Biblical Translation--Eden

Autumnman,I am sorry if some things cannot be explained in 25 words or less. That is correct. There is an objective existence of Satan outside of man. At the same time he is the spirit that now "operates in the sons of disobedience" meaning the fallen mankind from the disobedient Adam -" ... you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2)The evil spirit is objectively the ruler of the authority of the air. He is in the atmosphere. He is in the vicinity of the planet. On the other hand he is the spirit operating in the fallen sons of disobedience. Their fallen flesh and fallen mind, emotion, and will of man since Adam is the field in which this evil Devil can operate.When Jesus rebuked Peter His disciple as Satan, He was revealing that hidden within Peter's opinion was the operating Satan. Satan can hide out within our opinion. In turning to Peter Jesus addressed Satan the Devil was operating in Peter's suggestion that Jesus should pity Himself and spare Himself from going to the cross.You asked for conciseness. So I tried. Do you understand my concise answer? Do I need to eloborate further to make it clearer ? The cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ Himself -" ... being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the CORNERSTONE (my emphasis in Eph. 2:20)Does this help you on cornerstone of the church question? You are correct in so far as I discribed Paul's teaching that the ruler of the authority of the air is "OPERATING in the sons of disobedience (Epd. 2:2)"The devil indeed has an objective existence apart from man. Yet as some kind of evil parasite he has attached himself to man so that he operates in this man.The New Testament also discribes the Devil as entering into Judas to personally perform his all important evil task of betraying the Son of God -"And at that moment, after the morsel, Satan entered into him [Judas Iscariot]. Jesus therefore said to him, What you do, do quickly." (John 13:27)In one sense we should understand that prior to this moment Satan was outside of Judas. Then at this moment Satan entered into Judas. And Christ addressed Satan within Judas to do what he had to do quickly.So we must understand that all the sons of disobience have Satan as an evil spirit operating in them on one hand. But on the other hand Satan entered into certain people like Judas and perhaps even Peter, to oppose Christ quite subtlely.Part of the New Testament salvation is the nullification of this operating evil spirit within the believers. Man becomes the battlefield in which the Spirit of God is opposing and fighting against the spirit of the devil, to push him back, push him out so that our whole being can be filled with the life giving Spirit which is Christ Himself." ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) That is correct. Christ is exceedingly discerning and wise. He recognized that within Peter's opinion that Jesus should pity Himself and avoid the cross, Satan was hiding out in that opinion to derail God's plan. Just as the Son of God spoke towards a man but addressed Satan working in that man, in the New Testament, so in the Old Testament as well. In two instances (Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28) God is speaking to an earthly ruler but speaks beyond that one to the original Rebel of Satan operating in that one.When you see God speaking to some king in this way in Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 you should remember Jesus ALSO turning to Peter yet speaking to Satan in like manner. This is perceptive of you. But you should consider that in the ancient past before the creation of Adam, this angelic being held a position of great authority which was similar to that which God now assigns to man. Firstly He assigns it to the Son of God Jesus as the Morning Star. And co-ruling with Him are His believers.This why Satan hates man and wants to currupt him. Satan was "fired" and replaced by this dusty creature to whom God said "Let THEM have dominion ..." (emphasis mine)You must see that the ancient Lucifer, a encredibly wise and powerful creature, has been dethroned because of his rebellion against His Creator. God then created man, restored the earth, and placed man as the deputy authority to have dominion instead of the ancient angel.This is the basis for the spiritual war. And today a Man, Christ Jesus, rules and reigns over the ancient rebel. God is now bringing all His enemies under His footstool and preparing His saved ones to be co-reigning with Him.Please read the 8th Psalm. a Psalm about God's creation of the universe and of man. Pay special attention to these words: This means that even the smallest human beings were created by God to defeat His demonic and angelic enemies. To stop the avenger Satan. Satan is full of hatred and revenge because his ancient kingdom was judged and taken away from him leaving him "fired".God created man to deal with this avenging evil Satan, to stop him, and establish God's dominion and kingdom in the creation.Though Adam failed to reach this mandate, we see Jesus as the Head of a new humanity. He has won the victory and also has manifested a foretaste of His rulership over the universe. He did this in His healings, His raising of the dead, His overcoming temptation and sin, and His utter obedience to the Father unto the death of a cross. Finally He manifests His victory in His resurrection and building of His indestructible church. What you are seeing is an Divine Office one held by Lucifer and angel, now turned over to a God-Man - Jesus Christ. You are seeing the replacement of Lucifer as God's deputy authority with Jesus as the Son of God.In a deeper sense what you are seeing is God transcendent over timme- allowing the rebellion of the original morning star Lucifer to be the catalyst for God to accomplish His eternal purpose of dispensing Himself into man that man might reign for God in His creation.All things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose.God's providence and sovereignty over time utilizes the rebellion of Satan to accomplish His eternal purpose to secure a created race mingled and united with God Himself to express Him and reign for Him.This is an excellent time to come BACK now to the tree of life. Because it is vitally related to what you are asking. We have had very long debates about this here.You have to decide what you would call a creature who twists God's words and tells lies concerning God so as to derail God's plans.You will have to decide what you would call a being who would totally spoil the harmonious relationship that existed between the human beings and thier loving Creator.You will have to decide how you would think about a creature who ruins man, implanting into his heart that God is evil and is withholding some blessing from man.You will have to decide what you would call a being who would fill man's heart with suspicion and disobedience toward his Creator, drive the two apart from each other, and lead man from eternal life into sin and death.As for me, I not only know that such a creature is the very embodiment of evil but the Bible itself plainly informs us : The "ancient serpent" i.e. the one who was also in the Garden in Genesis, "is called the Devil and Satan". He has deceived the entire inhabited earth. And he has angels.There is no question whatsoever in my mind that we should identify the serpent in Genesis as or certainly with Satan the Devil. YOU say that my approach is mythical. Frankly, since I have been talking with you I see you attempting to highlight passages which you think will be embaressing or difficult for me to address.When I do do a thorough job to answer you you complain that its too much reading for you to do. You want tangled knots to be untangled in 25 words or less.If you do not appreciate the more careful treatment others reading along may. You have no idea to what degree I anticipate your arguments. I can see your arguments coming from a mile away.So I deal not only with your errors but also the anticipated objections and additional errors waiting in the wings. This sometimes mean my answers do not come out in 25 words. The book of Revelation plainly tells us that it communicates to us "by signs" (1:1)So there is the sign in Revelation 12 pointing to Satan. Your reference to Ugaritic/ Canaanite mythology are not important to me. They may be mildly interesting but not crucial for a number of reasons.1.) Early man had in their collective memory the ancient past as it was handed down to them. They made adjustments many times to meet their more local and cultural needs. Therefore similirities in Flood stories, Creation stories, or other biblical events do not prove that the prophets derived these tales from the mythologies of other cultures.They could be a demonstration that the facts as recorded in the Bible had their various embellishments as they were passed along down through the cultures of the early human societies.The questions is "WHO COPIED WHO?"2.) Skeptics utilize similarities in symbolism in the Bible to negate the overall message of the Bible. And this is what you are learning to do.Oh, this in the Bible reminds me of this other thing over here with this other belief. Therefore I do not have to take the Bible seriously because it is a copycat product of benigh and unconsequential myths of many cultures.This is just your attempt to dull the impact of the Bible's demand on your repentence and submission to God. It is your rational to disregard your need to be saved as the Bible states. Paul in the book of Acts quotes some of the heathen poets to underscore his preaching of the gospel.So if symbols common to the mythologies of some nations are alluded to this does not negate the message of truth which they are called upon to poetically support. I will have to review the passage that you refer to. However, poetry and symbolism have been used to point to God's overall defeat of the evil Satan since he is an author of a chaotic disturbance in the divine plan.You have to know when poetry is being used and when history us being recounted. This takes time. And it is not readily approachable to those who are eager to see everything in only ONE way in order to justify some a prior attitude, particluarly a skeptical one anxious to "debunk" as it were, the oracles of God. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill:The spiritual warfare senario you painted with your reply is actually the manner in which you perceive the existence of humanity on planet earth. I see that. Furthermore, I comprehend that you peceive yourself and one of the "good guys" in this spiritual warfare senario. Although I would not change places with you under any circumstances, I can say that I respect your right to believe anything you wish.You state: But then you say: So, Satan was trying to talk Jesus out of going to the cross because that would derail God's plan which was to have Jesus die on the cross.Am I hearing you correctly? It was God NOT Satan who desired Jesus to die on the cross, right?Then you state: So here, it appears as though God is using Satan/the devil to insure that Jesus would be captured and killed on the cross. And yet, Judas the man is the one everyone regards as the treacherous traitor when in fact it was the devil as directed by God who actually betrayed Jesus.Did I get that right? If I did get it right, or even close, you may want to rethink and reexamine the "serpent of the field which God made" in Gen. 2:19 & chapter 3. Tell me if the "serpent" was ever exiled from the Garden In Eden like the humans or if the "serpent" was never exiled from the Garden In Eden.Thanks so much for you wonderful reply.Regards,
Ger

I coonsider myself firstly a sinner saved by grace. Apart from Christ as my righteousness I am only good for damnation.But by the mercy of God I have been called "into His eternal glory in Christ Jesus" (1 Peter 5:10). I never intended to be. As C.S. Lewis put it, to speak of me searching for God was the same as speaking of a mouse in search of a cat.But He had mercy and gave me the ability to believe. And He brought me into His economy with many others. My goodness is Christ alone. The amazing thing is that it is like on the outside of the door is a sign that says "Whosover Believes" but once you come in into the inside you turn around and the sign says "Chosen Before the Foundation of the World"On the outside as an unbeliever it seemed very much that the choice was mine. But the more I progress spiritually as a believer the more I see that everything in my life was leading me to Christ.I still have every right to keep praying for you. Peter's Satanic suggestion was that Jesus would pity Himself and spare Himself from doing the will of God in an absolute way. The mind of Jesus was on the things of God and God's priorities, His will and His eternal plan of redemption. The mind of Peter was on the things of man. Man from the fall is ever in rebellion against God.Christ perceived that it was not Peter but Satan who was frustrating Him from doing the will of the Father in an absolute way. In this case that will of the Father was for Him to take the cross. Had the will of the Father been for Jesus to avoid the cross then He would have perceived that to die on it would have been contrary to the Father's will also.He said "Not my will be done but Yours." Whatever the will of the Father was that is what He had to do in an absolute way.Now is the time for you to remember that the forbidden tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was not only of evil. It was of good and evil. Man's knowledge of good can be just as much a revolt against the will of God as man's knowledge of evil.Peter's suggestion the Jesus would avoid the cross may seem to us as one of the most noble ideas man could imagine. Why should a man like Jesus be murdered? We should strive to keep Him from execution. But this is the good side of the Satanic tree of the knowledge of good and evil.What Christ had to do was die on the cross to accomplish eternal redemption and fulfill God's plan. He could not spare Himself. And He perceived that Satan was in Peter's opinion that He not be absolute but care for Himself.This absoluteness to the will of the Father is what has caused the Father to exalt the name of Jesus Christ above every name in the universe. It is based on this absolutness that He has been established as Lord and Christ. Do you know that EVERY knee will one day bow? And EVERY tongue will one day confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord?I wish to do so out of love voluntarily because I see what Christ has done for me. But every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. Christ was ordained by God to die on the cross before the foundation of the world by God: But it is important HOW He dies. Satan wanted Him destroyed. Either dying or living Satan wants the Son of God to live and act as the fallen race lives and acts, regardless, full of self centered rebellion against God.God wanted Christ to firstly live the life of the Father and then to die a redeeming death and be resurrected to be our life." ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)Jesus came live the Father's life in humanity and then to die on the cross. Jesus came also to resurrect from the dead to be the Head of a new humanity who is redeemed and "organically" joined to God. This was in His absolute obedience to the Father: Man was created neutral between two sources. One is the Satanic source and the other is the Divine source. These two sources were placed before man in terms of food. Food is something you take into you and becomes a part of you.Man took into him the Satanic source and expresses Satan. The purpose of man is to be filled up with the Divine life and express God as life. Christ is the standard model of the God-man who expresses the life of God in humanity.Satan wanted Jesus to act in SELF, for SELF, unto SELF, for the benefit of SELF, the glory of SELF, and the enjoyment of SELF, to carry out a SELF centered life.Christ was absolute for the Divine Father which lived within Him. He lived by the Father. He did not even live by His perfect humanity. He denied Himself and lived by the Father.In the wilderness Satan tried to get Jesus to turn stones into bread for Himself. He told Jesus that if He were the Son of God He should do so. Again in this instance Jesus rebuked Satan. He perceived the subtly.Jesus came to be absolute for the will of the Father and not to preserve the SELF. He left His vindication up to the Father. And the Father has vindicated Him not only by resurrection but by enthronement as Lord and Christ for eternity.All you really need to grasp in Matthew 16, is that Christ would not let anything distract Him from being absolute for the will of His Father.When Christ was on the cross, STILL there was the temptation to do something for Himself. He would not take the stupifying drink which would dull the pain. He would not fight back though He could have called legions of angels. He would not come down from the cross as His enemies taunted Him to do.In the smallest and most minute attitude hidden in His heart He would not be for SELF. There was no trace of self pity. There was no trace of anger. Paul says that God was stripping away from Him the evil spiritual rulers from trying to get Christ to deviate from His pure devotion to the Father:"Stripping off rulers and the authorities, He made a display of them openly triumphing over them in it" (Col. 2:15)All the forces clinging to this man trying to get Him even in the smallest hidden attitude of the heart, to disobey God, were stripped off. And Christ's death was a great triumph over the fallen Adamic mankind. He alone was absolute to the uttermost for the will of the Father.You couldn't do it. I couldn't do it. Jesus Christ did it for you and I and for the whole world. The serpent should have never been in the garden. Do you know whose job it was to get rid of it? It was Adam's job. He was told to guard the garden.A lying creature is the first thing which Adam should have guarded the garden against. Adam was told to have dominion over:
1.) "over the fish of the sea - Gen. 1:26
2.) "over the birds of heaven - v.26
3.) "over the cattle" - v.26
4.) "over all the earth" v.26
When we come to "all the earth" we should have the sense of finality. All the earth would of course include everything that is in the earth.Curiously God adds a fifth matter in addition to "all the earth". He adds 5.) "and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth". Jesus told His disciples that He gave them authority over scorpions and serpents. These represent demonic powers and the evil angels of Satan.In addition to having dominion over all the earth including its fuish, birds, and cattle, Adam was to tend to this extra matter. That is the creeping things.The serpent in the Garden directly opposing the words of God, deceiving, lying, slandering, was the chief of the creeping things. And Adam was to guard the garden from the creeping liar who came in to slander God. Part of Adam's mandate was to deal with this enemy of God.Do not ask me too much about the physiology of a talking serpent or where it went after Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden. We are told what God deems is critical for us to know.I don't want to give you speculations which are not strictly the word of God. I am trying to highlight the things we are told and interpret them in light of the rest of the Bible.What color the serpent was, how big was its hole, what did it eat, did it fly or have wings, etc. etc. I don;t know these curiosities. And I don't think they are important other than to perhaps tickle some sense of curiosity in us.The serpent has to be assiciated with Satan. That is what the Bible wants us to grasp. And the record of Genesis definitely reads like a seamless historical flow from the garden family to thier descendents. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill:This post of yours, #168, is one bunch of convoluted thought patterns.Where exactly in your Christian scenario did God "bless them and tell them to go forth and multiply and fill the earth?"(Gen. 1:28)You are, I am sure, aware that the Heb. masculine noun >adam actually means "mankind/humanity" and that the form of that Heb. masculine noun which dominates the entire Heb. Eden Text{Gn. 2:4--3:24} is prefixed with the bound morpheme definite article, thus, ha>adam, which is never used to denote a personal name. A personal name cannot take the definite article. That would be like saying, "the Jesus", "the Mark", "the Luke", or "the Adam".But, I am sure you do not want to hear that kind of stuff.So, this "evil" snake is cursed by God while it is still in Eden, saying that this "Eden snake" will now crawl on its belly, stick out its tongue into the dust, and its offspring will be knocked on the head by humans as it essentially bites them on the heel. It will become a "real snake of the field". Since it was a God-created "snake of the field" before being employed by God in Eden, after Eden it again becomes a "snake of the field" once more, and note, "the snake of the field has offspring--its "seed", Gen. 3:15.But wouldn't it actually have enmity between "Adam's seed". This is a patriarchal social unit, right? {see Gen 3:16). Wow, what's going on here?But, again, I'm sure you are told by your belief in your god not to go there. We really don't want to muddy the still waters.Have a good one,
Ger

Oh that is definitely there too. I did not overlook it. I put some emphasis on some other matters, that is all. You do have in the NT "the Christ".I think it is alright to use Adam as a name of the first man. First Chronicles 1:1,2 reads: If you want to read it "[Man], Seth, Enosh, ..." or "[Humanity], Seth, Enosh ..." I have no major objection as long as it is understood that the Bible teaches that there was a FIRST man. But I think it is quite acceptable to recognize the first man by the name Adam.I am also aware that at one point both the man and his wife are refered to as Adam.The Gospel writer Luke also writes - "Jared, the [son] of Maleleel, the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Enosh, the [son] of Seth, the [son] of Adam, the [son] of God" (Luke 3:37,38) We may call the first man by the proper name Adam. Satan was cursed before God restored the earth which was in Gen. 1:2 without form and void. Satan was cursed before the creation of man.That is what is important to know I think. I don't think I will elaborate further on this matter. If you're determined to regard my exposition as foolishness, though I have enjoyed conversing with you, I don't think I'll try to argue about it.Did you have other examples of things which John or Peter taught which you say are absent in the Gospels? I would honestly like to elaborate further. But I have to be considerate of what you are able to receive spiritually. Right now I don't think you are able see anything more in this account. Do I detect a note of contempt for the Christian faith in your remarks?According to the original intent of your discussion, I think in spite of the tid bits of Hebrew Grammer, I see in your ideas nothing to seriously challenge that there were two trees in the garden diametrically opposed in nature.And with the help of the New Testament revelation we can learn many things about God's eternal purpose from this deceptively "simple" account.I'll leave you with Paul's word about the entire history of the Old Testament: If you regard the New Testament as foolishness, it is somewhat futile to try to convince you that God had these things in mind and foreordained the record for the admonition of the new covenant constituents towards the end of the ages.I have long graduated from regarding the Hebrew Bible as scrapes of unrelated and miscellaneous bits of mythology communicating more or less erroneous or irrelevant ideas.These are rather the oracles of God and they need the teaching of the apostles and prophets to enlighten us believers in Christ as to their significance.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.

To Autunman I was very bust last night and today. I promise you I will get to each of these items. There is nothing I love more than discussing these issues. Are we having fun yet or what. We are making sready as I noticed by one of your honest admission. Hold steay and I will get back to you.D Bertot

jaywill: I do not have a faith or a belief in spiritual matters that would keep me from acknowledging a reasonable idea. My heart and mind are not set in any doctrin or tenet of any spiritually oriented sect that would cause me to disregard a rational concept.As yet you have not shared a reasonable idea or rational concept regarding real life {spiritual or physical} on planet earth. All I am getting out of you is regurgitated Sunday school jargon which makes absolutely no sense when one's mental faculty of reason and mental capacity of disbelief are funtional."Christ" is NOT a personal name. Where in Genesis Ch. 1,2,3 does it say that? It does not say that anywhere "bere>shiyth = in the beginning" Ch. 1,2,3. Nowhere "in the beginning" does the text say that Satan was cursed before the creation of man. That, my friend, is a cop-out. The above comment of yours is one that would be expressed by an arrogant, self-righteous, fool. I hope you are NOT that typical style of Christian.And you go on to say: What do you think?I have enjoyed our discussions also, but while I am continuing you appear to be quiting because I am not spiritually enlightened enough to understand.Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : ?

bertot:
Thanks for the heads up. I am looking forward to our continuing exploration of the biblical texts.Regards,
Ger

Well, you did attempt to define history in such a way that acts of God would not qualify. This was a anti-supernatural world view of Spinoza or Hume which would try to rule out God's manifest ability to work a miracle. It was clear the you did not believe, for instance, the ascension of Christ was even admissible to be a arguable historical fact.I think evidence for a historical miracle what the should be considered. There is strong evidence, i.e. that the physical body of Jesus was never paraded by His detractors either from Rome or Judiasm to totally discredit the spread of the Christian Gospel.In fact some of the earliest Christian apologetics we have a record of is not against people who said that Jesus never lived. But it is against people who said Jesus was too good to be a real physical man. Among the earliest debates we see between Christian teachers and opponents of the gospel was whether the man was a phantasm (not physical) or whether he had flesh and blood like the rest of us.The transformation of essentially cowaring disciples to witnesses willing to suffer tortures and death argues that they strongly believed the miracle of resurrection happened. None of the originals seem to be particpating in a cover up, as if to know that what the others were proclaining was false.The Watergate scandel could only endure a cover up of a few weeks before people began to jump ship and testify to save themselves.The original disciples had a lot more to lose besides going to prison. Yet for decades there is no clue of a cover up a exposure of a false report of resurection.Anyway, Christ's birth was predicted hundreds of years before it took place. That miracle of fulfilled prophecy leans strength to the belief that His death and resurrection (also prophesied) actually did take place. I disagree with this. What I shared may not have been typical according to modern standards. However, I find it more an excercise of "faith" to suppress the account in Genesis than to accept it.I think your kind of skepticism of the Bible requires more of a leap of faith than to receive the teaching of the Bible.We human beings know what is right and good to do. Why don't we do it? Do you have an answer for this?How come we have the knowledge of what is good and what is evil but we do not live accordingly?I would accept "I don't know for an answer." But in the mean time we have this book called the Holy Bible. And the integrity of many of its authors is highly regarded. To me the character and integrity of Jesus Christ is without question. And the integrity of the Apostle Paul demands I take his wisdom seriously.Peter also recommdended Paul, the author of the Roman letter which you call into question. In fact Peter, even though he was publically scolded by the younger apostle, humbly regarded Paul's letters on the same level as the inspired Scripture: The man who was arguably the leader among the twelve original disciples recommended Paul's wisdom as manifested in his many letters. Peter admitted that some things in them were hard to understand. Apparently you find some things hard to understand in Romans chapter 5 about Adam and Christ.Peter said that the unstable twisted Paul's teachings as they also do "the rest of Scripture". This is a very notable recommendation of Paul's theology from one of the original 12 disciples, and that from one whom Paul had to publically rebuke.As for me I will regard Paul's exposition of Christ's teaching and of the Old Testament more seriously than your way of thinking about these matters. Many of the things I told I'm pretty sure that you NEVER heard them in Sunday School. So this I regard as something of blatent untruth.I know that quite a number of things you read in my posts you NEVER heard in any Sunday School lesson in your entire life. So don't try to pull that exaggeration on me. It won't work. It doesn't say it in Genesis. But all the pieces to this puzzle are not in Genesis.You should not expect that everything regarding God's plan is mentioned in Genesis. Here and there we have to pick up other pieces of the fuller picture.My ground for saying that Satan was cursed before the Genesis account is in Ezekiel 28:12-19.I will not go into a full exposition of Ezekiel 28:12-19 here now. I have done so in other threads on this forum. But a few points I will mention:1.) God speaking to "the king of Tyre" and addressing the ancient anointed cherub is exactly like Jesus speaking to Peter but addressing Satan in Matt. 16.2.) The Eden in which the anointed cherub was placed must be a pre-Adamic Eden. Nothing in Genesis hints that the Eden of Genesis was shared between Adam and such an anointed cherub created glorious and full of wisdom, perfect in beauty, etc.3.) In some pre-Adamic Eden this Anointed Cherub corrupted his wisdom and was found to have iniquity within."So I cast you out as profane from the mountain of God, and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, ..." (Ezek. 28:16a)This being cast out of the mountain of God (possibly indicating God's government) as profane I take as the cursing of the Anointed Cherub who became Satan in an ancient time before the creation of Adam.So you are correct that the account of this is not in Genesis. However, it is in the revelation of the Bible. We only have to place that piece of the puzzle in the most likely place.No wordly king was ever created perfect from the day he came into existence. And to regard a Gentile king of Tyre as "the anointing Cherub" who covers the ark of God is totally ridiculous.This passage therefore is an instance of "the prophetic past". God is teaching us something about the pre-Adamic rebellion of the Anointed Cherub angelic being who became Satan, the Devil our enemy.He previously had some kind of high kingly and priestly position in an pre-Adamic universe. He was fired. And God created man as His deputy authority not from among angels but out of the dust of the earth - Adam.Another strong indication that Satan was cursed before the account of Adam's creation is in Matthew 25. However, this passage may be arguable if someone could present a plausible case that Satan and his angels came into existence sometime after man was created: I interpet this to indicate that the eternal damnation was prepared for the Devil and his angels even before man became a deceived follower in the Devil's rebellion. That would mean that before Adam sinned the eternal perdition had already been prepared for the Devil and his angels.Rebellious man goes away with his leader - Satan. Believing man goes to enjoy the destiny of his leader Christ and God. For before He dismisses the cursed who have followed the Devil and his angels to revolt against God, it says: The righteous justified by God go into the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world - that would be from the creation of Adam. The cursed go to join the Devil in his angels in the eternal fire prepared for Satan but into which rebellious mankind has unwittingly been deceived to join.Another indication that Satan was cursed before the fall of Adam is the fact that Jesus taught that he has no truth in him and can only speak lies out of his possessions. He is the father of the lie.Since the serpent is seen lying in the Garden and Satan is the father of lying, I must conclude that the curse of God was upon Satan already when the serpent spoke the lie to Adam.Now, you say I am too verbose. Perhaps I am. However, sometimes you say "Well what about this?" so to speak. I did not overlook the "this" but for conciseness sake I did not elaborate on it. - "damned if you do, damned if you don't"But I anticipate an objection something like this:"Well if the serpent was cursed then why did God look upon all that He made in Genesis one and declare it 'very good'?" Are you saying that a cursed creature was in the paradise of God?" How then would I answer this? I have had to consider it myself if I believe that there was an evil spirit around seeking to lie and deceive the first created man. Was that created being whether spirit or serpent very good ?I would answer it by saying that what especially was "very good" (Gen.1:34) was the fact that all creation was under Adam's dominion. That dominion over the lying serpent was relinquished. Satan got the authority over Adam and the curse commenced.It was very good that Adam had dominion OVER the serpent. That dominion over the Devil he lost when he listened to the Satanic suggestion that he revolt against the Divine Command and he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.You will notice that I use Satan and the serpent somewhat interchangeably. I do not pretend to understand everything about this relationship. I will have to admit that there are some unknowns there about details.However, it is clear that Satan is identified either WITH or AS the lying serpent. That is undeniable if you take the Bible as the plenary word of God's revelation. The whole book of the Bible associates the Edenic serpent with Satan.I do not know everything about how this interaction and co-identification played out physically. And to those pressing questions I would say with Moses: I can discuss with you some of the things which God has revealed. Some of the things which are hidden belong to Him. I do not know how to discuss those things which God has hidden.But I would advize you not to take as trivial the things in the Bible which you do not fully understand. I would caution you not to dismiss them. Put them on the back burner and consider how you should respond to the things which God has revealed. Rather than accuse me of coping out why not consider your own attitude?I write something concise and leave out discussion of some details. Then you turn around and say "Where's the place in all you say for thus and such ?"Perhaps you could make up your mind. That might be encouragement that it is profitable for me to labor to give you the best explanations and responses I can.As it stands, if I try to cover all reasonable angles for a better understanding, you accuse me of being convoluted and wordy. So before accusing me of coping out consider yourself - How much do you really want to learn? Oh, I am much worse than you could ever imagine. God has a lot of work to do on me yet.But I notice that when you are solidly corrected I see no admition to that fact. Usually, you jump to another subject. It might be appropriate for you to acknowledge when you've made an error.For example, you never acknowledged the exposed weaknesses of your "one wood - one tree in the Garden".Neither did I see you admit that Paul's teaching in Romans 5 was bult upon things which Jesus DID teach afterall. If you objected, I didn't see any effective counter arguments that Paul was really just making up stuff willy nilly. When I see stuff like "Well, I'm sure your god, this and that.." I kind of smell a kind of sneering arrogance on your part.Forgive me if I mistake your tone. I don't mean to cut you off rudely. You'll find that I can even ask questions of people to find out how they think about certain things. It gives me a fresh perspective sometimes.So I am sorry if I seem rude to cut you off. But I do have to consider what my audience is able to digest. If I offended you, I apologize.But I warn you, I am not that mature as a Christian myself. Sometimes skepticism gets on my last nerve. I must be one of those real bad kinds of Christians that cause you to not want to follow Jesus.Well, don't wait for a perfect one to come. We're all works in progress. Anyway, I didn't.Take it light friend. 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.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.

jaywill: you wrote: I accept your apology, but I would request of you to not think of me as your audience. Well good for you. I am not asking anyone to take anything I say or present regarding these Scriptures as being the one and only true way of translating or interpreting the Heb. Texts. I am presenting what I have found or discovered as possible alternatives to the doctrine and traditions which have existed for twenty-five hundred years. I am hoping for open-minded insights and observations which will create debate and dialogue.It appears that you already know what you feel you need to know, and you are indeed not the first to hold those riggid suppositions. Thousands of years have passed on planet earth and one generation of believers after another have gone to the grave holding those riggid suppositions. Such is life.I do not hold those riggid supposition, I do not agree that the Chrisians, the Jews, or the Muslims have all the answers, and their actions speak much louder than their words.If you think you are here, on this thread, to preach Christian superstition and dogma, you have seriously misunderstood the purpose of this thread. Two thousand years of human history proves that Christians do not have all the right answers. Jesus Christ is not coming quickly. He must be taking his own sweet time. Well, he's not on earth time, he's on God's time--a day is as a thousand years. That is an odd thing, because we humans, in our present form, don't live that long.If The Supreme God cannot take care of one of his adversaries? How Supreme is this God?If you wish to be part of the discussion, you are indeed welcome. I welcome your insights. One can remain true to their faith and still know that there is much to learn; learn even that which might strengthen one's faith as well as that which might be contrary to one's faith.Do you comprehend what I am saying? Have I said it so that you can understand?Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : year

To Jaywill. I dont know who you are or what you do specifically but you are extremley impressive with both your knowledge and presentation. If everything your are writing is off the cuff and drawn from your specific knowlegde, immediatley at hand, thats impressive Keep up the good work.D Bertot

To Autunman I dont have alot of time this evening but a few questions and comments to keep the ball rolling. No. I said, can they be considered a reliable historical document. I was not asking if they had facts distributed through them. This
would imply I am talking about the NT as a overall document a body of work or works. Depending on your answer here I would be able comment on the passage you cited. While the above statement may sound accurate it is nothing but a baseless assertion. It is completely comparable to a person claiming they KNOW that God does not exist. The obvious bias and unobjectivity is immediatley apparent. It totally disregards the uniqness of the scriptures to anyother work of literature and historical document. You cannot possibly know absolutley those events did not take place. The scriptures historical documentation and evidence suppoted by physical evidence and archeology demonstrate that IT, not your unsuppoted assertion could most certainly be true. This, included with the fact, that no archeological discovery has ever discredited the writers of the NT. Evidence is evidence and assertions are assertions.Are you starting to see how this works. I never said you could absolutley prove anything, except an axiomatic truth. If the Bible were a book like Peter Pan or the legend of Robin Hood, you might have a case. You do not. The reliability of the writers, thier content and claims first lies with the physical evidence. No thinking person would claim that thier claims and testimony are fables and myths in the tradition of some fable. As Jaywell pointed out. Why could not the God of the universe, that created everything, not alter the lays to accomplish his plans. You said yourself you were not an Atheist. Again your comparison of the scriptures to fables, is unobjective and totally unacademic. Your statement that the scriptures are blotted with historical facts denies obvious evidence. Again wheather you believe the miracles or not you cannot question the reliablity, veracity and evidence of its content. To this point you have only decried it on the bases that you do not like its content. This does not constitute and argument against it. See the difference.You cannot demonstrate the lack of providence in the process on you say alone. If you could demonstrate some inconsistency from evidential standpoint you surley would. The fact that you cannot says alot for what it is. See how the deliberatley placed evidence works.Hold steady and I will get to the rest of these items in this post later. This should be enough for you to deal with at present. Are we having fun yet or what?Thanks
D Bertot

Autumnman writes The above statement makes no sense in relationship to the documents being historically accurate. If we had those original lettes you would say that there could not be considered reliable because we cannot know wheather they were Peter's or not. Its a endless vicious circle unless you proceed from a historical and archeological process validating the writers stories and information against the historical background. This ofcourse would make a good and strong case for a historical account, as you put it.I said, Using nothing more than the Bible and the Acts of the Apostles, archeologits have uncovered numerous, to many to mention here, places, locations, names, peoples, events, inscriptions, etc, etc etc., that were, hitherto, unknown to the world. I will be happy to do this but I can not imagine that a man of you education does not know what I am speaking of. I want to address the next statement at the present time. I will get to the other one later I think you missed my point in connection with my questioning your use of scripture. My contention was that it was pointless for me to discuss the NT scripture with you for basically two reasons. A. You dont seem to have a working knowledge of it in connection with doctrinal issues. For example when you questioned the idea that the other NT books did not teach whatJesus taught, I offered JOhn 16:13 and 1Cor chapter 1 and you did not seem to understaand or agree with my contention and usage of those passages (no working knowledge of the totality of the NT doctrine.) B. I understand Jaywills approache to you and at times it has its place. He certainly is one that can present it in that fashion with stinging accuracy.It has pretty much been my contention that to initially discuss doctrine with a staunch sckeptic like yourself has very little effect, due to the fact that you coming from to very different backgrounds. In the beggining I asked and challenged you to tell me specifically what your beliefs were for this very purpose. In my discussions last yesr on this website with certain atheists and agnostics, I discussed with them the possiblity and certainty of knowing any thig at all as reality or fact, before discussing the reality of objective moral right or wrong. If you dont proceed in this manner you will be going in endless circles. Autumnman you are free to bring up anyscripture you wish. However, understand that until in my view you view it as the word of God, my explanations and interpretations are probably going to make no sense at all and we will go in endless circles. Lets see if we can establish that it might be the word of God first. Agreed? Another baseless assertion. I will wait for your reply with eager anticipation. Are we having fun yet or what?D BertotI

To Autumnman. Maybe Icould offer this that I forgot in my last post. To demonstrate our argument is flowing and making progress. Kepping the above points in mind. We might say that while you do not accept the miracles in the NT and you question the historicity of some of the events. We could accuratley say nothing seems to contradict or disprove thier authenticity. In other words everything excavated always seems to cooborated it. Correct? In other words in connection with thier archeological and historical support we might have some confidence in them as a starting point for discussion and reliability. If something seriously contradicted them we would be in trouble from the startJust a contemplation here.D Bertot

quote:

---

Yes. As I said in an earlier post somewhere, "There are historical events and locations woven throughout the NT." However, Matthew 2;16 is not one of them.

---

Since we are employing the English language in our discussion it may be helpful for us to examine the dictionary definitions of a couple words that are central to the debate.historical: having once existed or lived in the real world as distinguished from religious belief; e.g. a theologian’s study of the historical Jesus (WUD=Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2003).history: a continuous systematic narrative of past events as relating to a people, country, period, person, etc. usually written as a chronological account; A systematic account of any set of natural phenomena (WUD).chronological: arranged in the order of time (WUD).No. The NT cannot be considered a collection of historical documents.The 27 Religious Books, which comprise the NT, are Religious Books, Books of Faith, NOT history-oriented manuscripts. The 27 Religious Books of the NT where not written to record historical events, they were written to promote a specific religious agenda. Manuscripts that are of a historical nature are composed from an observers’ point of view, meaning that the author of an account of history {the record of past events and times in connection with the [real world] human race} is not at the same time composing a manuscript that will establish a new religious belief, sect or church.

quote:

---

I diasgree.Christianity is founded on myths and fables and superstition. I have agreed--and never disagreed--that there are historical facts in the NT and in fact in the entire Holy Bible. It was written by human beings who lived during the times which are described in their literature. If one of them had mentioned San Francisco, Chicago, New York I really would have been stunned. They did not. They mentioned place and people and things current to their life experience. That is not a shock.

---

Where in the above statement do I make a baseless assertion? How does the statement above make an assertion that is comparable to a person claiming they KNOW that God does not exist? I am employing the English language and the definitions of the words that comprise the English language to state that the NT is composed of manuscripts that were written by individuals who lived during the times that are described in their religious literature. Such a statement is neither bias nor lacking objectivity. Are you saying that Peter, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke & John did not live during the 1st century of the Common Era?Furthermore, according to WUD there is a difference between Religious Scriptures and Historical Documents. Unless we are redefining the words of the English Language there is a significant difference between a chronological, continuous systematic account of past events that existed or lived in the real world, and a series of religious scriptures that were composed to advance a new faith, religious sect, and a new church. It is the English Language that makes that distinction. According to the English definition of “historical” events, I can in fact absolutely know that the supernatural events described in the NT were not “real world” events, and therefore cannot be described as “natural phenomena.” I really live in the “real world” and every moment of my real life is sustained by “natural phenomena.” I know for a fact that mankind did not create the “real world,” but is in fact dependent on and subject to the “natural phenomena” that sustains it. Those are facts. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. What is the historical, physical, and archeological evidence that proves the NT to be true? The question is; Why would the God of the Universe, Who Created Everything, have to “alter the lays to accomplish his plans”? I am not an atheist. The God I know doesn’t make mistakes, doesn’t have to alter His reality, and doesn’t have plans. He Is and Does all at the same time. God created the “Real Cosmos” and the “real world” and the “natural phenomena.” If God changed things we would not even be aware that a change took place.
You appear to be missing the whole point of being “The Supreme Being.” Again, I am employing the English language and the definitions it provides. What I like or dislike has nothing to do with my side of this discussion. I do not matter. What do the NT Scriptures, i.e. Religious documents, actually state? If there are contradictions, there are contradictions, if there are conflicting statements made, there are conflicting statements made. If statements are made regarding the Heb. OT that are inaccurate or misleading then these statements should be examined. That is the point that I am attempting to express.Regard,
Ger