Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Your simplicity while cute is misguided and in bad need of instruction. If God created evil, as you are implying the text suggests, then no onem not even humans are responsible for anything and should not be punished for a single moment. ​ Certainly you understand him to mean God created the potential not the evil itself ​ Again how can Satan be a liar without a freewill?

This underscores my concern for the net effect of ICANT's Genesis teaching.While he weakens the truth of God being the Creator of man he bulsters up a concept of God creating an evil Satan.The net effect, I think, is to misaim concerning the truth in Genesis.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Could you elaborate on this statmentdb

Could you elaborate on this statment

ICANT has elaborated that only the man mentioned in Genesis 1:26 is created by God. The man Adam in Genesis 2:7 is assigned to some secondary status because he was formed by God from the dust of the ground., but not in the image of God !This inferior man, which I believe one poster ironically labeled "man 2.0," is the first man mentioned in 1 Corinthains. But this Adam is clearly inferior to the CREATED man of Genesis 1:26.However , ICANT has also explained that the created man of Genesis 1:26 was created WITHOUT A SOUL!This is a very confusing and ambiguous orign of man. I am not quire sure where man stands after wandering through this interpretive maze.Is Adam in the image of God?
Did the other man whom God created have no soul ?In the mean time ICANT makes no bones about the fact that God created evil and God created Satan. The serpent in Genesis is indentified as Satan in the New Testament.The net effect in ICANT's explanation is that God's creation of an evil Satan is more straight forward then the two original men's dubious and confused origin.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi Jay, Good question.They are identical. א דםIn Genesis 1:26 it is translated man.In Genesis 5:1 the first one is translated Adam the second is translated man.The same word is translated Adam in Genesis 5:2, 3, 4, and 5. It is also translated Adam in 1 Chro. 1:1, Job 31:31.The only other verse that אדם appears in this form is Genesis 4:25.In Genesis chapter 2 האדם is the word used.When the He ה is the prefix to אדם It can not be translated Adam.This form appears in Genesis 2:7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 25.In Genesis 2:24 we have איש which is translated man.When א דם is translated Adam it is not a translation it is a transliteration with the a vowel added. A transliteration woud be ADM. I have respect for those you are quoting but I do not have to agree with them. Just as you do not have to agree with me. Each is allowed to come to their own conclusions. I have no concept of a corporate man. You do know that a concept is formed in the mind of mankind.We were not all included in that first man. We are not descendants of the first man who was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7. We have no blood ties to him.The only ties we have is that we are under the penalty of sin and separated from God because by his disobeying God. Thus all mankind is separated from God as sin had entered the universe by that sin, which we are under the penalty of.We are all descendants of the man an woman created in Genesis 1:26, 27. The first man who was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was not called Adam.The man who was created in the image/likeness in Genesis 1:27 was called Adam by the translators. I disagree.A person is born into the family of God at the new birth. When a person realizes their condition before God and receives Gods offer of a free full pardon which imparts eternal life.A person must then present themselves to a Scriptural New Testament Church for membership. When their testimony of their new birth is confirmed they are to be added to the Church by baptism.All members of a Church is not necessarily a member of God's family. Judas is an example.The Bride of Christ will be composed of born again children of God who have been baptized by a Scriptural New Testament Church and held out to the end. These will be called out at the appearing of Jesus and constitute His Bride. Those who have been unfaithful will not be a part of the Bride of Christ. Paul in his letter to the Church at Corinth tells us they will be saved tho as by fire. Paul was quoting what was written. But he did clarify what man he was talking about.He said the first man. That is the one who was perfect until he disobeyed God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, becoming like God.The one made a living soul. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul has the meaning of breath, which means a living being.He said the first man was of the earth. The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the earth.He said the second man was of Heaven. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and got his flesh body without being the descendant of the man created in the image/likeness of God.You never did explain to me how the man formed from the dust of the ground could become like God if he was created in the image/likeness of God. Care to give it a go? Paul said it was written, he did not say it was a fact.But it makes no difference he did qualify what man he was talking about. He was talking about the one formed from the dust of the ground that ate the fruit that brought the penalty of sin into the universe and separated mankind from God. I agree. That verse does not say anything about the breath of life that God breathed into the man formed from the dust of the ground being the spirit of man.It does say God formed the spirit of man within him which He did when He created man in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.I asked you once before about some people have a problem with soul and spirit being the same thing. You said you have no such problem but you really seem to have that problem.Do you believe the soul and the spirit is the same thing? You can sure jump to conclusions and misunderstand what is said without any problem.I said nothing about second man.I did say the second breath.God breathed the breath of life into the form He had formed from the dust of the ground causing that form to become a living being.
That living being then took the second breath by the system of living that God had breathed into that form. He continued to breath until he ceased to breath at which time he was dead physically. Since the spirit of man is representative of God the Holy Spirit.
And the physical body is representative of God the Son.Are you saying the soul is representative of God the Father? What does the mind that Jesus was talking about represent?Heart in this verse represents 2) the centre and seat of spiritual life.Soul represents the living being. Which would be the physical man.Mind represents 1) the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring.God the Father = Mind.
God the Son = physical body.
God the Holy Spirit = spiritual man.The man in Genesis 1:27 was created in the image/likeness of God.Conclusion:Man must have mind, body and spirit to be in the image/likeness of God. Where is the human spirit called the breath of the Almighty? I have no problem with the spirit of man being God's light in man as that is what the Holy Spirit deals with in conviction, saving and sealing for eternity.I do have a problem with that spirit being the breath of life that cause the form in Genesis 2:7 becoming a living being. But there was no spirit from God. There was only the breath of life causing the form to become a living being. I did not mention anything about the two trees in the garden.I did ask the question:Does God know good and evil?If man is created in the image/likeness of God he would know good and evil, else he would not be in the image/likeness of God.The man in Genesis 1:27 would have this ability to know good and evil.The man in Genesis 2:7 did not know good and evil. He had to come to know good and evil. He did that when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God said in Genesis 3:22 "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:".This man had become as God knowing good and evil. He was not formed as God in His image/likeness. Exactly, because there is no link whatsoever. I am not asking anything other than you refute what I have presented. You are free to believe what you desire to believe. I agree that God wants us to be like Him. That is the reason He made that possible. He came to earth in the form we call Jesus Christ and died on the cross at Calvary to restore us to the position the man who was formed from the dust of the ground had before he disobeyed God. He could walk and talk with God. We will be able to do that one day.God made it possible for us to have a new body with the resurrection from the grave giving us victory over the grave.I will agree God wants us to conform to His will.I disagree with your presentation of what Satan wants us to do. Satan does not care what mankind does as long as man does not receive the offer of a free full pardon from God.When a person receives the gift of God Satan then wants to stop that person from serving God. He and his angels will do everything in their power to accomplish that feat. He knows if he can accomplish that then mankind looking on will say there is nothing to this God thing. Just look at that hypocrite.That is the problem with so called christianity today. There are many people in the churches who know not God. There are also many people in the churches that believe God exists and then live like he does not exist. I call them christian atheist. Lost mankind has only one choice, that is to receive the offer of Gods gift of eternal life. He is already condemned so he does not have to refuse God's gift to be separated from God that condition exists.When a person is born again then they have many choices to make for which they will stand before God and give an account for their choices one day. God has angels that do His every bidding without question. Why did He need to create a human race that would do the same thing?We have the image/likeness of God in us by birth. Adult humans desire their child love them and obey them just because they are the parents.God has that same desire that His humans love and obey Him just because He is God. That is why mankind exists and was given a choice in the matter.Why did God allow the tempter He created to exist in the garden? Well if there had not been a tempter there would not have been a choice. You have to have an either or situation for a choice to be made. You really don't pay close attention to what is said do you?When something is 'bara created it is created out of no known materials.The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground. That is a known substance. The woman in Genesis 2:22 was made from the rib of the man. That is a known substance.The man and woman in Genesis 1:27 was created from no known material in the image/likeness of God.I don't argue God created evil. I quote God where He says He created evil. Satan was created from no known material.
The mankind male and female in Genesis 1:27 was created from no known material.The man and woman of Genesis chapter 2 was formed/made from known material.Your problem is that you think made and created are the same thing. Which to us today means the same thing. Today everything is made/created from known material.In the beginning many things were bara' created from no known material.Everything in Genesis chapter 2 was formed/made from known material. Man, animal, fowl and the earth produced all vegetation.The only things said to be bara' created are.The Heaven and the Earth in Genesis 1:1.
Great whales in Genesis 1:20.
Male and female in Genesis 1:27.All other verses in the OT that use the word bara' is referring to one of these events. I don't get hot under the collar because of your opinion. You are not God or the Holy Spirit. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God there can be no contradiction in it. As far as myself nothing. I believe Genesis 1:1 that God created the Heaven and the Earth. I believe we have the image/likeness of God in each of us. I believe God died for our sins to restore us to fellowship with Him. I believe He gave me eternal life when I trusted Him in 1949. I believe He is going to receive me to Himself so I can be with Him and give Him the honor and glory He deserves and wants.Now as to what has been revealed to me would solve.1. The earth is old.
2. Death has reigned from the beginning.
3. There was a light period of undetermined existence that all the vegetation and fossils could be produced that formed our oil, gas, and coal deposits.
4. During the existence of this light period there could have been many instances that and extinction event took place and then new life forms appeared suddenly. In fact science tells us this did happen.
5. I believe my view of the creation in Genesis 1:1 with the repairs made to that creation recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3 including the creation of great whales and mankind male and female is a better explanation of creation that what is put forth by the scientific community.Does it make any difference to me? NoI have believed God, received eternal life and am destined to spend eternity praising God. I need no further convincing than I already have.There are other that do have questions and if I can shed a little light of the path then I need to try.In Message 408 you said. I explained to you that if the people created in Genesis 1:27 were living beings and that constituted a soul then they had one.Mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 was created with a body, mind, and spirit.The man in Genesis 2:7 had a body and a mind (the mind derived from the fact he named all the animals) but no where does it say he was made in the image of God.God does say that man had become as God knowing good and evil after the man ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I conclude from God's statement that this particular man had come to be like God. And because the man did not have an eternal spirit he must be prevented from eating of the tree of life and living forever in the state he was in.You and everyone else can come to their own conclusions.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi DB, I believe God. Take up your argument with God if you disagree that God created evil.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Sorry, pouble dostDBEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Take up your argument with God if you disagree that God created evil.

I was hoping for more than a "Nanny Nanny boo boo", approach but ok.here is the deal brother, sometimes expressions have to be taken into consideration with what the rest of the scriptures says about a topic.The scriptures says Jesus is the Prince of peace, but it has him suggesting and stating that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. So did he come to bring peace or confusionI believe what the scripture says as well, but I dont think his actual PURPOSE was to bring division and strife, only that that would be the result due to his message and its affects on people.So possiibly God means, as a result of creating freewill he has opened the possibilty for evil to exist"The possibility of sin is anyalytical to the proposition of frewill"I didnt think that statement up Dr Warren did, I just like using it because I sound intelligent to myself. Yeah I know, its not working, but he is correct.Iif God created evil, then he created evil across the board. Not only is Satan evil but then so is everybody else.Actually to say that god created Satan to perform no other way that he has and at the sametime say he was created EVIL is a logical impossibility.Robot behavior with no thought process involved, could not be classified as evil, it could not be claasified as anything resembling reason.Here is a greater perspective though.In the first place nowhere in scripture is it even intimated that he was created in a way to act no other way than he has.That is your first problem, that has you starting with a false presupposition.Secondly, if God created evil, there would be no need to present a plan to get rid of something for which I have no control in the first place and for which I am not responsibleThirdly, this approach that God is the author of evil and he created Satan to act in no other way than he has thows the scriptures into disarray and confusion and makes any plan of salvation a joke and a waste of time.DBEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And where is the Serpent in the garden of Eden identified as "Satan" in the new testemant?? If you are talking about Revelation, that is not referring to the snake in Genesis, but rather it is talking about the Leviathan.

I have no concept of a corporate man. You do know that a concept is formed in the mind of mankind.

A concept is not in and of itself bad. God designed our minds to form concepts.Romans chapter five is the inspired word of God. And there the Apostle Paul puts forth the concept of all created men being corporately included in the man Adam. And he presents the divine concept of all believers in Christ being corporately included in the man Jesus Christ.The thought of a corporate man is a divine concept based on the apostle's revelation.

We were not all included in that first man. We are not descendants of the first man who was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7. We have no blood ties to him.

I will have to put it respectfully but bluntly. This is simply wrong teaching. This is what we have been arguing. And your reasons for disassociating modern human beings from Adam contradict the Bible. Particularly your concept cannot be reconciled with the book of Romans or First Corinthians.I am trying to give concise replies today. I could well write more.

The only ties we have is that we are under the penalty of sin and separated from God because by his disobeying God. Thus all mankind is separated from God as sin had entered the universe by that sin, which we are under the penalty of.

No. We have not only negative ties to Adam. We have positive ones also. He was the first normal man whom God pronounced "very good" . And there is something about even fallen sinners which is God's creation. Though damaged by sin, we still are unique among all other living things. We were created in the image of God.As you can see, I am not going out of my way to humor your concept of TWO initiations of humanity.Paul links modern man to Adam in more ways then just sinfulness. He says: "The first man [Adam (v.45)] is out of the earth earthy; the second man is out of heaven. As the earthy is, such are they also that are earthy; and as the heavenly is, such are they also that are heavenly.

​

And even as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor. 15:47-49) We are associated to the first man Adam not only by guilt and sin and death but by bearing his image. And in eternity we will retain something of his image with also the image of the heavenly man, Jesus Christ.

We are all descendants of the man an woman created in Genesis 1:26, 27.

The geneology of Jesus Christ in Luke's Gospel springs from Adam. And likewise you and I also are related to Adam.I just showed you that First Corinthians 15:49 says that "we have borne the image of the earthy" meaning that we have borne the image of the man Adam made from the earth in Genesis 2:7. It is easy to see that this is another way of saying that we were created in the image of God as is said in "Genesis 1:26,27) .First Corinthians 15:49 proves that we modern men and women, and Adam, and the man created in Genesis 1:26 all bear the image of God. This defeats your teaching that man created in Genesis 1:26 is another man then Adam made in Genesis 2:7.

jaywill writes: The first man created was called Adam. And in the eyes of God we were all as human beings included in Adam. ​ The first man who was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was not called Adam.

That contradicts First Corinthians 15. "So also it is written, "the first man Adam, became a living soul ..." (1 Cor. 15:45) Now is the time for you to ask yourself "Is God lying in First Corinthians 15:45 ?". " ... the first man ADAM ..." writes the Apostle Paul.

The man who was created in the image/likeness in Genesis 1:27 was called Adam by the translators.

Correctly so. So far your transliteration idea seems to be a harmless one at best. It underlines the facts. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit seems to understand that the first man, Adam bears the image borne by all other men. And we know that that is the image of God in which man was created in Genesis 1:26.

jaywill writes: Do you not agree with this ? Do you disagree that all the believers compose "the Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12) or the corperate Christ ? ​ I disagree.

My brother, much fellowship is needed here because you are incorrect indeed. By disagreeing you do not believe that Christ has a Body. You do not believe in the Body of Christ, a central teaching of the New Testament.Now, note, we are not saying that in all instances the expression of the Body of Christ is healty or normal. We are not saying that there is no division or damage or schism in the corperate Christ. But the truth of Christ's corperate expression is biblical nonetheless.I would ask you to be careful not to confuse the fact of the existence of the corperate Christ with the healthy expression of the corperate Christ.The church in Corinth did have its problems as you know. They included some immature believers whom Paul called "fleshly" and carnal.However, Paul still stood on the divine fact that as the corperate Christ they were not divided: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. 1:13) Notice please, that Paul here does not say, "Is the [CHURCH] divided?" . Of course he means the church. But the way he puts it ... "Is Christ divided?" ... reveals his concept of a corperate, collective Christ as a Body.And of course under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul calls the church "the Christ" in chapter 12:12: "For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body in Christ, SO ALSO IS THE CHRIST." (1 Cor. 12:12 my emphasis)

A person is born into the family of God at the new birth. When a person realizes their condition before God and receives Gods offer of a free full pardon which imparts eternal life.

Yes. I agree. And that puts them in the Christ, in the one new man where Christ is all and in all. That puts them into the Body of Christ.Baptism declares this publically to the world. They are baptized into Christ. They are baptized into one Body.

A person must then present themselves to a Scriptural New Testament Church for membership. When their testimony of their new birth is confirmed they are to be added to the Church by baptism.

I am trying to affirm here the truth of a corporate man. One was Adam the first man. And the other is Christ.Your teaching of two initiations of humanity obscure this truth of being either in Adam or in Christ. It is difficult to detect where you are headed with your view.The other comments I will address below.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Continued:

All members of a Church is not necessarily a member of God's family. Judas is an example.

All members of the church are also members of the household of God. By virtue of the fact that they now possess God's life in the Holy Spirit they are in the family of God.How could you ever say otherwise? Judas, was never a believer in Jesus as the Lord, the Son of God. He did feel remorse that he betrayed an innocent man. But I see nothing in Scriptures suggesting Judas was one who believed in the Lord Jesus.He is called "the son of perdition" .

The Bride of Christ will be composed of born again children of God who have been baptized by a Scriptural New Testament Church and held out to the end. These will be called out at the appearing of Jesus and constitute His Bride. Those who have been unfaithful will not be a part of the Bride of Christ. Paul in his letter to the Church at Corinth tells us they will be saved tho as by fire.

We praise the Lord for His Bride and Wife.
This matter approaches perhaps another subject. As verbose as I like to be I am disciplining myself to limit my comments to the matter of Adam and man, Gen. 1:26 (alledgedly verses) Gen 2:7.

1Cr 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

This passage has to do with rewards or discipline of Christians.
I don't think it is too necessary yet, to the subject of Genesis 1 and 2.

jaywill writes: However I stand by the biblical fact that the first adam was called Adam, if you will. The first MAN was called Adam (1 Cor. 15:45). ​ ... ​ Paul was quoting what was written. But he did clarify what man he was talking about. ​ He said the first man. That is the one who was perfect until he disobeyed God's command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, becoming like God. ​ The one made a living soul. The Hebrew and Greek words for soul has the meaning of breath, which means a living being. ​ He said the first man was of the earth. The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the earth. ​ He said the second man was of Heaven. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and got his flesh body without being the descendant of the man created in the image/likeness of God.

What are you saying here?I will have to devote one post to showing that Jesus Christ, in a very real sense, preceeds Adam. When God said, "Let Us make man in Our image ..." this must have been the council in the Trinity saying that Adam, man would be made according to Christ.Why? Because of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is only Christ the Son who is said to be the image of God: " [Christ] ... Who is the image of the invisible God ..." (Col. 1:15) .God wanted a man like Himself. Among all other living things then, God created man uniquely in the image of God. Now this is admittedly rather mysterious. It is kind of a chicken and egg situation. Who came first ?Well Christ is the image of the invisible God. So when the Triune God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness" was intending to make man according to Jesus Christ.It is remarkable. Verse 26 says, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" ...; but verse 27 says, "So God created man in His own image, in thei image of God He created him; male and female He created them." .In verse 26 the pronoun "Our" is plural, but in verse 27 "His" is singular. In the conference of the Godhead, the Triune God purposed to create man in the image of the Son of God, the Second of the Trinity.According to grammer, verse 27 should have said, "God created man in [THIER] image." But it says God created man in "His" image. Christ the image of the invisible God was the model according to which God created man.The image in the Godhead is the Son. When the Godhead was designing man's creation, the Bible indicates that man would be made in "Our image" . But when the Godhead was in the actual process of making man, the Bible says that man was made in "His" image. And "His" denotes the Son of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 4:4)

You never did explain to me how the man formed from the dust of the ground could become like God if he was created in the image/likeness of God. Care to give it a go?

I spoke to this. I don't think you received much from it.Man created in the image of God was like a glove. A glove is made in the image of a human hand for the purpose of a human hand entering into it. The hand IN the glove brings the reality into the image form.Man was placed before a tree called "the tree of life" . With the help of the entire Bible we can finally deduce that this tree of life represents the divine and uncreated life of God Himself.There are attributes of God which are not communicable. He will never share those none communicable attributes with anyone. But there are those communicable attributes which He plans to dispense into man by causing His life to be imparted to man. This is the living God indwelling the man made in His own image.God wanted man to take into his vessel the Divine and Uncreated eternal life of God Himself. It is presented to Adam as food, for food must be taken INTO one's being.The significance of the tree of life in the middle of the garden refers to God's eternal purpose to dispense Himself in His communicable life and nature into the man created in His own image.This was something God never had with the angels. And this was not forced upon man. This plan was presented for man's choosing. Man created in the image of God was purposed to be united and mingled with God. Man was created in the image of God to be "organically" blent with and fused with God.The invisible, divine eternal seeks a visible expression in His creation of man.

jaywill writes: The Bible says that the first instance of mankind was someone called Adam. ​ Paul said it was written, he did not say it was a fact.

Oh, come on ICANT! You better quite while you're ahead !Where else does "IT IS WRITTEN" in the Bible not mean that God's truth is being conveyed ?

But it makes no difference he did qualify what man he was talking about. He was talking about the one formed from the dust of the ground that ate the fruit that brought the penalty of sin into the universe and separated mankind from God.

You have proposed that Adam in Gen. 2:7 was not created in the image of God. But I showed you how God came looking for Adam in the cool of the day. Adam was hiding.Now, I think this was God coming into the garden in the likeness of a man, asking such questions as "Where are you?" . God Almighty came into the garden in a manner like the Adam He created. This is much the same as God wrestling with Jacob or God coming to have a good lunch with Abraham.Before the incarnation of Christ, we see in the Old Testament, a few times, God coming to earth like a man.

jaywill writes: This refers to the creation that came into existence in Genesis 1:26) . ​ I agree. ​ jaywill writes: I did not say that God inserted a spiritual man in this form. It does say that the spirit in man is the breath of the Almighty. ​ And Zechariah 12:1 says that Jehovah God "formed the spirit of man within him." ​ 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. ​ That verse does not say anything about the breath of life that God breathed into the man formed from the dust of the ground being the spirit of man. ​ It does say God formed the spirit of man within him which He did when He created man in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27.

We just disagree here. Zechariah 12:1 is, I think, the prophet's refering to Genesis 2:7. It is a divine speaking under inspiration.God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life. And in doing so God formed the spirit of man within him.

I asked you once before about some people have a problem with soul and spirit being the same thing. You said you have no such problem but you really seem to have that problem. ​ Do you believe the soul and the spirit is the same thing?

No. And much could be discussed about the soul and the spirit.The most exciting thing is to go from a doctrinal understanding of the soul and spirit to an experiencial one. In other words I agreed with the teaching of a soul and a spirit before the blessed day came when I could say "So THAT is my spirit !! Praise the Lord!" Anyway, I am not following you yet how reference to Zechariah 12:1 somehow saddles me with a dichotomy of man rather than a tripartite view of man.The spirit out from God was breathed into the matter formed from the dust. The two coming together resulted in the third matter arising - "and man became a living soul" .Of course we can speak of man as a soul. This does not mean that he has no body or no spirit. The three parts are integrated into one being.So where is the contradiction in what I said about a three part human ?

jaywill writes: I did not say that God breathed "the second man" into that form. And I am not sure what your objection really is. ​ You can sure jump to conclusions and misunderstand what is said without any problem. ​ I said nothing about second man. ​ I did say the second breath.

Okay. Maybe I missed that you wrote "second breath".
Genesis 2:7 reveals to me a tripartite human creation.
Zechariah 12:1 reveals to me a tripartite human creation as well.However, it probably would not be that clear without passages like First Thess. 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 .I am tempted to talk about my experience of coming to know my own human spirit. I think the Christian life really takes off once the Christian learns to discern their spirit from their soul.That is another discussion.

God breathed the breath of life into the form He had formed from the dust of the ground causing that form to become a living being. That living being then took the second breath by the system of living that God had breathed into that form. He continued to breath until he ceased to breath at which time he was dead physically.

I see your point. Let me think on it awhile.At the present time I think this prophetic utterance has in it the limitation human language to express something quite profound.I have never regarded this as simply the flow of oxygen into the lungs. I have taken it as something more profound then that.I mean the medical doctors smack a baby on the behind to get that system going. Why could not God have spanked the man on the rear end to get him to take his first gulp of air ?I have usually taken this matter to be a poetic and prophetic utternance of something metaphysically more profound about human life.

jaywill writes: The human spirit gives us a consciousness toward the spiritual realm included God. ​ The human soul gives man a consciousness toward other human lives. ​ The human body gives a consciousness toward the physical universe. ​ ICANT: Since the spirit of man is representative of God the Holy Spirit. And the physical body is representative of God the Son.

It is getting a little confusing. This is something I did not write. I assume that you wrote it.I don't think I related the three parts of man to the Trinity. Not that that could not be explored. I think you are proposing something which should be distinguished from comments I made.

Are you saying the soul is representative of God the Father?

No. I hadn't really thought in those terms at all here.
I have no opinion on that as of yet in this discussion.I do not say there is no validity to a comparison of the three parts of man to the Trinity. I just have not been resorting to those possible comparisons in this discussion.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ​ What does the mind that Jesus was talking about represent?

The mind is in the soul. Verses are not provided at this time.

Heart in this verse represents 2) the centre and seat of spiritual life.

The human heart, (not physical), is a centre of BOTH the soulical and the spiritual. That is because the HEART in the Bible is composed of the components of the soul plus one component of the spirit, the conscience.The Heart is therefore the Mind (which is in the soul), the Emotion (which is in the soul), the Will (which is in the soul) PLUS the conscience (which is in the human spirit).So the heart is the seat of both the soul and the spirit.Of course a heart without out a normally functioning conscience (which is in the spirit rather than the soul) would be a heart in trouble. It would not be normal. And that is why our hearts need regeneration and the new birth.But the man or woman who is not born again still does quite much with thier heart even though they have no spiritual movement.

Soul represents the living being. Which would be the physical man. ​ Mind represents 1) the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring. ​ God the Father = Mind. God the Son = physical body. God the Holy Spirit = spiritual man.

We are getting involved here. Before it gets too much involved let me reiterate where I am.Both the man in Genesis 1:26,27 and in Genesis 2:7 represent the creation of the first initiation of the human race.I don't think any of this which we are now disecting has any effect on that truth at all.I don't think by arguing about spirit, heart, soul, conscience, etc., you can arrive at TWO initiations of the human race in the Bible.The discussion of the parts of man do not effect that the first man is Adam, our first forefather, who was made in the image of God and created in the image of God. Genesis 1:26,27 and Genesis 2:7 belong together.Of course I am not saying that the Bible is always simple to understand. But I am saying that there is no need to obfuscate a straight forward matter.Mankind had one beginning. God is the source. God created man in His own image according to His own likeness. And this man was Adam who was formed from the dust and became a living soul.This Adam is said to be "son of God" in Luke in the sense that no man preceeded him and he came directly from God's creation. The human geneology STOPS COLD with Adam. And this is the man created in Genesis 1:26,27. He is the Head and first instance of the man created in Genesis 1:26.I don't you can get the Apostle Paul or Christ or any other speaker in the Scripture to confirm your view of two initiations of the human race.Discussions on the parts of man are useful and fascinating to me. But I don't think they help don't help your case on 1:26,27 verses 2:7 - two initiations of mankind theory.

The man in Genesis 1:27 was created in the image/likeness of God. ​ Conclusion: ​ Man must have mind, body and spirit to be in the image/likeness of God.

He has to have a SOUL too. The soul was damaged in the fall and it needs transformation in God's new testament economy.The spirit of man needs REGENERATION.
The soul of man needs TRANSFORMATION.
And the body of man needs TRANSFIGURATION.It is ludicrous to propose that God created a first man with NO soul.What the first created man did not have was an independent and rebellions soul life of its own. For this reason the spirit was meant to be the highest part of man and the soul underneath it.In the fall the spirit became comatose and the soul ascended to have a life of its own, rebellious, revolting, and insubordinate to God. THAT matter has to be denied once a person is born again.The faculties of the soul (mind, emotion, will) are all needed to express God and fulfill God's eternal purpose. But the independent SELF as a revolting entity at enmity with God must be denied so that Christ may grow from within to fill the soul, transforming the soul into His image: "And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

​

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same imasge from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17,18) So we see a lot in the New Testament about denying the self. We see not loving the self. We see picking up the cross to deny the self and follow Jesus.All these kinds of utterances do not mean God is out to destroy the human soul. They mean that now that the human spirit has been regenerated and indwelt with Jesus Christ Himself, it must take again its highest place. The ascended soul and the SELF much be subject to the God connected and regenerated spirit. Man must stop his rebellion of the ascended soul and bring that soul again under the power of the God indwelt human spirit.This is a transformation of the soul. And this is ultimately a glorification and transfiguration of the body as well. In a real sense Christ is growing in the Christian from within to without, saturating and permeating the believer with the life of God in Christ.

jaywill writes: The human spirit is not only called the breath of the Almighty but the lamp of Jehovah. ​ Where is the human spirit called the breath of the Almighty?

Job 33:4 And Genesis 2:7 pretty much implies the same. God there is the Almighty God.

jaywill writes: "The spirit of man is the lamp of Jehovah, Searching all the innemost parts of the inner being." (Prov. 20:27) ​ I have no problem with the spirit of man being God's light in man as that is what the Holy Spirit deals with in conviction, saving and sealing for eternity. ​ I do have a problem with that spirit being the breath of life that cause the form in Genesis 2:7 becoming a living being.

Okay. I'll think on that problem.But because even the unregenerated non-believer also has some function of the conscience I am reluctant to the conscience which convicts is only the Holy Spirit.An atheist has some conviction in the conscience even though he refuses to let God come into his being.I believe that spirit of man with its conscience came from God. It is the strongest link between us and God. It is very close to what God is but not God.I don't know how else the prophets speak of the spirit of man. But God gave them the words by the mysterious process of inspiration.I am not sure we are communcating here in the Genesis 2:7 matter. I am not saying that God breathed into man the Holy Spirit in Genesis 2:7.Before the flood God says that His Spirit was striving all the time with man. This probably means that God was aways trying to convict the fallen man of his sins. But I think though God is striving with all sinners the human spirit and its conscience are still independent and belonging to the created man.Now, at regeneration, the two spirits - the spirit of man and the Holy Spirit, are joined to become one mingled spirit. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) We who have been joined to the Lord Jesus Christ can say definitely that God lives in us. Before we were saved, God may have strived with us; strived with our sunken and comatose spirit.But in being born of the Spirit our human spirit was enlivened, resurrected and joined to be one mingled spirit with Christ Himself.

jaywill writes: The body + the spirit from God = MAN became a living soul. ​ But there was no spirit from God. There was only the breath of life causing the form to become a living being.

You're the one who professes the skill to read Hebrew.I think you better double check. Is what is called the lamp of Jehovah in Proverbs a different Hebrew word from that used as going into the nostrils of man to make him a living soul ?If it is the same word then you have to, I think, view the spirit breathed out from God as something more profound.

​ ICANT: ​ I did ask the question: ​ Does God know good and evil? ​ If man is created in the image/likeness of God he would know good and evil, else he would not be in the image/likeness of God.

This argument requires me to handle in another post.
I will try 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.

Ramoss, You don't think statement in Revelation 12:9 refers to the serpent in Genesis ? "And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth, he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him."Now, I would have to review the Leviathan matter. But I think the the idea conveyed here is that serpent has now grown in power and enfluence. From a serpent to a dragon he has been enlarged. His murders have encreased. His deception has spread through the whole world. And he is now a huge monster.I recall something about Leviathan being mentioned as a monster in the sea or river. And I think it had some reference to the king of Babylon. You may elaborate on Leviathan.But anyway, the "old serpent" in Revelation 12 is the old serpent way back in the beginning of human history. He is Satan the Devil.

Greetings in Christ ICANT. To continue: Perhaps I can give short answers.

I did ask the question: ​ Does God know good and evil?

Yes.

If man is created in the image/likeness of God he would know good and evil, else he would not be in the image/likeness of God.

I see your point. But just because man is made in the image of God does not mean that he knows everything that God knows.So, man not having this knowledge of good and evil does not for me mean that he was therefore not in the image of God.Adam was also not omniscient, not omnipresent, not omniotent, and not a Creator of universes. Still he could be made in the image of God.Do you see my point here?

The man in Genesis 1:27 would have this ability to know good and evil. ​ The man in Genesis 2:7 did not know good and evil. He had to come to know good and evil. He did that when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I think in either case, Gen. 1:26 or Gen. 2:7 man only had to know WHAT was the will of God. That was what he should obey.The only knowledge of good and evil the first created man innately possessed was what his Creator wanted of him.For example, the man in Genesis 1:26 knew that it was his part to follow through with his Creator's mandate to have dominion and to be fruitful and multiply.The same first man in Genesis 2:7 knew that only one matter was off limits. He had been directly instructed by God that he was not to take of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God Himself was man's law.

God said in Genesis 3:22 "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:". ​ This man had become as God knowing good and evil. He was not formed as God in His image/likeness.

I think you overstretch the point. I agree that God was disappointed that has now become like God in this particular aspect. There is no argument there from me.But to stretch this to make it mean that the disobedient man was therefore not created in the image of God, I do not accept.This disobedient man who now has this knowledge of good and evil STILL does not possess some none communicable attributes of God, such as omnipotence, onmiscience, omnipresence, being an object of worship, or being a Creator of universes.Being made in the image of God does NOT have to mean possessing without exception ALL of the divine attributes of God.

jaywill writes: And you mean to tell me that this does not establish the link between Genesis 1:26 and 2:7 ??? ​ Exactly, because there is no link whatsoever.

Nay, but there is a link.

jaywill writes: Your asking too much. ​ I am not asking anything other than you refute what I have presented. You are free to believe what you desire to believe.

Thanks, .... for your kind permission! LOL.

jaywill writes: Briefly I would say this: ​ 1.) God wants man to be like God. ​ 2.) God wants man to do it God's way and not Satan's way. ​ God's way for man to be like God is to take God Himself into him as life. This is seen in the tree of life. ​ Satan's way for man to be like God is to become independent and autonomous from God in a rebellion exactly like Satan's own pre-Adamic rebellion. This is principle is seen in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ​ ICANT: I agree that God wants us to be like Him. That is the reason He made that possible. He came to earth in the form we call Jesus Christ and died on the cross at Calvary to restore us to the position the man who was formed from the dust of the ground had before he disobeyed God. He could walk and talk with God. We will be able to do that one day.

Well, actually Christ takes man to an even higher place then from what man fell in the garden.The salvation in Christ is more than merely recovery to a lost position. While I would not argue that it IS a recovery it is actually going beyond that.Perhaps I would say it is more accurate that Christ is the tree of life, which life Adam NEVER took into himself. So this introduction of God Himself as eternal life into man is something Adam never had. And it is something man in Genesis 1:26,27 never had.For some reason, Adam never partook of the tree of life. And that tree, I am pretty sure, represents more than simply an immortal human life. In light of the whole Bible I think it eventually comes out that that tree represents God Himself.So in Genesis 1 and 2 you have the ladder of lives ascending up and up. You have higher and higher lives. Then you arrive as MAN. He is at the top of all the created lives from the Creator. Man is at the top of the ladder.Yet above him there is one more level, That is that plain of the divine life of God Himself, the Uncreated Eternal Being.In chapter one it is the dominion over the animals which brings man's topmost position out. In chapter two it is Adam's naming of all the animals which brings this matter out.When the animals were created is, IMO, purposely left ambiguous. The point is that MAN is at the top of the pyramid - made in the image of God and placed before the HIGHEST possible life - God Himself as signified in the tree of life.

God made it possible for us to have a new body with the resurrection from the grave giving us victory over the grave.

We agree here !

I will agree God wants us to conform to His will.

We agree here too!

I disagree with your presentation of what Satan wants us to do. Satan does not care what mankind does as long as man does not receive the offer of a free full pardon from God.

We agree here too. I don't know what I wrote that prompted a disagreement.However, I would add to your truth that if Satan can stop man from being PARDONED he certainly will do that. However, if he cannot stop man's redemption, he can STILL work to frustrate man being filled with God and living out God.As a matter of fact the spiritual fight continues once the sinner IS pardoned. The epistles should prove that. Our experience proves that.Satan does not want Christ to be formed in man. He would like to keep you unforgiven. BUT, if he cannot stop you from being forgiven by God he can still stop you from LIVING Christ as Paul did - as every normal Christian SHOULD.Do you understand what I am saying ? The blood of Jesus stops the accusing mouth of Satan. True.But it is the CROSS the terminates his power in the human soul. Why are we forgiven? Not simply to be pardoned are we forgiven. We are forgiven that we may LIVE Christ, be filled with Christ, be saturated with Christ, express Christ corporately as churches in many cities.We are pardoned also to be BUILT UP into Christ's Body. And that is something Satan very much wants to frustrate, hinder, and stop.I think you probably agree.

When a person receives the gift of God Satan then wants to stop that person from serving God. He and his angels will do everything in their power to accomplish that feat. He knows if he can accomplish that then mankind looking on will say there is nothing to this God thing. Just look at that hypocrite.

I agree totally.I would only say that to serve Christ is to live Christ. To serve Christ is not a matter so much of WHAT we do, but from what SOURCE our doing is. It must really be Christ in us working.Christ has to work Himself INTO us. And this is why, I think, we have not only God CREATING man in a simple statement in chapter one. We need an additional view of God's purpose by showing God BUILDING man (building a Woman).To create in one word is an easy thing for God. To wrought His life into man, build Himself into man, impart Himself into man and build man up into Himself, requires more wisdom on God's part.And it does because we are living being with our OWN wills. If we were an none living piece of material, it would be easy for God to work Himself into us. But we have our mind, our emotion, our free will. And this life of ours with its livingness make the workking of God into us execise ALL of His infinite wisdom. It is not easy for Him to work on living beings this way.So, creation is not called God's POEMA - His masterpiece. But the Body of Christ, the church properly built up and normal, is called the POEMA (masterpiece) of God.To make an analogy with a great series of symphonies by one of the German composers life Beethoven - it is not the First that is the masterpiece. It is the Ninth that is his crowning achievement.Creation of the universe is not God's masterpiece. That is like His first symphony. But the church, and the New Jerusalem which is His masterpiece. The Bible ends with God's Ninth, the New Jerusalem consisting of all the saints of the old covenant and the new covenant, redeemed, pardoned, sanctified, conformed, transformed, glorified, and deified into sons of God built up into a corperate expression of the mingling of Divinity and humanity.

That is the problem with so called christianity today. There are many people in the churches who know not God. There are also many people in the churches that believe God exists and then live like he does not exist. I call them christian atheist.

That is a problem. And it will continue to be so until the end of the church age.So the New Testament speaks not merely of Christians but of "he who overcomes"{/b. It speaks of the overcomers. Or [bn]"more than conquerors" .In other words, "It is good that you have been forgiven. It is good that you have been pardoned. But God needs for you to OVERCOME."It is well expressed in this passage:

"For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we shall be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Romans 5:10)

The believers are first reconciled by Christ's death from being enemies of God. Now that we are no longer enemies we need "MUCH MORE" to be saved in the whole realm of His indwelling divine life.We are pardoned first, but not for its own sake. We are pardoned that we could be "much more" SAVED in the realm and sphere of His divine life which has been dispensed into our being.So in Romans 5:12 God's complete salvation consists of two parts:1.) a judicial redemption through His death on the cross2.) an organic salvation, a "much more" salvation of being saturated with His life.

jaywill writes: The free will of man is between the two to choose. His choice determines which will will be established. ​ Lost mankind has only one choice, that is to receive the offer of Gods gift of eternal life. He is already condemned so he does not have to refuse God's gift to be separated from God that condition exists.

I agree here too.

When a person is born again then they have many choices to make for which they will stand before God and give an account for their choices one day.

I agree. And therefore we should forgive others that God may in that day be merciful to us in return.This mercy is not related to us not perishing forever but to what our position would be in the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.

jaywill writes: But if God is so good why did He not FORCE man not to be able to make another choice? Why did God allow a tempter to exist in this paradise like garden anyway? ​ I think this a question almost all readers of Genesis will sooner or latter ponder. You have no noticed it brought up repeatedly by Internet skeptics? I have. ​ ICANT: God has angels that do His every bidding without question. Why did He need to create a human race that would do the same thing?

The highest ANGEL meant to do His bidding started a terrible cosmic warfare against God.God created man to help God subdue this angel and replace him. This was a NEW thing in creation. This was a dusty creature who is one with God in life and in nature. This is something the angels never had.God could of course unilaterally destroy Satan. But the Creator chooses to do so with the cooperation of another creature. Maybe God would not directly destroy Satan because it brings greater glory to Him is his OTHER creature says, "AMEN" to this purpose and helps God destroy His enemy.The Creator would not put down the rebel creature alone. The Creator would only do so through ANOTHER creature. That is where MAN came in.Somehow I think God in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge USED the rebellion angel to give Him reason to set in motion His eternal purpose to have a God-man. This would explain also Satan's intense hatred for humanity.

We have the image/likeness of God in us by birth. Adult humans desire their child love them and obey them just because they are the parents.

Along this line I would now ask you to reconsider. Love is an action of the human SOUL. So the man created in the image of God in Gen. 1:26 HAD to have been created with a SOUL, if you now say that the man in God's image was created to LOVE.I think you are now correcting yourself on this matter.

God has that same desire that His humans love and obey Him just because He is God. That is why mankind exists and was given a choice in the matter.

Here again, I think you are correcting your own theology. If man was created to have a choice then he must have been created with a SOUL. For the choosing WILL of man is part of the SOUL of man.So this corrects your notion that the man in Genesis 1:26 had no soul. And I think you originally had that error only because SOUL was not mentioned in Genesis one. That is not a sufficient reason to say that that creation had no soul.And the Bible prevents us from making that mistake IF we would accept that the man in chapter two, who became a living SOUL is also included in the account of Genesis one.The labyrinth of a maze you constructed is needless.And I suppose you would like me to stop saying this by now. I hope you are getting the point though.

Why did God allow the tempter He created to exist in the garden? Well if there had not been a tempter there would not have been a choice. You have to have an either or situation for a choice to be made.

My final answers will be real brief.It was to set up a triangular situation of a neutral man between two wills. Man's will is set there between the Divine will and the Satanic will.Which way man chose with his will would determine how God would accomplish His plan. God cannot be stopped. But his creatures can cause him some trouble.

jaywill writes: You'll argue strenuously that eveyone see that God created EVIL. Yet you make a big case that God did not create Adam and his wife because BARA is not used in chapter two. ​ You really don't pay close attention to what is said do you?

That is possible. Sometimes I really do not pay enough attention to what people write.

When something is 'bara created it is created out of no known materials.

I thought that is ASAH. BARA, I thought is the word used for creation ex nihilo.

The man in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the ground. That is a known substance. The woman in Genesis 2:22 was made from the rib of the man. That is a known substance.

But both could also be said to be created by God.In Him were ALL things created.

The man and woman in Genesis 1:27 was created from no known material in the image/likeness of God.

Things on earth were created by God. Things in heaven were created by God. The visible things and the invisible things.The Bible leaves no room for me to say that just because the man was made of the dust of the ground therefore it follows that God did not CREATE him. The Bible does not allow me to say that because God built a woman from a rib therefore God did not CREATE Woman.I think this is a matter of you pressing the linguistics to an improper conclusion.

I don't argue God created evil. I quote God where He says He created evil. ​ jaywill writes: You're so eager that every one Amen that Satan is God's creation. But you want everyone to discard that Adam was God's creation ? ​ Satan was created from no known material. The mankind male and female in Genesis 1:27 was created from no known material. ​ The man and woman of Genesis chapter 2 was formed/made from known material.

That does not mean that they were not God's creation. That only highlights something of HOW God created them.It is the right of the Holy Spirit to use TWO sections of His divine word to tell us. The two accounts do not have to say the exact same thing in the same way exactly.You put the two sections together and you should arrive at ONE creation of mankind.And I don't think you have anyone else in the Bible confirming that it should NOT be viewed in that way - neither the Moses, nor the prophets, nor Christ, nor His apostles.I think if you were to present your two human initiations to Paul or Peter or John they would be puzzled how you got such an idea. Or maybe they would know that you have been misled away from the truth of Scripture.

Your problem is that you think made and created are the same thing. Which to us today means the same thing. Today everything is made/created from known material.

Being a proponent of the so-called Gap or interval I do make a case that BARA and ASAH are not exactly the same. But I am careful not to say that the two words have absolutely NO overlapping usage in the Bible.I have been warned that to make that much a case out of the difference between create and make would be doing so on my own authority.But I do see and believe in a difference between the two words.

In the beginning many things were bara' created from no known material. ​ Everything in Genesis chapter 2 was formed/made from known material. Man, animal, fowl and the earth produced all vegetation. ​ The only things said to be bara' created are. ​ The Heaven and the Earth in Genesis 1:1. Great whales in Genesis 1:20. Male and female in Genesis 1:27. ​ All other verses in the OT that use the word bara' is referring to one of these events.

I have been aware of that for some time. Mr. Pember, in Earth's Earliest Ages speaks the the different usages of BARA and ASAH in early Genesis. And he says exactly that which you have stated.I first read that book and was persuaded of its truth around 1972. You are not informing me of something I have not been taught.However, in the light of the rest of Scripture, especially Colossians and John, all things were created by God through Christ.

jaywill writes: The sequence of the animals is admitedly a bit of a paradox. Maybe it is a contradiction. ​ If the Bible is the inspired Word of God there can be no contradiction in it.

There are some paradoxes in the Bible. I would be careful about saying there are NO contradictions in the Bible.But I would probably put it that there are some difficult to reconcile paradoxes in the word of God.If someone were to say that there were contradictions in the Bible, my objection would not be too strenuous. I might put it this way - "There are some statements in the Bible which are difficult to reconcile. However, with spiritual growth and maturation, many of these apparent contradictions can be reconciled quite well and have."I am somewhat symphathetic to people who say there are contradictions in the Bible, GIVEN that they have a good attitude about the Bible anyway.I am less sympathetic to people who use "contradictions in the Bible" as an excuse to refuse to listen to any of its teachings.Bertot nicely brought out a "contradiction" about whether Jesus came to bring peace or a divisive sword. With maturity and spiritual growth, a contradiction like this can be reconciled quite logically.Probably some "contradictions" can be logically reconciled just by some common sense and open mindedness.

jaywill writes: What puzzle you think you solve by doing so, is not worth the confusion introduced by obscuring the origin of mankind, IMO. ​ As far as myself nothing. I believe Genesis 1:1 that God created the Heaven and the Earth. I believe we have the image/likeness of God in each of us. I believe God died for our sins to restore us to fellowship with Him. I believe He gave me eternal life when I trusted Him in 1949. I believe He is going to receive me to Himself so I can be with Him and give Him the honor and glory He deserves and wants.

Amen. I believe these things too. This is the common Christian faith.Thank you for adding now this next particular section:

​ Now as to what has been revealed to me would solve. ​ 1. The earth is old. 2. Death has reigned from the beginning. 3. There was a light period of undetermined existence that all the vegetation and fossils could be produced that formed our oil, gas, and coal deposits. 4. During the existence of this light period there could have been many instances that and extinction event took place and then new life forms appeared suddenly. In fact science tells us this did happen. 5. I believe my view of the creation in Genesis 1:1 with the repairs made to that creation recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3 including the creation of great whales and mankind male and female is a better explanation of creation that what is put forth by the scientific community. ​ Does it make any difference to me? No ​ I have believed God, received eternal life and am destined to spend eternity praising God. I need no further convincing than I already have. ​ There are other that do have questions and if I can shed a little light of the path then I need to try.

Very interesting.I want to think about it a bit.

In Message 408 you said. ​ jaywill writes: However , ICANT has also explained that the created man of Genesis 1:26 was created WITHOUT A SOUL! ​ I explained to you that if the people created in Genesis 1:27 were living beings and that constituted a soul then they had one. ​ Mankind that was created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 was created with a body, mind, and spirit. ​ The man in Genesis 2:7 had a body and a mind (the mind derived from the fact he named all the animals) but no where does it say he was made in the image of God.

Does everything in Genesis 1:27 have to be repeated verbatim in Genesis chapter 2 ?This seems to me to be an unreasonable requirement.As I said, NOWHERE in Genesis one does it say that this man could sleep as Genesis two states. Does that mean that this man did not have the capacity to sleep simply because BOTH accounts did not mention that detail ?

God does say that man had become as God knowing good and evil after the man ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ​ Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: ​ I conclude from God's statement that this particular man had come to be like God. And because the man did not have an eternal spirit he must be prevented from eating of the tree of life and living forever in the state he was in. ​ You and everyone else can come to their own conclusions. ​

This I would like to take up in another post latter.You do consider these things deeply. That much I would admit. I can only state why what here is a problem for you may not be a problem for someone like me.Praise God for His fathomless wise word. As you are an older man than I, I feel uncomfortable speaking in a rebuking tone to you. Forgive me please.I was born the first time in 1949.The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. 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.

ICANT writes

Why did God allow the tempter He created to exist in the garden? Well if there had not been a tempter there would not have been a choice. You have to have an either or situation for a choice to be made.

Jaywill writes

My final answers will be real brief. ​ It was to set up a triangular situation of a neutral man between two wills. Man's will is set there between the Divine will and the Satanic will. ​ Which way man chose with his will would determine how God would accomplish His plan. God cannot be stopped. But his creatures can cause him some trouble.

Sorry to butt in again, just a qick note. Neither of these answers are I believe correct.We like to assume maybe to much about what Gods intentions are or are not. Example, why assume that God needed Satan in the garden for any purpose at all, other than for things to take thier natural course., ie that was satans choice in he first placethese answers presuppose that man did not have a choice or could not have made a choice without Satan there in the first place. or atleast they indirectly imply itgranted he put a little jelly on the toast, but could they not have made a choice without that jelly.Really the only Will we need suppose, is the Will that issued the command and the Will asked to obey itI dont think he needed to "Set Up" anything other than that which had already been established in the plirst face, simple freewill, with or without Satans influencePerhaps you disagree?DBEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I can choose whether or not to eat fruit without a talking snake egging me on.

Hi DB, And without evil there would be no possibility of sin. Does that verse say I make peace and create evil? YES/NO When a person is born again is separates them from the rest of the family. Unless they are all born again they will be separated forever.But the main idea is that God requires first place in the lives of His children. God created evil.Evil gave man a choice.
God said eat the fruit and die.
Evil said God did not mean you would really die the instant you ate the fruit but that you would become as God, knowing good and evil.Many think Satan speaking through the serpent lied to the woman. He told a half truth, he did tell the truth concerning their eyes being opened and them becoming as God, knowing good and evil. The man formed in the beginning from the dust of the ground was given an order not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.He chose to eat the fruit because his wife was deceived by a serpent that Satan spoke through.All this happened in the beginning. Show me where Satan has ever changed or ceased to try to get humans to deny, and disobey God. He has always been evil and will be. Where did God devise a plan to get rid of evil. Evil will always exist it will just exist in the lake of fire after the judgment.God did devise a plan mankind could be bought back out of slavery the man formed from the dust of the ground sold them into. God doesn't care whether you agree with the way He has done things and His plan. In fact He says: All we can do is accept what God has said.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."