ADAM\EVE

[micah7:9]

Granted and agreed, but that is but a word.

[WhiteWings]

I had noticed sometime ago that it did not rain until Gen. 7:4 and then God caused the flood. It is very interesting that Adam according to Gen.3:17-19 was to do all that farming or growing, tilling, toiling, whatever with out a drop of water/rain. That I believe is substansial.

Kind of a NATURAL unexplainable Mystery Micah  EGH?--again the figurative for mine is where its at Brother

I think somewhere it says vapor/mist rose from the ground.

Elsewhere it writes that God blesses friend and enemy with rain. So why not the first people? The farming activities of Adam would eb rather futile without rain.
So I think the verse must mean something else.

[Taffy]

I had noticed sometime ago that it did not rain until Gen. 7:4 and then God caused the flood. It is very interesting that Adam according to Gen.3:17-19 was to do all that farming or growing, tilling, toiling, whatever with out a drop of water/rain. That I believe is substansial.

Kind of a NATURAL unexplainable Mystery Micah  EGH?--again the figurative for mine is where its at Brother

I think somewhere it says vapor/mist rose from the ground.

Elsewhere it writes that God blesses friend and enemy with rain. So why not the first people? The farming activities of Adam would eb rather futile without rain.
So I think the verse must mean something else.

mm the rain will fall on the righteous and unrighteous?or do yopu mean JUST getting wet     = My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: evenin the natural sense seems this was many many year later


maybe this is talking about Clouds, where RAIN falls? Interesting The LORD is KNOWN as a CLOUD who is SPIRIT---LIFE-
Gen 2:6   But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 

Job 36:27   For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: 

even so WW-  the above doesnt negate there was No rain on the EARTH until Noah and the FLOOD
 
I just presented to TT that is the figurativ eof the story which matters--one couldnt matter less if it REALLY did happen or not--- thats not the point - as I wasnt around to see it all-- 

[redhotmagma]

I often find revelation understandable with a bit of study

The carnal bloke I am I agree with that statement. But there are various ways of study. The usual study of looking up verses word meanings etc etc.
But there is another method of studying. Just accept a teaching/idea as true (for a few  weeks). Then just do your regular Bible stuff and simply keep checking if that teaching fits. You don't have to understand why. Just see if it makes sense in more than just 1 place.
A good example of that is 'for ever' and 'age'.  You can start digging in real deep in the ancient Greek. At scholar level. Go to the library and search for old none Biblical writings. Or.... you can just accept it and at every possible verse see if age makes more sense that for ever. If it never does makes sense you debunked the idea without looking up one Greek word. If it does you at least have some prove the age teaching isn't totally insane.

 

I pretty much ignored the allegorical, its been pounded into my head literal, then if all else fails allegorical.  Even then I'd never really heard any allegory teaching until I came here.  And even then I still pretty much ignored it.  BUT  my friend is going through a separation possible divorce.  We talk a lot about it, and when I speak, I become filled with the Spirit (again a new reality for me, being sure at least) and out of my mouth comes the allegory.  I at first wrote it off, but this week I decided to do what WW has recommended.  And by I decided, I really mean He led me, because I was definitely not looking for it.  I've had a bunch of topics I've been chewing over, and every time I try to look into one topic, all I see is covering, toungue, mind, thoughts, seed.  The other morning I woke up saying this over and over in my head: "Dabar Yah, Deborah".

[Molly]

The other morning I woke up saying this over and over in my head: "Dabar Yah, Deborah".

Dabar Yah
Word of the LORD


"Deborah"
H1682

דּברה    דּבורה
debôrâh  debôrâh
deb-o-raw', deb-o-raw'
From H1696 (in the sense of orderly motion); the bee (from its systematic instincts): - bee.


Matthew 3:4
And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

[Taffy]

 :mblush:The name Deborah comes from the root , meaning to speak or pronounce. It's also where the phrase "Word of God" comes from, and is identical to the word , meaning bee.

Deborah the  prophetess -  for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. the WORD of TRUTH

bees make Honey - the LAND of MILK and HONEY is the promised""LAND""


HONEY-- 

1 Samuel 14:27
But Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath: wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened.

A revelation of TRUTH , 

1 Samuel 14:43
Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die.

honey is the Knowledge of GODS wisdom---

PROVERBS 24: 13 My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: 14So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: when thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, and thy expectation shall not be cut off.

[Nathan]

Expand the context a bit more on that event . . .the honey was not found in the hollow of a tree or in a carcass of a lion . .which is another profound analogy . . .but here, the honey was on the ground . . .since when does honey accumulate on the ground??

The thing about allegories is . . . they are no different than the literal words if we aren't enabled by the Spirit to "see" them.  Jesus only spoke in allegories . . he was talking on several levels of truth to those listening to him.  He spent much of the beginning of his ministry trying to explain the principles of the kingdom to us, he tried telling us that spiritual principles operate on a whole other level of rules than our realm of thinking can comprehend. 

This is why faith is such a huge factor in our relationship with the Father.  Defining faith is the key to understanding the principles of the kingdom.  Walking in knowledge is not the same as walking in faith . . .and as a result, there will always be a different, and may I be so bold to say a "lesser" outcome.  Relying on my minds LIMITED abilities to interpret the spiritual truths of Scripture will always leave me incomplete and deformed because I try to make whole conclusions with limited understanding.

So the next best thing people do is rely on what others have elaborated on . . .such as commentators, dictonaries, many various kinds of study helps through which we feel more comfortable in coming to a conclusion as to what we beleive.  But for me, it all goes back to that "Peter experience" where Jesus asked him on a personal level "Who do YOU say that I am?"  At which point I beleive Peter received his first revelation of who Jesus was.  And Jesus expounded even more on the event by stating that flesh and blood didn't teach you this . . .and there is the crux.

All of our studying and mental disciplinary activity really can only do for us what Moses (law) did for Israel, he could lead them 'to" the promised land, but not "in" it.   Jesus even directly addressed this issue with the Pharisees . . .he told them "you search the Scriptures for in them you think you'll find eternal life, but they merely point to me . . ."  Scripture, in all of it's greatness, is still nothing more than a sign pointing "to" Christ.  Study it, search it, adhere to it all you want, but it's not the person, it's merely a depiction of who Jesus is.  It can't "reveal" spiritual truth . . .only the living author who wrote it can do that.

Why allegories?  Why not just plain truth?  Because allegories are directed toward our spiritiual well-being.  Our minds can only comprehend what's plainly written, but spiritual truth is not for our minds, it's for our hearts.  So the mind reads one thing while the heart takes it to a whole other level of someithng else.  It literally requires faith to see what isn't tangibly there.  We merely rely on receiving what God is showing rather than relying on embracing what our minds are projecting.  One is liberation through relationship.  The other is bondage through religion.

[Taffy]

Study it, search it, adhere to it all you want, but it's not the person, it's merely a depiction of who Jesus is.  It can't "reveal" spiritual truth . . .only the living author who wrote it can do that.

This is why faith is such a huge factor in our relationship with the Father.  Defining faith is the key to understanding the principles of the kingdom.  Walking in knowledge is not the same as walking in faith

[thinktank]

I have faith that the creation of Genesis is a real account of Gods mysterious power in action. Fair enough if people don't find it spiritually benificial. But I for one find the mystery of our creation of the human race to be fascinating and I personaly belive that if mankind knew our origins better, that the world would be a much better place.

Not knowing our history, makes many people anxious about what exactly it means, to be human. Are we just random acts of creation, or nothing more than intelligent animals. But understanding that we were created in Gods image for me, brings me a certain amount of peace. The full details of our creation may not be fully understood yet, but in time, God will reveal more about our origins and through various sectors, whether it's through science, religion, philosophy, math, etc. These sectors may not be inspired directly by God, but their contributions helps the man of faith, utilize their findings and tools to find out more about the creation of life. Even Jesus used the tools of man, by utilizing the scholary writings written by posibly religious scribes of Isiah, in order to preach to the congregation. So rather that science are tools of the devil, they can be used for Godly purposes to bring understanding or cement evidence of the authroity of the scriptures.

[Nathan]

You stated
These sectors may not be inspired directly by God, but their contributions helps the man of faith, utilize their findings and tools to find out more about the creation of life

But don't you think it would be so much greater to have God reveal "his" desires to us today rather than us try to prove where he was yesterday?

You stated
Even Jesus used the tools of man, by utilizing the scholary writings written by posibly religious scribes of Isiah, in order to preach to the congregation

You view the Scriptures as tools of men?  I thought they were inspired by the Spirit?  For me, the things Jesus preached were not so much things that derived from the minds of men, but from the heart of God BECAUSE of the destructive nature that manifests through the minipulations of the minds of men.  The Scriptures were not mens tools, they were/are God's voice.  The process here is man "proving" something God is providing.  That's not faith at all.   If we have a relationship with God, we have a direct path spiritually into the very things flesh is trying to prove naturally. 

You again stated
So rather that science are tools of the devil, they can be used for Godly purposes to bring understanding or cement evidence of the authroity of the scriptures

I'm not against science at all . . .but all of science is based on proof.  All of God is based on faith.  Why would I use methods of proof to enable me to walk in faith when proof is just the opposite of faith.  Whether they can prove Noah's ark existed or not has absolutely no bearing on what I see the ark to be.  It doesn't change it's significance a tiny bit, it doesn't change the pattern of what it represents . . .let the scientists spend their lives doing whatever compels them.  But regardless of what they prove or disprove, nothing they accomplish will affect the depths of where faith lies.  It doesn't lie in evidence, it lies in relationship.

it's as Scripture states, if light is in our eye, then everything we see will have light in it . . .but if darkness is in our eye . . .it's not what is in front of us, it's what's within us that dictates what we'll see or won't see.  That's why faith is the activating force at work in us.  It doesn't take into account what is seen in the natural.  In fact, it challenges us to defy what we're seeing with our eyes and proclaim what we're seeing in our hearts.

[thinktank]

You stated
Even Jesus used the tools of man, by utilizing the scholary writings written by posibly religious scribes of Isiah, in order to preach to the congregation

You view the Scriptures as tools of men?  I thought they were inspired by the Spirit?  For me, the things Jesus preached were not so much things that derived from the minds of men, but from the heart of God BECAUSE of the destructive nature that manifests through the minipulations of the minds of men.  The Scriptures were not mens tools, they were/are God's voice.  The process here is man "proving" something God is providing.  That's not faith at all.   If we have a relationship with God, we have a direct path spiritually into the very things flesh is trying to prove naturally.


No I see the scriptures as God inspired, but yet the tool of man, which is the ability of man to write. Men of faith utilize the tools that worldy men have created with their hands. There is a scripture which says, let the thief work with his hands, that he may repay.

The scriptures are Gods words, but yet he uses mans pen, to write the words.

Isaiah 50:2
Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.

Take this computer for example, and the Internet, even though here we speak of faith, it is thanks to the work of unbeliving man that these tools exist.


I'm not saying that science can replace faith, science is way behind what faith can accomplish. eg while science gets to grip with trying to increase human life span by another month and to make life here more comfortable, faith filled beleivers already know in our hearts that our eternal life awaits us in eternal peace. But that does not stop a faith filled scientists to take what the evolutist or unbeleiving scientist has discovered and use that information to help improve our lives here on earth. Jesus said to occupy till he comes, we are to heal the sick and be of service to mankind, to make this world a better place. Our faith is good, but it can be used to turn that faith to help others who have no faith.

[Nathan]

Really?  Where does faith come from then?  What's it's origin?

[thinktank]

I think there are two types of faith. One is in God's character and his truth, which Christians must press into.

Then there is worldy type faith that unbeleivers can utilize, such as the wise men of old, the astrologers, etc scientists e.g Einstein, who discover revoloutionary ideas, that were brough forth, from Einsteins dreams and his inquisitive mind.

Perhaps maybe even a third type of faith, where people have faith in each other, couples etc, or have faith in prodcuts. E.g a person has faith that he will win the lottery, or that he will win the jackpot in roulette, or that a certain stock in a company will skyrocket, or that the Allies will win victory over the Axis of evil.

All of these faiths, I reason, but especially, faith in God, requires belief in things not yet seen.
 

[Nathan]

Jeeze, isn't that the same as saying there are different kinds of being pregnant?

[thinktank]

The scripture says that God is unseen and says faith is the unseen. But also says even the demons believe in God and tremble.

So I reason that faith in God is much more than simpply believing he exists, but to have faith in his character and His holyness and his holy word.

There are many who beleive in a God, the bible mentions that they worshipped idols and had faith in the idols. So what my post is trying to convey is that, often people use the term faith, but they have a very different understanding of what it means to them personally.
 

[Molly]

...Adam, which was the son of God.
--Luke 3

[Taffy]

...Adam, which was the son of God.
--Luke 3

who was the Fallen ANgel, the morning star in eze 28---

[Nathan]

Everything has a different meaning personally.  For me there are only two kinds of faith . . . I'm not even sure the best way to describe it.  Believing in ANYTHING that can not be seen is faith.  But not all faith is productive.  That might be a good word . . .productive faith and destructive faith.  One brings hope and promise, the other brings fear and bondage . . .and even death.  I call it dark faith . .  . but my wrestling begins with trying to contrast that with  . .what?  "Light" faith? 

For me, worry is faith.  It's seeing things that aren't as though they are . . .that's what faith is.  We all have faith . . .it's the application of that faith that will then manifest in different ways.  And you and i may even be saying the same thing, I don't know.  It's just the way I read it, sounded confusing for me.

[Molly]

Faith comes from Christ, the author and perfector of our faith, and is evidence of Christ in us, which is why it is impossible to please God without faith.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Heb 11:6

[micah7:9]

I am not sure how this topic got here, but I feel that way about many things discussed here.

FAITH Heb 11:1

(ASV)  Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

(CLV) Now faith is an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed;"

(KJV)  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

(Rotherham)  But faith is, of things hoped for, a confidence, of facts, a conviction, when they are not seen;

(RYLT-NT)  And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

(WNT)  Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

(Wuest's)  1-3 Now faith is the title deed of things hoped for, the proof of things which are not being seen. For by means of this the elders had witness borne to them. By means of faith we perceive that the material universe and the God-appointed ages of time were equipped and fitted by God's word for the purpose for which they were intended, and it follows therefore that that which we see did not come into being out of that which is visible.
 
(YLT)  And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

Faith is a step, no, it is a giant step past believing

[pneuma]

ENMITYis hatred- they oppose one another as does the carnal Mind against the spiritual--- shown in allegory within the post

I'm trying to see how/if your allegory holds up--because the enmity is not between the woman[soul/carnal mind] and the man[spirit].  It is between the seed of the woman and the seed of the Nachash.

So the woman is producing seed and the Nachash is producing the seed and the two are at enmity.  So who is the woman in the allegory and who is the Nachash, and how are they different?  How is their seed different?  Whence comes the enmity?

- eve is OUR soul shown as the carnal MIND but HIDDEN "WITHIN IT  " IS HIS SEED- SLAIN from the beginning- HIS seed lays sleeping till made awake- HE makes DARKNESS- thats THE CARANL MIND HIS hiding PLACE, hid behind the veil wating to resurrect with in-- is that better?

From whence this teaching? I have to believe there is some teacher or paper on this thinking of eve is our soul/woman/carnal mind the flesh, the serpent etc.
Im not trying to be out of line, I just would like to know where these thoughts and reasonings come from. Or are you the first to bring this forward?  I believe there is something to it and to consider, but I cannot understand why it is so adamantly spoken, thats it, period, forget about believing that there is another understanding.

Micah, read "Types in Genesis" by Andrew Jukes

Very good book IMO

Taffy I see the serpent more as our flesh life, the life we have other then the life of Christ.

When our soul (eve) is intimate with our serpent (flesh life) they produce the carnal mind with all its lust.

[Taffy]

ENMITYis hatred- they oppose one another as does the carnal Mind against the spiritual--- shown in allegory within the post

I'm trying to see how/if your allegory holds up--because the enmity is not between the woman[soul/carnal mind] and the man[spirit].  It is between the seed of the woman and the seed of the Nachash.

So the woman is producing seed and the Nachash is producing the seed and the two are at enmity.  So who is the woman in the allegory and who is the Nachash, and how are they different?  How is their seed different?  Whence comes the enmity?

- eve is OUR soul shown as the carnal MIND but HIDDEN "WITHIN IT  " IS HIS SEED- SLAIN from the beginning- HIS seed lays sleeping till made awake- HE makes DARKNESS- thats THE CARANL MIND HIS hiding PLACE, hid behind the veil wating to resurrect with in-- is that better?

From whence this teaching? I have to believe there is some teacher or paper on this thinking of eve is our soul/woman/carnal mind the flesh, the serpent etc.
Im not trying to be out of line, I just would like to know where these thoughts and reasonings come from. Or are you the first to bring this forward?  I believe there is something to it and to consider, but I cannot understand why it is so adamantly spoken, thats it, period, forget about believing that there is another understanding.

Micah, read "Types in Genesis" by Andrew Jukes

Very good book IMO

Taffy I see the serpent more as our flesh life, the life we have other then the life of Christ.

When our soul (eve) is intimate with our serpent (flesh life) they produce the carnal mind with all its lust.

      its the serpent realm EARTH \soul\our eve ] in which it dwells -\aka Peter being called satan 

[WhiteWings]

"Types in Genesis" by Andrew Jukes

For those interested:

Website - Free
e-Sword module - Free
Printed and electronic copies - $
Download in Microsoft Word format - Free

Other writings by Jukes

[Taffy]

"Types in Genesis" by Andrew Jukes

For those interested:

Website - Free
e-Sword module - Free
Printed and electronic copies - $
Download in Microsoft Word format - Free

Other writings by Jukes

TY for those links Tony- The law of the sacrifices is the best written article ive ever read-

[KingKenny]

I've brought this topic back up because I have a couple of questions which suddenly came into my head last night which tie in with Adam and Eve. I didn't want to start a new topic, so here it goes.

I was sat on my bed last night, listening to some music and a thought came to me; 'Is the carnal mind part of my spirit?' Then another thought, 'Were Adam and Eve already carnally minded because they succumbed to temptation, leading to the Fall?'

So it lead onto more thoughts about me, my spirit, my very being. Are our spirits corrupted and therefore the Holy Spirit is the quickening spirit that makes us alive?

When the terms like 'flesh' are used, is that another way of saying carnal/adamic nature? So if I have a drink, and I want to have more, is that my physical brain wanting more, or is it the carnal side of my spirit wanting more?

I hope that makes some sort of sense.