Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

quote:

---

What this strongly suggest is that the "helper as opposite to the human archetype" would not be "a woman" as the sexual counterpart to a male human being. The Heb. term traditionally rendered "woman" has not been translated properly. This also strongly suggest that the "helper" would not be "a human woman" because the "helper" was first search for but not found among the other breathing brute animals.

---

This appears a fine reasoning. That Adam was shown the animals are not a suitable partner had to be first established, then woman appeared. It is also apparent the woman is more than a helpmate, and in fact the last and epitomy of creation. Consider that Abraham, a great prophet, being told: 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT' [Gen]; this signifies Sarah saw further than Abraham of God's will. The same occured with Rebecca, who decieved Isaac, but made three religions happen, which would not have happened without her initiative. Woman sees the future more than man, because life is in her bosom, and she has to figure out the future requireents to sustain that life.

quote:

---

I gather from this that you are proposing that perhaps God created a special person to furnish Cain with a wife.

---

This question has baffled many. IMHO, the events described of the garden are not on the earth, but in another realm, signified by talking serpents, the 'US" which refers to angelic beings, and the casting out from the garden of Cain, and its re-entry barred.

quote:

---

Gen Ch 3/
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

​

24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}

---

Further, the bestowing of a life form with speech is also not of this earth, signified by no life forms on earth have acquired this attribute, despite the premises of adaptation, which is a time based factor. Humans acquired speech despite being the newest life form, bypassing the evolutionary thread. Here we find, the concept of reproduction is a factor which does not relate to angelic beings, who do not experience death or sexual desires. Reproduction only occurs on earth:

quote:

---

1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'

---

Further, we see that Cain left th Garden, and met speech endowed humans same as he was:

quote:

---

Gen 4/16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch; and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch.

---

Thus the garden of eden report is not of this earth, and a epiphany occured, whereby humans were bestowed with speech not via evolutiuon, but from a decision in another realm. IOW, when Adam and Eve were given speech, a Gdlike attribute, it was simultainiously bestowed upon the human species which began with Adam. We note that Adam is a generic term in Gen 1, but it becomes a proper noun thereafter.

quote:

---

I thought that I provided an answer why the issue should not baffle us. The whole matter is solved by two keys:

​

1.) The longevity of early humans

---

? how does this impact - the early years were free of much contamination. The long life span are not limited t the first chapter either.

quote:

---

2.) God's permitting of the first humans to marry close relatives

---

The law was yet not given, concerning incest, this is true, and Jacob is not accounted as sinning by marrying two sisters. But we have in the text, that Cain went to Nod and married one who was not a relative.

quote:

---

Concerning the different realm of Eden ...

​

Is there a need to remove Eden from the physical planet in order to make sense of the story? I don't think so.

​

When God met Moses in the incedent of the burning bush He told Moses to take his shoe off of his feet. The reason was that the place on which he stood was "holy ground."

​

And He said, Do not come near here. Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.

---

The issue does not relate to holy and unholy, but that the text signifies a different realm. I gave some examples: the 'US' factor - which excludes humans, which signifies angelic beings; that snakes stood upright and spoke [why else would snakes be punished to crawl?]. I see a better repudiation of my premise being that the earth was also cursed - and that is not a reference to another realm, but you never pointed that out. I qualified my response as an opinion [IMHO], as this is a mysterious chapter, and not conclusively decipherable by any known source. It is clearly not written in the norm - an example of this is also seen in the passage where Abraham is suddenly in a deep sleep and taken above the universe to gaze at the host of the constelations - a sureal run away from the context; thus we can include the possibility this text is also leaning on the surreal. There are layers here which have a cadence - and they alternatively add and change paradigms, in a manner that appears purposely strange and coded for future generations from now.

quote:

---

I do acknowledge that the talking serpent is atypical. But we have the miracle of the talking donkey also in the book of Numbers which occurs on the earth -

​

" ... a dumb beast of burden, uttering with a man's voice, restraining the madness of the prophet" (2 Peter 2:16 comp. Numbers 22:`21-30)

​

I admit that the talking serpent is a mystery. But it does not for me require that the garden of Eden need be transfered into another realm. Nature may have been in a realm unfamilar to us on this side of the fall of man.

---

I have no problem with miracles - but this is not posited as a miracle. In the OT, miracles [overturning nature] is only done when a forewarning occurs. Here, in these chapters, the mode is matter of fact, as a laid back occurence, when no miracles are required.

quote:

---

I have already written that the divine "Us" of Genesis and Isaiah is, I believe, the Triune God. He is the same as the Divine "We" in the gospel of John verse 23. Only One of the Godhead has been incarnated as a man in Jesus:

​

Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him. And We will come to him and make an abode with him. (John 14:23)

​

The Divine Person of the Trinity spoke in the creation of man - "Let Us make man ...". And the Divine Person of the Trinity spoke just before the crucifixion of Christ promising that the Son and the Father as the Divine mysterious "We" would, in Christ's resurrection, come to His lovers to make an abode within them.

---

The text has to make sense w/o connection of another text which emerged 2000 years later: it must speak to all generations - and any connection with the NT would not make sense to people for 2000 years. Retrospective views and beliefs cannot impact on these texts:HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE; HE CONSIDERETH THE NATURE [SITUATION] OF MAN.

quote:

---

I do not believe that any angels assisted God in the creation of man, such that God would say "Us" - meaning He and some angel/s.

---

Clearly not, I agree. The creation verb is always in the singular, meaning no angels, and no anyone or any other entity whatsoever. The OT is an intergrated document, and there cannot be any manner of contradiction with another part of its texts:'I AM THE LORD THERE IS NO OTHER'.

quote:

---

Gen Ch 3/
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

​

Well, "another realm," I think, would not mean so "another" that it could not be located on the planet. Cain moved to the east of Eden. So whatever the nature of your propsed "another realm" I think the record shows physical and directional aspects related to it.

---

The verse you are quoting is *AFTER* the casting out of Eden - when a casting down to earth occured. The texts also says, re-entry was barred by angels with fiery swords turning every which way: how do you reconsile that with earth?

quote:

---

How many other animals spoke or why Eve displayed no surpise when the serpent did speak are a mystery to me.

---

There is an inference here, that a talking snake posed no surprise to Eve - again signifying another realm.

quote:

---

God created the earth for His kingdom. After the second coming of Christ there is a restoration of the planet for a period of 1,000 years in which the surviving and saved nations enjoy God's original intention. Listen to what Jesus says as He judges the nations left alive from His throne in Jerusalem:

---

What you are saying is - the text does not make much sense if not alligned with the gospels. I reject this view. We see also that there is a mandated law in the OT which says 'NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK'. The text has to make total and non-wanting sense on its own, and is a very exacting, pristine and mathematical treatise - each alphabet is also a numerical value, as a safe guard of additions and subtractions. It is not subnject to the NT or Quran. The latter have to follow the OT, which is the light unto the nations - it is not the other way around. We see this affirmed by the prejected premise the OT laws are fullfilled and not encumbent anymore; this is not true, because all the laws are active today, and the world turns by them exclusively. In fact, there is not a single law the world at large accepts and uses in its institutions from elsewhere.

quote:

---

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, at that time He will sit on the throne of His glory. And all the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates teh sheeep from the goats. (Matt. 25:31,32) ... Then the King will sau to thjose on His right hand, Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (vs. 34)

---

Again, you cannot explain the OT with NT verses - there are immense contradictions which are disregarded. We see that the quran does the same thing - it explains the NT via its own paradigms, and the result is a widespread chaos - because there are contradictions between the NT and Quran. [quote] "[A]ll the nations" refers to all the Gentiles who remian at Christ's coming back to the earth. That is the Gentiles who were not destroyed who followed Antichrist at Armageddon (Rev.16:14,16;19:11-15,19-21).This will be the judgment of the living before the millenium [b](Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:1). It differs from His judgment of the dead at the great white throne after the millennium (Rev. 20:11-15).The "sheep" on the left hand of Christ the Judge will be allowed to inherit the kingdom prepared on the earth "from the foundation of the world". Though we may say the kingdom is in another realm, it is still on the earth. From the foundation of the world in the garden of Eden God prepared a kingdom for man. This was the realm in which Adam lived in the earth.The saved Gentiles will be subjected to the priestly saved Israelites who will have Christ reigning over the planet from Jerusalem. This is why I say this kingdom is not other worldly. It was not in Adam's day. And it is not at that time in the future when the saved Gentile "sheep" inherit the kingdom of God which was prepared from the foundation of the world.After the judgment at Christ's throne of glory, the "sheep" will be transferred into the millennium to be the people living under the kingly ruling of Christ and the overcoming believers (Rev. 2:26-27; 12:5; 20:4-6) under the priestly ministry of the saved Jews (Zech. 8:20-23). In this way the "sheep" will inherit the (coming) kingdom. In the millennium there will be three sections:
(1) the earth, where the blessing of God's creation will be, as mentioned in Genesis 1:28-30;(2) the nation of Israel in Canaan, from the Nile to the Euphrates. from which the Jews will rule over the whole earth (Isa. 60:10-12; Zech. 14:16-18); and(3) the heavenly and spiritual ection (1 Cor. 15:50-52), the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens, where the overcoming believers [in Christ] will enjoy the kingdom reward ([Matt.] 5:20; 7:21). The kingdom that the "sheep" will inherit consists of the first section.The blessings of the first section in the millennium, the blessings of God's creation, was prepared for the "sheep" from the foundation of the world, whereas the blessings in the third section, the blessings of the heavenlu and spiritual kingdom, was ordained for the believers before the foundation of the world (Eph.1:3-4).Footnotes 34(1) and (2) of Matt. 25:34, The Recovery Version.Jesus said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matt.5:5) This kingdom is in "the earth" according to the words of Jesus.Luke 19:17,19 say that Jesus will reward His faithful servants with authority over so many cities respectively:And he said to him, Well done, good slave. Because you have become faithful in the least, have authority over ten cities ... Amd he said to this one as well, And you, be over five cities.These cities over which Christ's rewarded servants are to rule are in the inhabited earth when He returns. I don't think that they will be in another realm as you describe the garden.1.) The coming "earth" is to be subjected not to angels but to the human servants of Christ:"For it was not to angels that He subjected the coming inhabited EARTH, concerning which we speak. (Heb. 2:5 my emphasis)2.) Christ returns to establish His kingdom not in another realm but in the inhabited earth:"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited EARTH, He says, And let all the angels of God worship Him." (Heb. 1:6).By comparing the facts about Christ's return and restoration of the earth and the facts of early Genesis - "the foundation of the world" we can ascertain that the garden kingdom/paradise was earthly. It may have been in a quality which was in another realm from what we know today. But I do not think it was in another dimension or not on the surface of the geophysical planet. [/quote]'God is not like man' [Samuel]'The son shall not pay for the father, not the mother for the daughter' [OT Law]These laws are non-negotiable. Your views are based on a premise the revelation at Sinai was wanting - such a premise has no end - and calls for the Quran and any other new treatise negating the Gospels again. One cannot be selective where one starts and ends - as this can be negated equally as you do with the OT. Of coz, the issue of belief impacts here, but the OT is not based on belief, as is the NT: the hebrews did not accept Moses' word and demanded proof in OPEN revelation. And they got it. This is not the case with the Gospels - which says they believed in third party reportings: they should have asked for proof - and demanded that only the one who gave the law at Sinai can speak for himself - they did not do so. There is a difference here.

One clear error with Paul is: its not what goes in of one's mouth but what goes out. This was used as a basis for negating the OT laws.Clearly, what comes out is dependent on what goes in.The other is that the Sinai revelation was deficient - this would make all revelations deficient in a cyclical mode.Paul was rejected by the original Nasserites and Ebonites which were the first two group to follow Jesus; Paul was only accepted by those who never followed the OT, in effect constituting an audience desperate to abandon Hellenism and Romanism; an exploitation occured here. Aside from a revelation alledgedly subscribed to Paul, we have other reveations made by Islamic sources - in dire ciontradiction of the gospels. Where does it end? It seems blatant the OT cannot be alligned with anything else for its ture contextual meanings - and any divergence is based on retrospective beliefs which appear more political than substantial.

quote:

---

Hebrew nouns are derived from verbs.

---

Correct. The universe itself was ushered in by a verb, which signifies an action. All names can be traced to their root action, as in blacksmith signifying a source of a smith worker. Adam is thus derived from the action of rising a life form from the earth. But the breath of life is not of the earth.

quote:

---

I don't think it negated OT law. I think it made a more penetrating point than OT law. It hightened the morality of OT law.

---

It acting as a focusing of the law's actioning, certainly makes it a better view. With regard negating the law - this cannot be done by Jesus or anyone else - save for the one who gave the law. In fact, despite some such views with christians - this has never been successful: the law stands today with no deminishing.I recently read an article by an Islamic scholar, asserting that the quran has been mis-interpreted *by muslims* of recent, and requires a reappraisal [I can post this if required]. This may also be the applicable case with the Gospels. Both thoese scriptures do not contain the mandated law NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT, as does the OT. Which is quite ironic and telling.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I find the hebrew writings and language a total mystery, and none of the links on the webs and encyclopedeas gives any resolvement. This language appears to have come suddenly and in an already advanced state, with no resemblance of its spacetime for a 1000 years before or after. I even suspect that the sumerian/phonecian, deemed the prototype of the hebrew, is actually the other way around. What I *think* occured, was that there was an original language which was not resultant from the evolutionary process [there are no such imprints], but was somehow bestowed upon humanity, and Hebrew is closest to this language - perhaps due to the ever wondering hebrew/jews syndrome, which lacked the privilege of refineing this language.For certain, hebrew today is like a crystal ball how all languages were spoken in ancient times - the gutheral phonations are still in tact, which has been discarded from other language by refinement. Consider that 'night' is spelled that way because it was pronounced in that gutheral way merely a few centuries back. This gives the Hebrew a big credence of its authenticity.My bewilderment is, why the other nations - far mightier and older than the Hebrews - never left us alphabetical, historical books as did the Hebrew? When we consider that those mighty nations survived a 1000 years after the emergence of the Hebrew [eg. Phoenecia; Babylon], and these were not in dispersion and exile - there is an inference the prevailing views of language origins and which is the oldest - has some holes in it and cannot be vindicated in reality.The Hebrew writings possess some big time shockers, and appears authentically alligned with the space-times it's texts speak of. Consider that the first two words in the 10 Cs are not in Hebrew but ancient egyptian ['Ano chi'/ 'I Am']; this is directed at the Pharoah, who regarded himself as divine and spoke no Hebrew. The latter factor again disproving which language is the older: Egypt was closely associated with Canaan and Sumeria for a 1000 years before Hebrew - how then could it not speak Hebrew - unless the Hebrew was older? All the 1000s of names, spread of the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham , Ishmael, etc - have been deemed 100% authentic: the foremost factor used by archeologists in determing ages is NAMES. A 4000 year name never occurs 3500 ago. I find it bewildering a document so old could recall all these names, with dob and dod's, places and events - and be authentic. Its a mystery - any enlightenment here is welcome.

quote:

---

What makes you think the planet earth is the same today as it was in the beginning which was so long ago you can not even come up with a number big enough to say how old it is.

---

This is an excellent point. It is nowhere more applicable than in the Noah story: here, the whole world becomes limited to the then known old world - Tasmania and New Orleans never existed at this time, namely 5,500 years ago. The texts also declare in its preamble it refers to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD - thus the animals also are limited to his possessions, and thus no tigers or elephants are mentioned here. Consider that if we describe an event today - would we be rendered false if in 5,500 years the human habitation extended to and included the Moon, Mars and Jupiter? If anything, this factor renders the Noah story more authentic.Perhaps we will discover one day, the rivers nominated in Genesis will be evidenced by archeology. A text's validity must be judged by its vindicated factors, which are greatly manifest in Genesis; very little is not vindicated.There is a certain mystery here: Moses is describing an event which occured some 2000 years previously - and giving an account with attaching names, nations, terrains, cultures, diets, animals and traditions - with an exacting not possible by recall or by copying from other writings - yet it is authentic, and its equavelence is not seen any place else. No writings from ancient Egypt or Sumeria gives such specific, historical accounts. There is an awesome import here, which threatens all our knowns of what is reasonable here.

quote:

---

How do you figure that nishmath chayiym is not of this earth?

---

According to the OT sages and oral law, humans possess a factor in their souls which no other life form possess, and this refers to speech - a Gdlike attribute, which was bestowed directly from the Creator - after humans were already formed but were still inactive and immobile - or at least - not as the modern humans we see now, namely with speech. Thus it says, AND MAN BECAME A *LIVING* SOUL.This is a wholly logical and scientific premise. The human was fully formed but not alive - a triggering activated the formed. This is also seen in all other life - which was not activated till a mist arose and the rains came. the analogy is: THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS. If it was not this way - science would not exist - we would have no way of observing a process at work.The oral law, derived from Moses, states this:

quote:

---

'Let us make man.' God may be said to address the spiritual and the material elements thus: 'Till now all creatures have been of matter only; now I will create a being who shall consist of both matter and spirit.'--Gen. Rabba 8.

---

The breadth is also acknowledged in any Eastern religions and philosophies as the ultimate factor.