..." (Ephesians 3:20)
The other thing which you are not taking into account is what would have developed had Adam eaten of the tree of life. For sure it was more than just a tree to keep him living.
I believe in light of the rest of Scripture that God's eternal plan was to dispense the divine and uncreated life of God into Adam. This means that God would live in Adam to produce a mingling of divinity and humanity - a God-man.
Adam was too eat of the tree of life. He was already marvelous as a creation of God. Had he eaten of the tree of life mankind would have been even more marvelous. This tree represented God's life. This represented God Himself in His ability to live within and in organic union with man such that God and man move and act as one.
If you want to see what this divine / human entity would look like you must study every aspect of the Lord Jesus Christ - God incarnate as a man. Christ is what God meant by Man.
He is called in the New Testament the Second Man. He is called the last Adam. He is the head of a new race of divinized and deified humans by way of the process of His salvation.
I think you should keep reading the Bible patiently, all the way through.
or have access to immortality, God is making a very big mistake. That is a fact. Furthermore, "Adam" does not go back "to the ground from which he was taken" until after "The Fall". Perhaps being denied access to "the tree of life" and immortality, was God's way of "blessing" the humans with mortality?
Where does he go then? He died. He turned to dust. At least his material being turned back into the ground.
Where do you read something else happened to him?
In my next post I'll address the simple "command(s)" and we can talk about them as well.
Ger
Okay.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 10:56 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 4:40 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 87 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 7:48 PM jaywill has replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 86 of 305 (459289)
03-05-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jaywill
03-05-2008 1:21 PM


From N.T. to the O.T. command(s)-Eden
Jaywill:
Since you insist on bringing into the discussion the divine aptitude of the New Testament it appears as though the N.T. must be addressed. Believe it or not, we will end up at the Heb. Eden Narrative and the divine “command(s)” since Paul plants the Christian Cross squarely in the middle of the Garden of God {Romans 5:12-14).
To begin with, as far as we know your Lord Jesus Christ never wrote down anything himself. His divine secretaries/stenographers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did all the writing after Jesus had died for “Adam’s” sin and our sins. Then, after these four, we must rely upon Paul, Timothy, Peter, John, Jude, and another John to help us fully grasp what Jesus actually meant {at least what he meant according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the 4 Gospels).
In Roman’s 5:12 Paul writes:
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (KJV).
Since everyone on planet earth was in fact mortal {i.e. subject to death} at the time Paul wrote the above passage - and most were not only mortal, but illiterate and superstitious as well - there were few if any who could argue the point he was making. He was claiming that a human-like being, “Adam”, brought mortality and sin into the natural human world. God did not create or make any aspect of natural human life; natural human life was created or made by “Adam” disobeying God’s command. Paul also states that the only way out of the natural human life of death and sin that “Adam” had created was by embracing Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior.
To paraphrase: Because you are mortal and you die that is proof that you are a sinner and are rejected by God. The only way - The Only Way - to rectify this loathsome, natural state of being is to take me, Paul, at my word and take Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That is to say, “Become a Christian.” If you don’t, well, then you will die a sinner and will be damned. As Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16, KJV).
The N.T. canon was decided upon at Nicaea in early June of 325 A.D. It was the Nicene Creed, decided upon by the international council of bishops who were convened by Emperor Constantine of Rome that canonized the twenty-seven writings that became the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
So, let’s take Paul’s assertion in Roman’s 5:12 and what is written in Mark 16:16, and see how that works for the Holy Roman Empire. Everyone is mortal at the time of the Holy Roman Empire. The Roman Empire wants to conquer the natural, mortal world of man. Now, with the N.T. and Christ on their side - Christ being God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made - the task of conquering the natural mortal world of man just became a whole lot easier, and easier to justify. The Holy Roman Empire is now doing Christ’s {God’s} divine work. How convenient; because human beings are mortal they are sinners, and unless they take the Roman Empire’s Jesus Christ as their savior they are damned. Well, those who insist on remaining sinners are damned anyway so getting them out of the gene pool is not only doing God’s work, but is working out quite well for the Holy Roman Empire.
Is it any wonder that the symbol of the Holy Christians happens to be “the zulon= gallows, the starous=cross, the 0etz=tree of capital punishment.”
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree (KJV).
1st Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree . (KJV)
Yes, the “cross/gallows” is called a zulon=tree in Greek, and 0etz=tree in Hebrew. Now let’s look at the command of prohibition in Gen. 2:17;
17. ume0etz=but from tree hada0ath=the knowledge tob=moral right vara0=and moral wrong lo>=not tho>kal=you eat/taste/partake mimenu=from a portion of it kiy=for beyom=at the time >akalka=you eat/taste/partake mimenu=from a protion of it moth thamuth=you will die a violent death by human moral judgment.
The repetitive verbal clause at the conclusion of Gen. 2:17 is moth thamuth; it is never used to merely denote “natural death.” Never.
The repetitive verbal clause moth thamuth in direct relation to the 0etz=tree of knowledge defines the 0etz=tree as being the zulon=gallows, the starous=cross, that is, the tree of capital punishment. This is the symbol of the Holy Roman Empire that is at this very moment continuing to conquer the world of man through the Holy Christian movement. The stones of the Holy Roman Empire may well have crumbled, but the attitudes and aspirations of the Holy Roman Empire have only increased in power and authority.
The Christian symbol of the 0etz=cross does not symbolize redemption or salvation. The Christian symbol of the 0etz=cross denotes “moral judgment.” Therefore, “Judge not” has been lost to Christian ears.
I look forward to your reply. And, I will reply to your latest post in a short while.
Regards;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 1:21 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 8:46 PM autumnman has replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 87 of 305 (459312)
03-05-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jaywill
03-05-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Heb. tense
jaywill
I don't see how that follows. Eve was given the name Eve because she was the mother of all living [people] that is.
If you recall, or reread, "Eve" is given her "name" after "The Fall."
I don't see the serpent in any way responsible for the basic existence of any human who was born.
See above.
Though I concede some unknowns about how the situation would have been handled, it is hard for me to imagine that an eternal uncreated Creator of infinite wisdom would have overlooked such things.
It never even enters your mind that your bible's translation and/or interpretation of the Hebrew Text may be lacking. After 30 years I am surprised that has not occurred to you.
Did you not notice that the the Creator even went SO far as to cause the SUN to standstill and the MOON to remain in its place. Now you have to admit, that is some real divine assistance!
That is ancient mythology. In the real universe the earth revolves around the sun and as the earth spins the sun appears and disappears from various aspects of the earth. To stop the sun in the sky would mean to stop the earth from spinning, and that would mean the end of real life on planet earth ... in the real universe. God not man created this reality, the reality that is. I'm not questioning God I'm questioning your English Bible and your interpretation of it.
Cute stuff. You grilled me about where it says God taught Adam to speak. Now in turn please point out any mention of either apples, plumbs, or oranges in the text.
It is your interpretation of Gen. 2:9 & 16. According to you there are "trees good for food" in the garden along with "the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". "Trees good for food" would be fruit-bearing trees; Right? Well, apples, plumbs, and oranges happen to be the fruit of some "trees." According to you in Gen. 2:16 God commands Adam, saying "From every tree {or all trees} of the garden you shall/must eat." And, in Gen. 3:2 the woman tells the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden" (KJV). You figure it out. You are talking about real eatable fruit, aren't you?
You're looking on what the rebellion of Adam has wrought and accusing God of planning the same things.
I can't take your too criticism seriously.
Adam did not rebell. Adam was tricked; not by Eve, but by the serpent of the field that God taught human speech to. Do the math. Read the English Text. We'll get around to the Hebrew when we get some kind of coherent context established in the English translation.
A lot of things do not mesh in the English translation of the Heb. Eden Narrative. God did not leave things out or expect us to understand what cannot be comprehended by our little human brains. Something rather important is being conveyed in the Heb. Eden Narrative, and the English translations are not giving us access to it. I have no problem with God and his wisdom and power. I have a problem with the lacking translations of His Word. See my point?
I'll wait before continuing.
Regards;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 1:21 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jaywill, posted 03-06-2008 7:54 AM autumnman has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 88 of 305 (459321)
03-05-2008 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by autumnman
03-05-2008 4:40 PM


Re: From N.T. to the O.T. command(s)-Eden
Since you insist on bringing into the discussion the divine aptitude of the New Testament it appears as though the N.T. must be addressed. Believe it or not, we will end up at the Heb. Eden Narrative and the divine “command(s)” since Paul plants the Christian Cross squarely in the middle of the Garden of God {Romans 5:12-14).
Firstly, in verses 12 through 14 of Romans chapter 5 "cross" is not mentioned at all. I would agree that verse 15 commences a teaching about justification and redemption. Your equating this to "the cross" is your idea.
Actually the cross in the majority of verses in the New Testament is connected with denying of the self and terminating of the old nature much more than it is with the redeeming blood for man's redemption.
A great many Christian hymns connect the cross with the redeeming blood. However, proper Bible students look primarily not to the popular hymns of Christians for theology but firstly to the text of the New Testament.
So planting of "the cross" in the garden is your own idea. Not only is the cross not mentioned in verses 12 through 14. But the cross is not mentioned in the entire chapter of Romans 5! The cross is usually mentioned in the New Testament in relation to denying the self rather than blood sacrifice.
Now we come to the matter of redemption which is spoken of in reference to what happened in the garden. But I would draw your attention to the extremely strong hint that God Himself through the writer of Genesis symbolizes redemption in Genesis chapter 4.
And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them. (Gen. 4:21)
We need to appreciate the scene here. Here are Adam and his wife now trembling before God and ashamed before each other. They have covered their nakedness with leaves (3:7):
And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen. 3:7)
Not only were they desireous to cover the shame of thier newly discovered nakedness but they were also expecting to die. Instead of God killing them on the spot God kills a cattle. Here they are expecting to die and they witness instead God slaying an animal. Probably they thought to themselves that that was what should be happening to them.
The covering of the animal/s, their coat, was removed and provided as a more adaquate covering for Adam and Eve. This was a type of the redemption of Christ. A substitute was slain and became their covering. The type was the slain animal of Genesis 4:21. And the reality of the reality, the antitype was to come in latter years as the slain Son of God. For through His death and resurrection He becomes the righteous justification of the sinner before God.
The main thing here is that this is Genesis itself providing this window into God's plan of redemption and not Paul's writing. Paul merely develops upon the type in his Roman letter.
And the type of the redemption of Christ seen in the slaying and skinning of the cattle is more secured by the Apostle John's word that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world:
" ... written in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8b)
Peter also assures us that Christ and His redemptive act were foreknown by god before the foundation of the world:
" ... you were redeemed ... with precious blood, as of a Lamb without spot, [the blood] of Christ; Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last of times for your sake ..." (See 1 Peter 1:18-19)
To begin with, as far as we know your Lord Jesus Christ never wrote down anything himself. His divine secretaries/stenographers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did all the writing after Jesus had died for “Adam’s” sin and our sins. Then, after these four, we must rely upon Paul, Timothy, Peter, John, Jude, and another John to help us fully grasp what Jesus actually meant {at least what he meant according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the 4 Gospels).
I don't know what the purpose of this paragraph is other than a innuendo that the message of Jesus was lost and that the apostles can not be trusted. My time is limited tonight so I think I will not devote too much time to this innuendo.
However, Jesus not only died but rose from the dead. And He sent the Holy Spirit which He promised would not only guide the disciples into all the truth but would also remind them of the things He taught:
"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and remind you of all the things which I have said to you." (John 14:26)
We needn't fear that the message was lost. Not only the impact of the life, words, deeds, death, and resurection made a lasting impression on the disciples. But the Holy Spirit, after His resurrection and ascension, came to the disciples to teach them, guide them, and remind them of the things which Christ taught.
In Roman’s 5:12 Paul writes:
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (KJV).
Since everyone on planet earth was in fact mortal {i.e. subject to death} at the time Paul wrote the above passage - and most were not only mortal, but illiterate and superstitious as well - there were few if any who could argue the point he was making.
I don't think those who were contemporaries of Paul had any problem debating or contradicting his teaching. They may have been wrong. But they had plenty of arguments. This is evidenced by the tone of his letters in which he wrestles with the various Jewish opposers, Judiazers, false apostles, and false brethren who were in competition with him.
It is also evidenced by the book of Acts where the Jews enlisted a learned orator to contradict Paul in court. The picture of an intirely uninformed and ignorant audience unable to go toe to toe with Paul in intellectual debate seems to be from your own imagination rather than the historical data recorded.
He was claiming that a human-like being, “Adam”, brought mortality and sin into the natural human world. God did not create or make any aspect of natural human life;
This doesn't agree with the Old Testament, let alone the New.
It is more like you have a radio which has been tossed into the gutter. Instead of nice music programming it is broken and plays static. It is nonetheless still a radio though damaged.
There are some things in man which were good and which STILL are good. Man is fallen though. His being fallen did not altogether make him NOT God's creation. After the sin of Adam the Bible still informs us that God created man. And man is still in the image of God.
"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, For in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6)
Now I have been speaking of the fall of man. Actually there was about four falls of man. Genesis marks some important milestones in which the human race took another slide downward into degredation. It is the sin of Adam and his expulsion from Eden which constitutes the first of a number of falls.
Secondly, I already showed you that Genesis itself informs us long before Paul wrote, that the humans began to die ... "and he died ... and he died .... and he died ..." It is easy for us to overlook these pronouncements because we have lived for thousands of years with death. Well, of course he died. We all die.
But coming to Genesis as a essential history of the beginnings of the human race it is significant that the writer points out to us, that so as God promised would happened, it DID, and that repeatedly. They all died.
Paul merely picks up on what he read in Genesis.
Now, that death is a kind of judgment upon man is also not the invention of Paul. We can see that mortality is a manifestation of God's anger upon human generations in the 90th Psalm:
"Indeed from eternity to eternity You are God. You return man to dust and say Return, you sons of men ... You sweep them away as with a rain flood; they are as in a sleeo. In the morning they are like grass that comes up anew. In the morning it flourishes and comes up anew. In the evening it is cut down, and it dries up.
For we have been consumed by Your anger, And by Your wrath we have been troubled. You have set our iniquites before You, Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance.
For all our days have passed away in Your overflowing wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh." (See Psalm 90:3-9)
So long before Paul wrote Romans the Psalmist mused that all dying people are abiding under the overflowing anger of God because of our sins. Our pride is laid low. Without His salvation we fair no better than the grass of the field - here today, gone tomorrow.
natural human life was created or made by “Adam” disobeying God’s command. Paul also states that the only way out of the natural human life of death and sin that “Adam” had created was by embracing Jesus Christ as one’s Lord and Savior.
Christ is not only the Savior. He is the Head of a new humanity. He is called "the second man". He is called "the last Adam".
"[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
This means that not only His redemption on the cross redeems man. But He Himself has been transfigured into a form in which He can enter into man and give man a divine and victorious life that can overcome the sin nature. He became a life giving Spirit. And the life that He gives is the life of God. It is the life of God mingled with humanity to produce a new generation of men and women united with God.
The redemption and the justification are not ends in themselves. They are a means to bring man back to life, eternal life, the divine life. Now it is the Spirit of the resurrected Christ Himself as a NEW ADAM so to speak, a new head of a new race. The last Adam Jesus Christ has become a life giving God imparting Spirit.
To paraphrase: Because you are mortal and you die that is proof that you are a sinner and are rejected by God. The only way - The Only Way - to rectify this loathsome, natural state of being is to take me, Paul, at my word and take Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That is to say, “Become a Christian.” If you don’t, well, then you will die a sinner and will be damned. As Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16, KJV).
I have to shorten my writing at this time. But you should know that death is the enemy of God. I believe that God hates death more than He hates sin.
It is discribed in the Old Testament as the covering which is upon all mankind which God intends to remove.
"And on this mountain He [God] will swallow up the covering that covers up all the peoples, even the veil that veils all the nations.
And He will swallow up death forever ..." (Isaiah 25:7,8a)
So I think you teachers are teaching you to blame a lot of things on the Apostle Paul when he was merely standing upon the revelation of the Hebrew Bible. Of course the coming of the Son of God and His salvific work was added as further revelation upon this Old Testament foundation.
Further comment will have to wait until latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 4:40 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 10:36 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 90 by autumnman, posted 03-05-2008 10:46 PM jaywill has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 89 of 305 (459334)
03-05-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jaywill
03-05-2008 8:46 PM


Re: From N.T. to the O.T. command(s)-Eden
jaywill: This style of reply does little for either one of us or our respective positions.
Firstly, in verses 12 through 14 of Romans chapter 5 "cross" is not mentioned at all. I would agree that verse 15 commences a teaching about justification and redemption. Your equating this to "the cross" is your idea.
Actually the cross in the majority of verses in the New Testament is connected with denying of the self and terminating of the old nature much more than it is with the redeeming blood for man's redemption.
A great many Christian hymns connect the cross with the redeeming blood. However, proper Bible students look primarily not to the popular hymns of Christians for theology but firstly to the text of the New Testament.
So planting of "the cross" in the garden is your own idea.
Come on. I was employing the Christian symbol "the Cross" to make the point that Paul blames all sin and mortality on Adam in the Garden In Eden according to Romans 5:12.
Please try to have a coherent conversation with me. I know you are an intelligent person, and being intelligent you should be able to make your point in a clear and concise manner. I am keeping my post as short and to the point as I can, and it would be helpful if you could do the same.
If you read my entire post and then reply to what you have read we could have a really wonderful conversation.
Regards;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 8:46 PM jaywill has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 90 of 305 (459336)
03-05-2008 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jaywill
03-05-2008 8:46 PM


Re: From N.T. to the O.T. command(s)-Eden
jaywill:
I have to shorten my writing at this time. But you should know that death is the enemy of God. I believe that God hates death more than He hates sin.
Keeping your writing short and to the point all the time would be really helpful.
Yes, death was the enemy of the Canaanite God >el {El} also. This is really nothing new. However, didn't yhwh God create death? He was the creator of "Everything" wasn't he? Or is "death" something that created itself? I'm not clear on this issue. It is yhwh >elohiym in Gen. 2:17 who first brings the death subject up.
Regards;
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2008 8:46 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by gomisaburo, posted 03-06-2008 2:58 AM autumnman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024