Did man fall? No he did not fall. The teaching of the "fall of man" is a christian lie.
And if man did fall, from what did man fall?
From where die he fall?
Did God error?
Did God make a mistake in His creation?
Yes I am agressive because if man fell, then God, The Creator made a mistake. I not believe that God can, will, or does make mistakes. And so I say Adam was in fact working in the very WILL of God in Gen. 3 and forth worth.
MAN NEVER FELL, THERE IS NO FALL OF MAN, MAN IS IN THE VERY ORDER OF HIS WILL.
Should you prove that "man fell," you will prove that God is a hoax and I for one can not accept that.
Uh oh . . . watch the worms . . .the can is being opened again . . .
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 25, 2010, 06:45:49 AM
Did man fall?
Yes, and it was preplanned in advance, according to the bible
Rev 13v8
Romans 8 v20-21
Told ya . . .
Here . . .my two cents . . .In Adam's eyes, he may have fallen, he may have chosen. Either way, God led it all.
I just had a thought on this . . .imagine a long wooden trough that was as wide as it was long. On one end was a small inlet where a flow of water constantly came in. At the other end, an outlet where the water flowed out. Consider the water to be the presence of God and the waters current to be God's will. now, place a small float at the inlet, that would be Adam. Whereever there is water, the float will go. But eventually, the current will lead it to the outlet.
Adam did have the ability to make choices, yet eventually, the will of God would manifest at one point or another.
For me, the purpose of Adam and Eve and the whole long line of man was to bring glory to Christ . . .Adam had to be in a place where redemption was needed and required in order for Christ to manifest.
On the 7th day God rested.
Where?
In man.
We are created to be God's Sabbath, a place of rest for Him.
I belive God is infinite, so if Adam had chosen the tree of life, then God would have had a different plan for Adam and the human race, but Adam choose the tree of knowledge and so God set up the redemption plan.
But the POINT here is that God KNEW what choices Adam would make and let it happen anyway
Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:[/b]
To say God was surprised by anything is denying reality, the illusion of free will is a tactic manufactured to shift the blame onto us for being created sinners, which was something we had no control over in the first place
Quote from: Shadow on July 25, 2010, 08:52:28 PM
But the POINT here is that God KNEW what choices Adam would make and let it happen anyway ... To say God was surprised by anything is denying reality, the illusion of free will is a tactic manufactured to shift the blame onto us for being created sinners, which was something we had no control over in the first place
Shadow, if God made man in His image and truly gave us freedom to choose ... how could He
not "let it happen anyway?" If He overrides the choices we freely make, we really aren't free, are we?
If we are really free to choose good or evil, life or death, He must allow us to choose them even if it is not His will that we do so; even if it is not what He desires for us. Either we are free to choose, or we are not.
I believe we are, and with that comes the consequences we suffer in this life both from our own choices, and from the choices others make.
Whether there is freewill or not, the POINT is that is doesn't change the final OUTCOME of everything, which has been set in stone anyway
Rev13v8
Quote from: Shadow on July 25, 2010, 09:10:11 PM
Whether there is freewill or not, the POINT is that is doesn't change the final OUTCOME of everything, which has been set in stone anyway
Rev13v8
I think you have forgotten this verse which says
"He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out"
Also
"He that bagan a work in me will complete till the day of Christ"
If you have genuinly asked Jesus into your heart then he will come in and sup with you. Maybe you don't feel anything yet. But one thing though I have learned is that it may be us that doesn't want to feel God, maybe you feel unworthy or scared and don't want God almighty to come in and give you a cuddle. It is harder to feel God if you find it hard to connect with other people. We hide things deep in our hearts that we sometimes don't even realize for years, so we might say one thing, but a big hidden part of us belives something else.
Quote from: thinktank on July 25, 2010, 09:27:26 PMI think you have forgotten this verse which says
How did you conclude that from Shadows post TT?
Here's a technique God showed me. Sometimes words are "tainted" by the society we live in or by people we know. E.g the word love might carry some negative energy due to the way people have abused this word for, lust or something else. The word Jesus Christ is also tainted by people who use it to swear, the word Christian can also be tainted, by people who use that word in a bad way. You might say I' m a christian, instead of thinking of a person of love the person might think oh no here's one of those boring "christians"
Even though they might not say the word boring, it is painted onto the word Christian when they say it.
So it might help to ask God to use the blood of the lamb to wash away the negative aspects about the word "love" and any others you think of that carry negativity about them, when they should be "good words" in their meaning. Beause words are often tainted it helps to do this often. In fact right now the word Christian to me is conjuring up some negative images, so I ask God to wash this word by his blood in Jesus name.
Quote from: WhiteWings on July 25, 2010, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: thinktank on July 25, 2010, 09:27:26 PMI think you have forgotten this verse which says
How did you conclude that from Shadows post TT?
She said on another thread that she thinks she's destined that she won't be written in the lambs book of life, so this is the root of her argument.
Quote
She said on another thread that she thinks she's destined that she won't be written in the lambs book of life, so this is the root of her argument.
Precisely
Quote from: Shadow on July 25, 2010, 10:03:50 PM
Quote
She said on another thread that she thinks she's destined that she won't be written in the lambs book of life, so this is the root of her argument.
Precisely
"Because one is not consciously aware of something, does not mean it is excluded." peacemaker
The body responds to what it thinks and feels; not to what is...
"A longing of expectation, as we are subjected to frustrations, often times on a daily basis in hope of change."
How else will you develop the faith to believe in that, which you do not see?
peacemaker
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 01:03:36 AM
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
I think that verse is talking about the animal kingdom.
Quote from: thinktank on July 25, 2010, 09:47:02 PM
Here's a technique God showed me. Sometimes words are "tainted" by the society we live in or by people we know. E.g the word love might carry some negative energy due to the way people have abused this word for, lust or something else. The word Jesus Christ is also tainted by people who use it to swear, the word Christian can also be tainted, by people who use that word in a bad way. You might say I' m a christian, instead of thinking of a person of love the person might think oh no here's one of those boring "christians"
Even though they might not say the word boring, it is painted onto the word Christian when they say it.
So it might help to ask God to use the blood of the lamb to wash away the negative aspects about the word "love" and any others you think of that carry negativity about them, when they should be "good words" in their meaning. Beause words are often tainted it helps to do this often. In fact right now the word Christian to me is conjuring up some negative images, so I ask God to wash this word by his blood in Jesus name.
Who taints the words, the hearer or the speaker?
OK,
Everyone SLOW down!
Read what has been posted! It's way past the concept of counter and recounter as there has never been an actual counter!
Get the picture? :wink:
Have some actual... FUN! Yes, discussing your view point! :thumbsup:
Paul
You my friend are absolutly correct. I will ask again the question.... in the garden, did man fall, or was he in the perfect will of God, The Father Jehovah?
The term, "The Fall of Man," to me, implies an action outside of the Sovereignty of God.
We have not fallen anywhere except into His plan.
Make no mistake about it.
Psalm 132: (King James Version)
13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.
15 I will abundantly bless her provision: I will satisfy her poor with bread.
16 I will also clothe her priests with salvation: and her saints shall shout aloud for joy.
Revelation 4:
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
:cloud9: I think it's both. God proved in the garden that "free will" can't "trump" His hand, He holds all the cards. Blessings...
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 05:18:18 AM
You my friend are absolutly correct. I will ask again the question.... in the garden, did man fall, or was he in the perfect will of God, The Father Jehovah?
both.
Both . . .yes. I agree with that. God created man in an order. Spirit has authority over body and soul. Not only does it have authority, but that's the order through which life manifests. Adam represents spirit, Eve represents soul . . .and for me, the serpent represents carnality and the tree of knowledge represents the gateway into the natural realm that is governed by carnality.
Eve was the one that was decieved by the carnal pull of knowledge. She ate but was not changed. It wasn't untle SHE FED Adam the fruit that THEY were both immediately aware of their nakedness. This "knowledge" is not spiritual knowledge. If it was, they would have immediately realized the glory of God and who he is, but all they saw was their nakedness. And instead of this knowledge inducing worship, it induced fear and shame.
But they became what they beheld when Adam receieved from his Eve. He threw the order of Man out of alignment. That's what Christ did at the cross, he realigned us back with the Father.
In my humble opinion, Christ did MUCH more than that!
He did not simply restore creation to the same manner as to before the "deed."
That would mean going back to the day's of creation instead of forward to the 7th day — the Sabbath rest of God.
Yes. For me, the process is the same. For us to enter into the person of the Sabbath Day of Rest, a realignment of body, soul and spirit is required. Yet it is not man to does the realigning. It is the spirit at work "in" us that does the realigning. All we do is say "yes".
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 05:18:18 AM
You my friend are absolutly correct. I will ask again the question.... in the garden, did man fall, or was he in the perfect will of God, The Father Jehovah?
You ask, did man fall? I ask fall from where? Man was MADE subject to vanity, he didn't fall there. It was all in the perfect will of God.
Wasn't Adam and Eve's life experience just like the rest of us? When we are born we are innocent so to speak {not really}. The older we get the more we find that we are like Adam and Eve, we try to hide our nakedness by our own works, just like Adam and Eve did when they made themselves clothes out of fig leaves.
The fall or punishment whichever you choose to call it, was that Adam and Eve would experience SORROW in their lives from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve would bear children in SORROW and Adam would rule over her. "In SORROW" Adam would "eat of it {what he tried to grow from the ground} all the days of his life".
Before they ate of the tree of good and evil they were told to be fruitful and multiply, so Eve was to have children before she ate of the forbidden fruit. Also, it says that "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden TO DRESS IT AND KEEP IT". It wasn't like Adam wasn't going to be working, tilling, and growing food anyway, the difference was he would grow and eat in SORROW.
So, this is what I see as the fall of man.
Just the way I see this. :2c:
CHB
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 05:02:22 AM
Quote from: thinktank on July 25, 2010, 09:47:02 PM
Here's a technique God showed me. Sometimes words are "tainted" by the society we live in or by people we know. E.g the word love might carry some negative energy due to the way people have abused this word for, lust or something else. The word Jesus Christ is also tainted by people who use it to swear, the word Christian can also be tainted, by people who use that word in a bad way. You might say I' m a christian, instead of thinking of a person of love the person might think oh no here's one of those boring "christians"
Even though they might not say the word boring, it is painted onto the word Christian when they say it.
So it might help to ask God to use the blood of the lamb to wash away the negative aspects about the word "love" and any others you think of that carry negativity about them, when they should be "good words" in their meaning. Beause words are often tainted it helps to do this often. In fact right now the word Christian to me is conjuring up some negative images, so I ask God to wash this word by his blood in Jesus name.
Who taints the words, the hearer or the speaker?
Both, you can hear someone use the lords name in vain with anger for example and also you yourself can use that name in vain and pollute it if you will. If you constantly swear using Jesus then the holyness of that word become lost, because you would be talking about God in a negative way. Although Im not sure if saying the word Jesus is "bad" if one uses the word when startled, because one can argue it is an automatic reaction to call upon Jesus when in danger, but only God knows one heart.
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 03:36:17 AM
WHAT? Are the words of the Book of significent to you at all. Just WHERE do you find the "animal kingdom" in that verse?????????Rom 8:17 and if children, also heirs, heirs, indeed, of God, and heirs together of Christ--if, indeed, we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.
Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;
Rom 8:19 for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God;
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
Rom 8:21 that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;
I belive words are significant so how can I ignore that in the kjv version it says
Romans8:19 For the earnest expectation of the
creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who had subjected the same in hope,
21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God
Heres a prophecy from Isaiah
11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leapord shall lie down with the kid;and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together:and the lion shall eat straw like the ox
Maybe the romans section is talking about both creatures and also men, but I believe its talking about creatures in that section, because that is what's mentioned.
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 05:40:45 AM
Yea and amen.
I began this post wondering if there were believers who still thought and think, that man, (actually woman) ate of the tree of Good and Bad and that this action brought them from a place, a "perfect state" with Jehovah God? Had man "fallen" from a place of authority or was man working out the plan and purpose of Jehovah God?
And I use
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
as my foundation that ALL that has happened is in HIS Will and Purposed Plan for mankind.
It says that
Genesis2:16 And the lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat:
This is significant Adam was directly commanded by God that he could freely eat any fruit in the garden, probably hudreds even thousands of different fruit, but not from the one tree called the tree of knowledge.
I orginally though that the sin was simply making the wrong choice, but when you read the story carefully one can conclude that it was the ambitious greed to become like God that made them eat of that tree and also a distrust of God.
But out of this evil God makes good out of evil and in his love set up a plan of redemption if Adam was foolish enough to take the tree of knowedge. You could argue God knew all things beforehand and knew that Adam would take the tree of knowledge, therefore set up the redemption plan. But I believe that Adams destiny was in his own hand and God knew about all possibilities, otherwise he would not know all things.
Quote from: CHB on July 26, 2010, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 05:18:18 AM
You my friend are absolutly correct. I will ask again the question.... in the garden, did man fall, or was he in the perfect will of God, The Father Jehovah?
You ask, did man fall? I ask fall from where? Man was MADE subject to vanity, he didn't fall there. It was all in the perfect will of God.
Wasn't Adam and Eve's life experience just like the rest of us? When we are born we are innocent so to speak {not really}. The older we get the more we find that we are like Adam and Eve, we try to hide our nakedness by our own works, just like Adam and Eve did when they made themselves clothes out of fig leaves.
The fall or punishment whichever you choose to call it, was that Adam and Eve would experience SORROW in their lives from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve would bear children in SORROW and Adam would rule over her. "In SORROW" Adam would "eat of it {what he tried to grow from the ground} all the days of his life".
Before they ate of the tree of good and evil they were told to be fruitful and multiply, so Eve was to have children before she ate of the forbidden fruit. Also, it says that "God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden TO DRESS IT AND KEEP IT". It wasn't like Adam wasn't going to be working, tilling, and growing food anyway, the difference was he would grow and eat in SORROW.
So, this is what I see as the fall of man.
Just the way I see this. :2c:
CHB
Taking under consideration that "this" realm is lower than the spiritual realm, and that for me, the garden of Eden is not a natural place on this earth but a spiritual place that Adam not only could no longer live in after the infraction, but they couldn't even visiti it, or ever reenter it again. I would then say that the "fall" of Adam was when he was driven out of the garden (spirit) into the earth (natural).
Hi Nathan,
I think the Garden of Eden did/does exist on earth. I do believe there is a spiritual lesson to be learned from it all.
Where was the Garden of Eden?
http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec096.htm
CHB
Quote from: Nathan on July 26, 2010, 07:20:10 PM
Taking under consideration that "this" realm is lower than the spiritual realm, and that for me, the garden of Eden is not a natural place on this earth but a spiritual place that Adam not only could no longer live in after the infraction, but they couldn't even visit it, or ever reenter it again. I would then say that the "fall" of Adam was when he was driven out of the garden (spirit) into the earth (natural).
Names of these rivers;
Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and Perawth.
And their possible meaning:
"Pride brings forth sudden destruction.""A precipitate decision without sufficient deliberation."peacemaker
I've always viewed Eden as the overlap realm of heaven and earth.
Picture two circles, one blue and the other yellow.
Push them slightly together and the overlap color is green — that's Eden — the marriage of the two.
The fall as a loss of a perfect [spiritual] union with God is both a loss of state in the spiritual and in the natural.
Adam, as the first set apart man and the first priest, was put in the garden to dress it and keep it.
"to dress it"
H5647
עבד
‛âbad
aw-bad'
A primitive root; to work (in any sense); by implication to serve, till, (causatively) enslave, etc.: - X be, keep in bondage, be bondmen, bond-service, compel, do, dress, ear, execute, + husbandman, keep, labour (-ing man), bring to pass, (cause to, make to) serve (-ing, self), (be, become) servant (-s), do (use) service, till (-er), transgress [from margin], (set a) work, be wrought, worshipper.
"to keep it"
H8104
שׁמר
shâmar
shaw-mar'
A primitive root; properly to hedge about (as with thorns), that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.: - beware, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep (-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch (-man).
God himself had planted the garden. Adam's job was to worship God, preserve, and protect the garden, as God's bondservant/ husbandman.
Adam was never deceived by the serpent. As he stands watching the serpent deceive Eve, he says nothing, but he himself is not deceived. The choice made by Adam was not based on pride, therefore, but on something else. He presents himself as the first sacrifice, in hope, because our God is a God of hope. He was not created in vanity, but made subject to it in hope of redemption for all creation. Adam knew he was going to die. Thus, since he doesn't have the words or the power to defeat the serpent or control Eve, he does the next best thing.
Once Adam leaves the Garden, he never utters another word which is recorded. But, Seth is born the spitting image of his father, appointed by God, and carrying the seed of Christ onto the next generation.
Thus, I think that this is talking about Adam--
Romans 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
God doesn't have hope. God is hope.
Romans 15:13
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Quote from: CHB on July 26, 2010, 10:50:56 PM
Hi Nathan,
I think the Garden of Eden did/does exist on earth. I do believe there is a spiritual lesson to be learned from it all.
Where was the Garden of Eden?
http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec096.htm
CHB
I agree, sometime we overspiritualize things because we don't understand it. But to me the garden of Eden has trees, fruits, man made from the Earth, Euphrates river, to many references to Earthly things, it may not make sense to the natural how Adam being Earthly can hear and see God and see the flaming Cherubims, but there's is bound to be a reasonable explanation, and one of those I came up with is that Adam's spirit was alive and did not become spiritually dead until eating the fruit. I think also the curse that God put upon Adam and Eve has something to do with it.
Here is another article that makes sense to me. It is called,
The Temple Symbolism in Genesis
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040301.htm
At the bottom of the article it talks about the Garden of Eden.
CHB
It must first be realized that when the Bible refers to the Land of Eden, it is not speaking about a few acres of land. It was a vast region comparable to the countries of Assyria, Cush (sometimes rendered Ethiopia), Egypt or Canaan. And inside this extensive territory called Eden, God planted a Garden. Even the garden must not be considered small because four rivers could be traced from the Garden into adjacent geographical areas. Though it is not possible to give precise measurements of the Land of Eden or the Garden, it must be understood that these regions were quite spacious and not small insignificant tracts of land that many imagine today.
--IBID
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
--Gen 2
Hiddekel=the Tigris
Genesis 15:18
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-
'the river of Egypt'=the Nile
"They were depicted in one of the earliest maps in recorded history, the "T-O" map. The "T" depicted the 3 major rivers in Mesopotamia: Euphrates, Tigris and the Nile; and the "O" signified the land-mass around these rivers. "
Mesopotamia (from the Greek Μεσοποταμία "[land] between the rivers", rendered in Arabic as بلاد الرافدين bilād al-rāfidayn)[1] is a toponym for the area of the Tigris-Euphrates river system, largely corresponding to modern-day Iraq,[2] as well as some parts of northeastern Syria,[2] southeastern Turkey,[2] and southwestern Iran.[3][4]
Widely considered to be the cradle of civilization, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires. In the Iron Age, it was ruled by the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. The indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians & Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to Alexander the Great in 332 BC and after his death it became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire
--wikipedia
Question: We can see that Gen 2 is not only describing an area of the oldest known 'civilization' ['the birthplace of civilization'] but it also looks like Eden might encompass the land promised to the descendents of Abraham.
On a physical [carnal] level perhaps this would explain the great interest in [conquering] Iraq and Iran in these times,--if the Jews want their 'promised land back, Israel is the 'tip of the iceberg'-- but on a spiritual level, the 'land' promised to us, as descendents of Abraham, is what is important, and it is none other than 'the paradise of God'.
Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
Quote from: thinktank on July 27, 2010, 07:01:34 PM
Quote from: CHB on July 26, 2010, 10:50:56 PM
Hi Nathan,
I think the Garden of Eden did/does exist on earth. I do believe there is a spiritual lesson to be learned from it all.
Where was the Garden of Eden?
http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec096.htm
CHB
I agree, sometime we overspiritualize things because we don't understand it. But to me the garden of Eden has trees, fruits, man made from the Earth, Euphrates river, to many references to Earthly things, it may not make sense to the natural how Adam being Earthly can hear and see God and see the flaming Cherubims, but there's is bound to be a reasonable explanation, and one of those I came up with is that Adam's spirit was alive and did not become spiritually dead until eating the fruit. I think also the curse that God put upon Adam and Eve has something to do with it.
Overspiritualize? See, I could reverse that and use your words for the same argument against the idea that it's a literal place. But this isn't about winning a debate. If it's overspiritualizing to you, I'm fine with that. I didn't search out another meaning because I didn't understand the original one. That's just it, I 'did" understand the original meaning in that there was a literal place east of Eden called the garden . . .I didn't go "looking" for another way to see it, I thought I was already seeing it. But when one part of a belief starts to crumble, it affects the whole beleif system
My understanding of hell has collapsed. My understanding of losing your salvation has collapsed. My understanding of the rapture has collapsed it goes on and on and on. Included in that "on and on" part is my understanding that the garden is a natural place. I could swear I put a post out earlier today on this but I don't see it.
One reason why I don't think it was a natural place is dealing with the verse where God walked with Adam in the cool of the day . . .for whatever obsurd reason, the translators chose to us the word "cool" for the word that literally means "breath" or "breathe". It's the same word used through the rest of the Old Testament for the word "spirit". In that light, God walked with Adam IN THE SPIRIT of the DAY. The Day being Christ. The spirit being "spirit". Meaning it was a spiritual place.
Out of the garden flowed "one" river with no name. One, the number of sovereignty. AFTER the river flowed through the garden, it formed into 4 other rivers. 4 is the number of the natural realm. The earth consists of 4 major elements in water, fire, air and earth. There are four seasons. There are four major directions . ..when I see something change from one to four, for me, it's speaking of something passing from invisible to visible, from spirit to flesh. I believe the river did indeed flow out of the garden, but it didn't "visibly" manifest until the four heads.
Incidentally, the Eurphrates is said to dry up in Revelation. Coundless denominations and religious systems believe that to be literal. It's supposed to dry up as preparation for the kings of the east. I used to think that was literal to, until one does a LITTLE digging and finds that the modern technology today can EASILY maniupulate an army across a river whether it's dried up or not.
But in the kingdom perspective, I see the river is to be the great accomplishments of man's works. It literally means fruitfulness. Mans fruitfulness is going dry up. All men, may not be all at once according to time in this realm, but regardless of whether it's instantaneous or a process, our personal accomplishments in our belief system will be/is drying up for the purpose of the kings of the east. What that is, is the removal of an old system making way for the entrance of a new one. The new one is us. We are kings and we are priests. And the fact that we are "of the east" speaks volumes to what our identity is. East speaks of resurrection. That's why the garden was "east" of Eden and the gate to the garden was also east. Everything in the tabernacle of Moses faces the east. Even when Jesus was born, the wisemen came from the east . . .it's all about resurrection, the rising of the Son.
Or would I rather revert to the traditional beleif that a literal river is going to dry up so the warrirers of China can cross it.
The more I see Eden as a spiritual place, the more I see how that unlocks other things in Scripture when dealing with "ascended" places. If Scripture depicts men as trees, and there were many trees in the garden of Eden . . .who's to say the other trees in the garden couldn't be connected to the offspring of Adam and Eve. That was their directive early on, that they were to reproduce and multiply.
When God was reexplaining what they were about to experience in thier new world . . .earth . . he didn't tell Eve that she'd now be able to reproduce. Instead he said now when she does, it's going to be painful. For me there's to much evidence there to think it's anything else "but" a spiritual place.
I suppose then you see Gen. 2 and further chapters as allegorys?
Very interesting post, Nathan. Micah, thanks for asking the question - I'd like to hear more.
Similar to yours and my discussion last night micah, there sure is a lot to think about :umnick:
Overspiritualize? Impossible !
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen,
but at the things which are not seen:
for the things which are seen are temporal (4340);
but the things which are not seen are eternal.
4340. proskairos pros'-kahee-ros from 4314 and 2540; for the occasion only,
i.e. temporary:--dur-(eth) for awhile, endure for a time, for a season, temporal.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 28, 2010, 12:14:31 AM
Overspiritualize? Impossible !
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen,
but at the things which are not seen:
for the things which are seen are temporal (4340);
but the things which are not seen are eternal.
4340. proskairos pros'-kahee-ros from 4314 and 2540; for the occasion only,
i.e. temporary:--dur-(eth) for awhile, endure for a time, for a season, temporal.
Nothing wrong with looking at deeper meaning of things, I know a lot of people here like to go deep behind the meanings, but what I mean by overspiritualize is the tendency to overlook the natural and sometimes deny it. Some people/sects believe that the flesh is evil of itself and think that spiritual things are good while flesh and earthly things are evil. But God says that even four footed beasts and all manner of creeps are acceptable to eat if received with thanksgiving. The mind is the computer in which to gain knowledge of God, Jesus said that it is not unclean to wash with dirty hands but rather uncleaness come from within a man, for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts and all malice.
The garden of Eden may contain deeper meanings, but it doesn't mean the garden does not exist in the natural, for didn't Paul an apostle of Christ comment about how Eve was deceived and so forth.
I believe there is a great deal of meaning given by the Spirit for our spiritual understanding of the deep things of God, but I as for myself I refrain from spiritualizing.
Spiritualizing, to me, has to with very things we are waring against.
Yes the garden is a real place. First the natural, then the spiritual. He's taking us on a journey to a place we know not.
Psalm 143:10
Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.
John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
:cloud9: The Spirit IS Christ, so therefore what's revealed thru revelation, is more of CHRIST being revealed in wisdom and understanding, that will ALWAYS mirror the letter and natural. Anything that does not reveal CHRIST, is anti-christ.
The way we test the spirits is by what they exalt. On the day of Pentecost the HG exalted God and His marvelous works among men. Principle: the spirit always exalts the one that sent it.
Therefore if we are seeking Him with our whole heart and don't have any "sacred cows" we won't throw on the BBQ when shown differently by revelation of the Spirit, then we have to conclude by faith that our Father will not give us a serpent if we ask for a fish.
I personally don't care what I have to throw on the BarB to get more of Him and the Father. :flamebreath: My :2c: Blessings....
Quote from: Molly on July 28, 2010, 01:28:43 AM
Yes the garden is a real place. First the natural, then the spiritual. He's taking us on a journey to a place we know not.
Psalm 143:10
Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.
John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
Could not the first the natural, be and understanding of what the natural meant, what it taught, rather than there being a natural physcial thing to build on?
I believe we need to hear these words of Our Lord more with each breath..Joh 6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything;
the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 28, 2010, 02:58:39 AM
Quote from: Molly on July 28, 2010, 01:28:43 AM
Yes the garden is a real place. First the natural, then the spiritual. He's taking us on a journey to a place we know not.
Psalm 143:10
Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.
John 4:23
Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
Could not the first the natural, be and understanding of what the natural meant, what it taught, rather than there being a natural physcial thing to build on?
I believe we need to hear these words of Our Lord more with each breath..Joh 6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;
Not sure what you mean, Micah, but when God is showing Moses the details for the tabernacle in the wilderness, he says, build it exactly according to my specifications. The fact is that it is a natural real tabernacle, but it is mirroring a higher truth, as Cardinal said, that is spiritual. Therefore, both are important, but I think you can get to a point where you are so deep into the spiritual that you no longer need the natural. It's something the church goes back and forth on--but given my choice between a dusty patch of land in the middle east and the paradise of God, for me, there's no contest.
Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
"a promise"G1860
επαγγελία
epaggeliaep-ang-el-ee'-ah
From G1861;
an announcement (for information, assent or
pledge;
especially a divine assurance of good): - message, promise.
Real natural tabernacle? Is a Fact? I believe only the Spirit is important.
Didnt David build a real natural tabernacle? And Solomom to? I have not been given to the natural tabernacle. Is the tabernacle that is being now natural or spiritual? The Church may go back and forth on things and Im sure it does, but the Sons, The Overcomer...there is no back and forth. God is Spirit.
Joh 6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;
Rev 2:7 He who is having an ear--let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: To him who is overcoming--I will give to him to eat of the tree of life that is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Yes. :thumbsup:
8 "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.
--Exodus 25
Hebrews 9:11
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Nathan Re: The Fall of Man
« Reply #43 on: Today at 03:58:58 PM »
I liked your post. I want to re read it again.
The Lord has given me to believe in my heart that those who have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying are being to hear. Just as The Lord has moved at other times, I believe He is moving His people (the hearers... those with ears to hear) will move with His signs and wonders, but as at all other times, the move will disrupt the camp site.
The Lord showed me along time ago, "Do not drive the tent stakes in to deep, I AM
not finished." Please, it has nothing to do with Jo. 19:30
Peace and Love Through Jesus
And you too Molly :thumbsup:
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 27, 2010, 11:07:04 PM
I suppose then you see Gen. 2 and further chapters as allegorys?
Please don't assume that because I emphasize spiritual principles, that I'm denying historical events that literally happened. I do beleive that Eden is a place on earth. I "don't" believe the garden is. I also haven't seen anyone really address my reasons for believing what I do. I do try to address other's reasons. Not to argue, but to try to bring clarification.
The long explanation about the rivers . . .my point was that as far as proving the rivers exist goes . . .the rivers do not go through the garden. They're not "in" the garden. There is only one river "in" the garden that flows out and forms the four rivers. For me, that's a picture of God as his spirit pours out, one river pouring out into "all" flesh. The river has no name, much like the nature of God has no name. He is the I am. The food that we eat from him is called "what is it?" That's the definition of "manna". All the signs point to a pattern, I simply pursue the patterns.
But I'm not saying none of the Bible is to be read literally. Read it literally. There really was a Goliath, there really was a David. But pursue the spiritual patterns and you'll also see Goliath represents the carnal man, David represents the spirit of man anointed of God to bring down the carnality of man. The stone represents Christ. The fact that there were five represents grace. The fact they were taken out of a stream represents the Spirit.
The stone penetrated the head of Goliath, just as the Word of Christ penetrates the "mind" of man. It caused Goliath to fall down to the earth . . .it brings carnality back to the dust from which it came. And it wasn't enough to just have the Word penetrate the mind, our head must be removed all together with the SWORD which is the word of God. Not the word written on stone, because if it was that, then there wouldn't have been the need for the sword to separate what was already penetrated.
But the word written in our hearts is what causes us to lose our minds . . .to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh . . .John the Baptist is another example of this. The removal of the head is the link between man and God that allowed the Jordan river to separate because they were carrying the ark upon their shoulders . . .it represented what "should" be our head which is Christ.
When they did, as soon as their feet touched the flooded Jordan (means descender/death) the river rolled back all the way to the city called "Adam". Talk about redeeming works . . .
But yeah, all of those things literally happened. But the spiritual implications go much further than the physical actions. So rather than split hairs on the physical aspects of Scripture, I feel we'd be much more effective in our growth and our walk if we allowed the Father to reveal the spiritual truth that lies beneath the physical stories.
:cloud9: Amen Nathan.....we must press in past the literal to "see" the spiritual Blessings....
Quote from: Nathan on July 28, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 27, 2010, 11:07:04 PM
I suppose then you see Gen. 2 and further chapters as allegorys?
Please don't assume that because I emphasize spiritual principles, that I'm denying historical events that literally happened. I do beleive that Eden is a place on earth. I "don't" believe the garden is. I also haven't seen anyone really address my reasons for believing what I do. I do try to address other's reasons. Not to argue, but to try to bring clarification.
The long explanation about the rivers . . .my point was that as far as proving the rivers exist goes . . .the rivers do not go through the garden. They're not "in" the garden. There is only one river "in" the garden that flows out and forms the four rivers. For me, that's a picture of God as his spirit pours out, one river pouring out into "all" flesh. The river has no name, much like the nature of God has no name. He is the I am. The food that we eat from him is called "what is it?" That's the definition of "manna". All the signs point to a pattern, I simply pursue the patterns.
But I'm not saying none of the Bible is to be read literally. Read it literally. There really was a Goliath, there really was a David. But pursue the spiritual patterns and you'll also see Goliath represents the carnal man, David represents the spirit of man anointed of God to bring down the carnality of man. The stone represents Christ. The fact that there were five represents grace. The fact they were taken out of a stream represents the Spirit.
The stone penetrated the head of Goliath, just as the Word of Christ penetrates the "mind" of man. It caused Goliath to fall down to the earth . . .it brings carnality back to the dust from which it came. And it wasn't enough to just have the Word penetrate the mind, our head must be removed all together with the SWORD which is the word of God. Not the word written on stone, because if it was that, then there wouldn't have been the need for the sword to separate what was already penetrated.
But the word written in our hearts is what causes us to lose our minds . . .to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh . . .John the Baptist is another example of this. The removal of the head is the link between man and God that allowed the Jordan river to separate because they were carrying the ark upon their shoulders . . .it represented what "should" be our head which is Christ.
When they did, as soon as their feet touched the flooded Jordan (means descender/death) the river rolled back all the way to the city called "Adam". Talk about redeeming works . . .
But yeah, all of those things literally happened. But the spiritual implications go much further than the physical actions. So rather than split hairs on the physical aspects of Scripture, I feel we'd be much more effective in our growth and our walk if we allowed the Father to reveal the spiritual truth that lies beneath the physical stories.
I'm glad you clarified your position, but when it comes to spiritual truth behind the meanings, sometimes their nice and interesting and reveals the incredible depth of the word of God, but to me their mostly not that essential. Take this you said for example
The stone penetrated the head of Goliath, just as the Word of Christ penetrates the "mind" of man. It caused Goliath to fall down to the earth . . .it brings carnality back to the dust from which it came. And it wasn't enough to just have the Word penetrate the mind, our head must be removed all together with the SWORD which is the word of God. Not the word written on stone, because if it was that, then there wouldn't have been the need for the sword to separate what was already penetrated.
That's intersting, but I don't see it as essential for Christian growth, maybe if you have been a Christian for a long time and you might be getting bored with the typical stories and want something new, but for most Christians we still haven't read the literal account of the old testament stories that can strengthen the readers faith and how they prophecy towards the coming of Jesus etc. I personally do look for the meanings behind something, but also look at the literal story, such as how Jesus healed the sick, one can go deep behind the meaning or simply draw strength with child like faith that the same Jesus would heal us in like manner.
As for the garden not being earthly, then how do you explain that when Adam and Eve were kicked outside the "spiritual garden" that they saw the flaming cherubins guarding the entrance. Also im not sure what you mean by spiritual garden, do you mean its in heaven? When I say spiritual garden I would mean that Adam and Eve would be very close to God and could see and hear him, but they would still be of the earth. I think the apsotle Pauls says the first man Adam is of the Earth but the second man is the lord from heaven.
The power of our Christ and kingdom, be upon the earth with multiplication, your word shall not return void but accomplish that where it is sent.
TT states
That's intersting, but I don't see it as essential for Christian growth, maybe if you have been a Christian for a long time and you might be getting bored with the typical stories and want something new, but for most Christians we still haven't read the literal account of the old testament stories that can strengthen the readers faith and how they prophecy towards the coming of Jesus etc. I personally do look for the meanings behind something, but also look at the literal story, such as how Jesus healed the sick, one can go deep behind the meaning or simply draw strength with child like faith that the same Jesus would heal us in like manner.
Considering that in forums such as this, every individual on this forum will be in a different place in their relationship with the Father. We are all 'maturing' in him as we go through personal trials, accomplishments and experiences in him. And all the while, there is a constant calling of the deep to the deep parts within us.
It's great to read up on the stories, but I encourage all to to beyond that and press into the unlimited truths that lie beneath the limitations of the literal stories. I think this is pertaining to the milk and meat of Truth. Both are beneficial, but one is to be released while the other is to be embraced.
Hebrews 5 speaks to this very thing.
12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Hebrews 6
1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment
These principles are not just interesting, they are illuminating the pattern of Christ working in every one of us. We all have a Goliath mentality because we are all carnal creatures. But as the stone penetrates the forehead of Goliath, so it is with the renewing of our carnal minds. And just as the penetrating stone in Goliath led to his head being removed, so it is with our renewed minds. Once we have been transformed, we willingly lay down our thinking and reasoning and allow our body to be governed and controlled by the will of Christ in us who is the head now rather than a thought or image.
It's more than interesting, it's liberating. It explains to me why I do what I'm not supposed to do and why I don't do what I should do. It explains to me who the devil really is. It causes me to take responsibility for my own actions rather than put the blame on an invisible evil imp that is always out to get me. It forever invigorates me when something new births into my understanding knowing all the while it's yet another kiss from the King.
It wasn't me!
The devil made me do it!
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 29, 2010, 05:04:58 PM
It wasn't me!
The devil made me do it!
Bless you beloved servant. It wasn't me! , God made me do it, or rather God encouraged me to do it :winkgrin:
:cloud9: Amen Nathan.... :thumbsup:
T-Tank,
I was pointing to the deception of that old adage.
Nathan nailed it.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 29, 2010, 10:02:09 PM
T-Tank,
I was pointing to the deception of that old adage.
Nathan nailed it.
You mean you don't think there is a devil?
As for my quote I don't know if you got it, but it was a joke, in that saying, "bless you" was God working in me
I did not say nor mean that.
T-tank, you have an odd communication manner.
Yeah, there's a devil, it's between my ears.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 30, 2010, 01:46:23 AM
I did not say nor mean that.
T-tank, you have an odd communication manner.
Maybe I should have said "God made me "say it" instead of "do it", it would have made more sense but I thought "do it" sounds funnier.
I'm sorry you find my communication "odd" I think that language can be confusing, different backgrounds, understandings of humor and common sayings etc.
One day we will all speak in heaveanly language and there'd be no confusion or misunderstanding, for we prophecy in part and know in part.
Quote from: Nathan on July 30, 2010, 03:00:49 AM
Yeah, there's a devil, it's between my ears.
I better not try and cast it out then. :grin:
Actually I think it could very well be connected to getting beheaded . . .spiritually speaking of course.
Quote from: Nathan on July 30, 2010, 05:31:59 PM
Actually I think it could very well be connected to getting beheaded . . .spiritually speaking of course.
Goliaths head
Absolutely. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Goliath's head and Goliath Himself in my way of thinking.
cp
Quote from: claypot on August 03, 2010, 04:26:59 PM
Goliath's head and Goliath Himself in my way of thinking.
cp
What ya mean despise the weak?
despise the weak?
Quote from: Nathan on August 03, 2010, 07:56:12 PM
despise the weak?
Doesn't Goliath despise the weak, because he's a mighty warrior giant?
If I were to venture a guess to where Claypot was going, I'd say that he's suggesting because Goliath represents the carnal man, that not only should he lose his head, but we should kill the whole carnal man all together??? But I'll let Claypot clarify.
You did a fine job Nathan saying what I believe but I'm still confused about what tt is trying to say. Go figure, I think I may understand a bit of what God is saying yet I can't figure out tt??!!
cp
LOL . . .sometimes it's hard for us to write into words the same thoughts going through our minds. I know a lady in our church that I struggle with in understanding because she "thinks" a sentence and only says the back half . . .so I'm constantly trying to catch up to what the first half was so that the back half will make sense. In the mean time, she stands their blinking at me waiting for an answer. Some times, I'm tempted to just talk in tongues and walk away.
QuoteSome times, I'm tempted to just talk in tongues and walk away.
:laughing7:
:laughing7: You never know, she might understand that, lol....
Quote from: claypot on August 03, 2010, 10:44:26 PM
You did a fine job Nathan saying what I believe but I'm still confused about what tt is trying to say. Go figure, I think I may understand a bit of what God is saying yet I can't figure out tt??!!
cp
Do you mean concerning Goliath or my posts in general?
But to clarify here's what you originally said
Goliath's head and Goliath Himself in my way of thinking.
cp
So my question was, do you mean in the sense that you believe you have struggling tendencies similar to Goliath, who despised David the smaller man , i.e are you saying to us what your weaknesses are in your Christian walk? I think we all have weaknesses in certain areas of our lives and I thought maybe you were confessing yours.
I'm not having a go at you, I thought that Goliath is a perfect illustration of someone who despises the weak and/ carnal mentality that tends to look upon outward appearances more than the heart. I think we all have a bit of Goliath in us in that respect.
TT, I'm hearin ya loud and clear now. I see much of the 'Goliath' in me so I agree with you.
I think my coming in the middle of this discussion just caused me a bit of confusion in one of your posts but all is well now.
By the way, and I don't say this in a prideful way, but I see some of the 'David' in me too. I believe these 2 dwell in all people to some degree. We are under God's chisel.
cp
Well after all that, I will stay with a Truth, man in no way fell. For should man have fallen that would mean that God made a mistake, an err in His calculatons, and I believe that to be absurd.
The fall of man is a true injustice to the Word of God. For man to "fall" would have to mean that God, Elohiem did not have it together.
The God I believe in does not make mistakes, God dont make junk. And man never fell from nothing. Does anyone believe in the "PERFECT WILL OF GOD? Well, if you do then you will know that man never fell from the garden. Now, man may have fallen in Isa.14
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 07, 2010, 07:11:18 AMThe God I believe in does not make mistakes, God dont make junk.
...
Well, if you do then you will know that man never fell from the garden.
But still Adam and Eve sinned. They got kicked out. Maybe that can be seen as a lower rank = fallen in rank?
Anyway God that doesn't make junk made Adam and Eve that got tricked by the serpent.
Jesus wouldn't have be tricked by a 1000 serpents.
For me that simply means we are left with 2 choices:
a] God created junk because Adam and Eve that couldn't resist a tempting serpent
b] Or this seemingly flaw has a reason in Father's plan. So that 'fall' is working out perfectly according to plan.
From this .pdf: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf
The NOUN spelled nachash in Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination. The adjective means "bright, brazen"
That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies. She was in the presence of one of the sons of God, beings who had free will, who were more powerful than mere angels, whom humanity was created "a little lower" (Psalm 8:4-5; the phrase usually translated as "a little lower than the angels" is actually "a little lower than the elohim in the Hebrew text).3 She was speaking to a member of the divine council who did not share Yahweh's enthusiasm for his new creation, humankind, to whom Yahweh had just given rule over
the planet (Gen 1:26-27). These mere humans were—as the "lesser elohim" had been previously—created as Yahweh's image ("let US"... "OUR" in Gen 1:26-27),
What about the curse of the "serpent"?
....
My view of the curse in simple terms is that, as the nachash desired to vaunt himself above all created things on earth (and above the other created elohim, the "stars of God" – cf. Isa. 14:12-15; Job 38:7-10), and above the apex of that creation, humanity, so God turns the tables on him. He will now be placed under humanity's authority, who also governs the animals. He's going to be put on the bottom of the barrel of created things, so to speak.
Read the whole article...
Serpent H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 07, 2010, 07:22:50 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 07, 2010, 07:11:18 AMThe God I believe in does not make mistakes, God dont make junk.
...
Well, if you do then you will know that man never fell from the garden.
But still Adam and Eve sinned. They got kicked out. Maybe that can be seen as a lower rank = fallen in rank?
Anyway God that doesn't make junk made Adam and Eve that got tricked by the serpent.
Jesus wouldn't have be tricked by a 1000 serpents.
For me that simply means we are left with 2 choices:
a] God created junk because Adam and Eve that couldn't resist a tempting serpent
b] Or this seemingly flaw has a reason in Father's plan. So that 'fall' is working out perfectly according to plan.
I believe they were sent away rather than "kicked out."C]..there was no fall... it all worked out as planned. God does not make mistakes, He is God.
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 07, 2010, 03:35:13 PM
Serpent H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
What do you mean by that quote from Strong?
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 07, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
From this .pdf: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf
The NOUN spelled nachash in Hebrew can mean: snake / serpent or one who practices of divination. The adjective means "bright, brazen"
That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies. She was in the presence of one of the sons of God, beings who had free will, who were more powerful than mere angels, whom humanity was created "a little lower" (Psalm 8:4-5; the phrase usually translated as "a little lower than the angels" is actually "a little lower than the elohim in the Hebrew text).3 She was speaking to a member of the divine council who did not share Yahweh's enthusiasm for his new creation, humankind, to whom Yahweh had just given rule over
the planet (Gen 1:26-27). These mere humans were—as the "lesser elohim" had been previously—created as Yahweh's image ("let US"... "OUR" in Gen 1:26-27),
What about the curse of the "serpent"?
....
My view of the curse in simple terms is that, as the nachash desired to vaunt himself above all created things on earth (and above the other created elohim, the "stars of God" – cf. Isa. 14:12-15; Job 38:7-10), and above the apex of that creation, humanity, so God turns the tables on him. He will now be placed under humanity's authority, who also governs the animals. He's going to be put on the bottom of the barrel of created things, so to speak.
Read the whole article...
I find this all so amazing. It makes so much sense to me. Eve was talking to a 'god' --one of the elohiym, who was rebelling against YHWH and trying to destroy YHWH's new creation--Man.
Even though so many malign Adam, he has long been my hero. He didn't fall, he jumped! The only other choice was to throw Eve under the bus, and leave her to die on her own in the barren wilderness of the serpent.
Adam... who is the figure of him that was to come.
--Rom 5:14
...but love covereth all sins.
--Prov 10:12
It also makes sense of many other things, as well--why the Hebrews were always 'whoring' after false gods [the rebellious elohiym], why Joshua was ordered to kill every man, woman, and child [the nephilim offspring, seed of the nachash], even the stories of the Greeks and the Romans which concern evil gods always coming against humanity and even creating offspring with them.
There's more...
PS Can you give me the link to where you found this pdf file?
Oh! nevermind--I see it's www.thedivinecouncil.com
Quote from: Molly on August 07, 2010, 03:58:45 PMEven though so many malign Adam, he has long been my hero. He didn't fall, he jumped! The only other choice was to throw Eve under the bus
I think Adam sacrificed himself because of his love for Eve...
Quoteand leave her to die on her own in the barren wilderness of the serpent
KJVGen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
It also is a possible explanation of who would possibly kill Cain in an world without people besides his little family he left.
:cloud9: I haven't read the article yet, so I'm just throwing a couple things out there that I'm "toying" with. He said in another place, have I not said ye were gods (elohim) and ye die like men......He gave me revelation on that one day, that the issue was we were dying like men, which He was displeased with. How does a god die? No greater love has any man than.....
I don't know where it is now, I found it in the Hebrew 2 weeks ago, but there is a principle in there about "something" having not a dual nature per se, but having the capability to be used for either.
I'm now wondering if this somehow ties in with the elohim part of us, as being the "fallen angel" if it's expressing that nature, or being as Adam was, and dying like a god/elohim.
So now wondering if that elohim nature has capacity to be both, like that Hebrew word and principle I found, and crazy as it seems, were they one and the same in the garden??? I know I'm not expressing this clearly, but it's the best I can at the moment. There's SOMETHING there......Blessings....
Card:
I think Benny Hynn's brother teaches about that, he's been labeled a fool but he said he received a revelation about mankind being gods.
Anyway, my father went to the seminary, not I and I did not really understand what my father said about it (I'm not sure he understood any of it either :laughing7:)
Interesting stuff about the council of God, somewhat mystic though.
"Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
1 John 3:2-3
:cloud9: Benny Hinn's brother is a Kingdom teacher, knows about UR. Benny listens to his tapes, too (got this from someone close to him).
I knew we were elohim, I just have not had any personal revelation on what that means exactly, and the New Agers have taken it and run with it, and corrupted it. Blessings...
Things to consider in the discussion;
Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring both to pagan deities and to the God of Israel, usually with a singular meaning despite its plural form, but is also used as a true plural with the meanings "spirits, angels, demons," and the like.[2] The singular forms eloah (אלוה) and el (אֱל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3] Gods can be referred to collectively as bene elim, bene elyon, or bene elohim.[4]
...and Elohim created Adam.
For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. II Cor. 5:1
For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. II Cor. 5:3
Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. II Cor. 5:8
47 Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. 48 Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. 49 Just as we are now like the earthly man, we will someday be like the heavenly man. I Cor. 15
Quote from: jabcat on August 07, 2010, 07:14:32 PM
Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah,
It's not plural (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Elohim/Elohim.htm)
It is plural (http://www.rense.com/general28/eneph.htm) (possibly admitted by writer of the first article.
Quote1. The word EL means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim.
2. The word Eloah, also means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. Eloah in Hebrew is a three letter root which most Hebrew words contain.
Here we already have two singular forms of the word God inside the plural word Elohim. Yet, Mr. Heiser has never mentioned these singular forms inside the plural word. He still insists Elohim is singular knowing well that is already contains two singular words for God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rense.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Heiser Is Incorrect With His
Analysis Of Elohim & Nephilim
Reply From Zechariah Sitchin's Webmaster
From Erik Parker - Los Angeles
Webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin
via Ted Susu-Mago
smago@ashlandhome.net
8-19-2
Mr. Heiser claims that the word Elohim in Hebrew, meaning "gods" is not a plural word. His main proof is that it says in Hebrew "The Elohim Said" in a singular form not a plural form. This would indicate that the word Elohim was a name and not meaning plural gods. Of course this also could mean that the scribes of the Bible kept it in a singular form to show the monotheistic viewpoint. There are many uses of the plural term of the word Elohim in the Bible. I have listed several plural forms below and it is in fact very hard to find any singular uses of the word.
The word Elohim is definitely plural and does indeed mean "gods" and it actually contains two forms of the singular word for God inside of itself.
1. The word EL means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim.
2. The word Eloah, also means God and it is the first part of the word Elohim. Eloah in Hebrew is a three letter root which most Hebrew words contain.
Here we already have two singular forms of the word God inside the plural word Elohim. Yet, Mr. Heiser has never mentioned these singular forms inside the plural word. He still insists Elohim is singular knowing well that is already contains two singular words for God.
The Universal Creator God of the Bible known as Yahweh speaks and is quoted within the Bible. When he spoke to the ancient Hebrews while giving them the 10 commandments, he indeed used the plural word of Elohim meaning gods.
3. And God said "You shall not recognize the gods of others in my presence" also translated as "You shall not have other gods in my presence," (Exodus 20:3). Here Yahweh uses the term Elohim to refer to all other gods (plural) that Israel shall not worship or acknowledge. This also means that there were other false gods and they were forbidden to be acknowledged in Yahweh's presence.
Mr. Heiser is also incorrect when he refers to the translation of the Nephilim. The Nephilim mentioned in Chapter 6 of Genesis is spoken about right before the destruction of the flood and is implied they are the reason for the flood. It says that "the Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and also afterwards when the Children of the Gods saw the daughters of the Adam (humans) and took them as wives which ever they pleased."
4. The word children is used as plural not singular child, and the Elohim are mentioned again in plural as "The Gods" In Hebrew the "hey" letter put in front of the word Elohim means "The", if the letter was left out it would mean "Children of Elohim" meaning Elohim as a name. But with the letter there in front it clearly means "Children of the Gods".
Nephilim has the root from the Hebrew word for falling down or to fall, which yields the translations the "fallen ones" and in the context of the Bible they are mentioned as bad characters that have something to do with the Flood disaster.
5. Nephilim used to be translated as Giants for many hundreds of years and it comes from a 12th Century commentary known as Rashi that said the Nephilim were giants. But what nobody realized until Sitchin was that the word in Hebrew meaning giants is Anak, or Anakim for plural which is the same root and sounding as Anunnaki in Sumerian. So the Hebrew word for Giant was picked up from a memory of the word used thousands of years before, by the lineage of Abraham to describe their gods which are usually depicted as larger humanoids than humans. And the translation of the word Annunaki means "those who from Heaven to Earth came," and Sitchin's use of the word Nephilim means "Those that have fallen down from above." So Anunnaki has the same sound as the word for Giant in Hebrew and the meaning is the same as the word Nephilim in Hebrew.
6. Before the burning bush Moses came to the mountain of the Gods. It says in Hebrew once again "He arrived at the Mountain of the Gods." The Hebrew letter "hey" in front of the word Elohim means "The" as opposed to saying "Elohim mountain" meaning the name of the mountain, it says "the Mountain of the Gods." (Exodus 3:1)
Erik Parker
Los Angeles
Webmaster for Zecharia Sitchin
Response From Michael Heiser is here:
http://www.facadenovel.com/SitchinsDisciple.htm
Comment
From Erik P.
erik70@pacbell.net
8-29-2
Behold! Michael S. Heiser Does Admit There Are Mistranslations in the Bible and the Word Elohim Can Be Used as a Plural.
Introduction
For those of you who have followed the debate on the internet you may know about the personal attacks I have withstood from Michael S. Heiser, in my attempt to honestly debate him regarding the writings and thesis of Zecharia Sitchin. I always choose my words carefully and have never used the word "wrong" when applying it to Mr. Heiser and I have never personally insulted him or his position. The word "wrong" has emotional charge behind it so I try to use "correct/incorrect" to apply to details or facts. I prefer to debate the evidence and the issues and not have a discussion become personal. The purpose, for me, is to increase my understanding of a subject and clarify misunderstandings. My goal is always to add to the body of knowledge and understanding of a complex issue for the readers and myself.
As you will see, Mr. Heiser's goal is not to add knowledge and understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so he used Sitchin's good name to get attention for himself so he could sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements. Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully, you will reach your own conclusions about his motives.
Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to destroy the work of an established individual, in the process creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard for yourself. His first web page that I read was full of insults and uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he has a respected background and career would not want to use someone else's name for his own gain. Wouldn't he want to be recognized for his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a "shifter" strategy made famous in the book, "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchin's fame and respect as an author, researcher and speaker.
Even at this point, he still wants to debate Sitchin. For what purpose? If it were to add to everyone's knowledge and understanding there would be no need for personal attacks against Sitchin or me. Sitchin does not have a computer, does not browse the Internet and, therefore, has never seen any of Heiser's material nor heard him speak. Why would he agree to go on the radio and be attacked? Why would Sitchin help Heiser increase his name recognition? Sitchin is just too busy writing new books and arranging seminars. You can tell from Heiser's writing style that he is very confrontational -- he uses debunker tactics. His purpose for wanting to debate Sitchin is to employ the attack and ridicule process. This is completely inconsistent with a person that wants to raise up all of society by their knowledge. I don't think there will be a debate with Sitchin, but I still have a few words to say....
Full article at
http://erikparker.com/articles/august02.htm
nooo stay away from Zachariah Sitchin. He is a phoney, a fraud. He makes stuff up. He lies.
www.sitchiniswrong.com if you must...
From E-Sword
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhıym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Quote from: Molly on August 07, 2010, 08:08:09 PM
nooo stay away from Zachariah Sitchin. He is a phoney, a fraud. He makes stuff up. He lies.
www.sitchiniswrong.com if you must...
First read what I posted Molly.... I posted exactly that link... :laughing7:
QuoteFrom E-Sword
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhıym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Michael S. Heiser doesn't agree with that. I can be both singular and plural.
Quote from: wwMichael S. Heiser doesn't agree with that. I can be both singular and plural.
Not sure what you mean. What does Mike Heiser say about it?
My eyes started to bleed when I read Sitchin's name and I could read no more. :laughing7:
All 2601 verses with plural Elohim (http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/PDFs/elohim%20occurrences%20hebrew.pdf)
Plural (http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/PDFs/elohim%20as%20subject%20of%20plural%20finite%20verb%20results.pdf)
More info and vids here (http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Elohim/Elohim.htm)
"The totality of any experience must be real and personal, not predicated on false beliefs."
peacemaker
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 07, 2010, 03:54:32 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 07, 2010, 03:35:13 PM
Serpent H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
What does it read?
What do you mean by that quote from Strong?
What does it read?
Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen." But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.
Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:14:41 AMWhat does it read?
I'll simplify my question for you: Do you agree with what I quoted in post#85. Yes or No?
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:20:30 AMMan, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."
Why not?
I think we (all people in this thread) might have different defenitions of what "fallen" is. For me there is more than one way Adam and Eve could have fallen.
(assuming they fell)
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 08, 2010, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:14:41 AMWhat does it read?
I'll simplify my question for you: Do you agree with what I quoted in post#85. Yes or No?
Eve was speaking to a bright, shining upright being; who was serpentine in appearance.
In Classical Mythology: These Reptilian beings were variously described as Serpents or Dragons, having an inflatable head crest,
resembling that of the crowns of Kings; who would kill with their breath (words), or at a mere glance.
"The voice of the sea casts its spell, holding the souls of men in its net."
I heard recently that people were required to go to Roman Temple every week to worship their god. There were many different gods worshipped by the Romans and it didn't matter which one, as long as they made the required attendance. The Christians were also offered a place for their God in the Temple, but they refused. This is why they were persecuted, because they refused to place their God on a level with the other Roman gods and worship him in Roman Temples.
In ancient Roman religion, practitioners often performed their worship at a temple, that is, a structure that housed the image of the deity and an altar. The English word "temple" derives from Latin templum, which was originally not a building, but a sacred area marked out ritually. The word templum later came to mean the building itself. Other words the Romans used for a temple or shrine are aedes, delubrum, and fanum.
Sacrifices would take place at an altar within the templum precinct. Since the public ceremonies took place outdoors, the building itself served mainly to house the cult statue which was kept in the main room (cella). The cella might also have a small altar for incense or libations. Behind the cella was a room or rooms used by the attendants for storage of equipment and offerings.
--Wikipedia
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for
"'In him we live and move and have our being';
as even some of your own poets have said,
"'For we are indeed his offspring.'
--Acts 17
Quote from: Molly on August 08, 2010, 09:36:04 AM
I heard recently that people were required to go to Roman Temple every week to worship their god. There were many different gods worshipped by the Romans and it didn't matter which one, as long as they made the required attendance.
That's correct. There where favord gods, the ones the current ceasar worshipped, but there was never a state religion. Until Constantine...
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen." But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.
Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.
:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....
Paul once said that anyone who desired to be justified by law has fallen from grace. Now, does that mean that he is literally no longer within the grace of God, as though that grace has limits? God's grace is as limitless as God himself.
To fall from grace then, as I understand it, would mean that one would not be living in his own mind and experience as one under grace, but would once again be entering into the old way of thinking, which led to guilt, shame, sin consciousness, etc. It is to live in the ways of sin and death, as opposed to the way which is reality for them, of life and peace and freedom.
When Adam and Eve ate from the tree, their perception of themselves with relation to God changed, not literally, but in their mind. They SAW [changed perception] that they were naked, and felt shame, and the need to hide. God wasn't hiding from them though. He was seeking fellowship with them just as before. Jesus came to restore that lost identity, to reveal that, by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, that old man, with it's way of thinking, would be crucified with Christ on that cross, and thus man could once again experience, not BECOMING one with the Father and Son, but to BE one with them, for man has always been one with God. To "be" speaks of living as one already is. It is not the same as "becoming" something, which has to do with coming to "be" what you are not already.
Ron
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945)
For Bonhoeffer, the foundation of ethical behaviour lay in how the reality of the world and the reality of God were reconciled in the reality of Christ. Both in his thinking and in his life, ethics were centered on the demand for action by responsible men and women in the face of evil. He was sharply critical of ethical theory and of academic concerns with ethical systems precisely because of their failure to confront evil directly. Evil, he asserted, was concrete and specific, and it could be combated only by the specific actions of responsible people in the world. The uncompromising position Bonhoeffer took in his seminal work Ethics, was directly reflected in his stance against Nazism. His early opposition turned into active conspiracy in 1940 to overthrow the regime. It was during this time, until his arrest in 1943, that he worked on Ethics.
The demand for responsible action in history is a demand no Christian can ignore. We are, accordingly, faced with the following dilemma: when assaulted by evil, we must oppose it directly. We have no other option. The failure to act is simply to condone evil. But it is also clear that we have no justification for preferring one response to evil over another. We seemingly could do anything with equal justification. Nevertheless, for Bonhoeffer, the reality of a demand for action without any (a priori) justification is just the moral reality we must face, if we want to be responsible people.
On the other hand, the escape to a domain of private virtue is, perhaps, of all temptations the most dangerous to the Christian. This is a pulling back from the petty and vulgar affairs of the world in order to avoid being contaminated by evil. This monastic urge is rejected by Bonhoeffer, because for him there is no such thing as escaping your responsibility to act. When faced with evil, there is no middle path. You either oppose the persecution of the innocent or you share in it. No one can preserve his or her private virtue by turning away from the world (Ethics, p.69).
Bonhoeffer's last category, duty, is perhaps the most important to him, because it is the most easily co-opted by evil; and again it makes no difference what laws we introduce to determine our duty. If a devotion to duty does not discriminate in terms of character, it will end up serving evil. "The man of duty," Bonhoeffer observes, "will end by having to fulfill his obligations even to the devil" (Ethics, p.69).
Through Jesus the reality of God has entered the world (Ethics, p.192). If an action is to have meaning, it must correspond to what is real. Since there is only the reality of Christ, Christ is the foundation of ethics. Any Christian who attempts to avoid falsehoods and meaninglessness in his or her life must act in accordance with this reality.
Furthermore, the sole guide for acting in accordance with this reality is the model of Jesus' selfless behavior in the New Testament. There are numerous dimensions to this model. First and foremost, your action can in no way be intended to reflect back on you, your character, or your reputation. You must, for the sake of the moment, unreservedly surrender all self-directed wishes and desires (Ethics, p.232). It is the other, another person, that is the focus of attention, and not yourself. In ethical action, the left hand really must be unaware of what the right hand is doing if the right hand is to do anything ethical. If not, your so-called good action becomes contaminated and its moral nature altered.
Bonhoeffer illustrates this notion of selfless action by contrasting the behavior of Jesus in the New Testament to that of the Pharisee. The Pharisee "...is the man to whom only the knowledge of good and evil has come to be of importance in his entire life..."(Ethics, p.30). Every moment of his life is a moment where he must choose between good and evil (Ethics, p.30). Every action, every judgment, no matter how small, is permeated with the choice of good and evil. He can confront no person without evaluating that person in terms of good and evil (Ethics, p.31). For him, all judgments are moral judgments. No gesture is immune to moral condemnation.
Jesus refuses to see the world in these terms. He lightly, almost cavalierly, casts aside many of the legal distinctions the Pharisee labors to maintain. He bids his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, even though starvation is hardly in question. He heals a woman on the Sabbath, although after eighteen years of illness she could seemingly wait a few more hours. Jesus exhibits a freedom from the law in everything he does, but nothing he does suggests all things are possible. There is nothing arbitrary about his behavior. There is, however, a simplicity and clarity. Unlike the Pharisee, he is unconcerned with the goodness or badness of those he helps, unconcerned with the personal moral worth of those he meets, talks to, dines with, or heals. He is concerned solely and entirely with the well being of another. He exhibits no other concern. He is the paradigm of selfless action, and the exact opposite of the Pharisee, whose every gesture is fundamentally self-reflective.
The responsible person is, thus, a selfless person, who does God's will by serving the spiritual and material needs of another, since "...what is nearest to God is precisely the need of one's neighbor" (Ethics, p.136).
The selfless model of Jesus is his or her only guide to responsible action. And second, the responsible person must not hesitate to act for fear of sin. Any attempt to avoid personal guilt, any attempt to preserve moral purity by withdrawing from conflicts is morally irresponsible. For Bonhoeffer, no one who lives in this world can remain disentangled and morally pure and free of guilt (Ethics, p.244). We must not refuse to act on our neighbor's behalf, even violently, for fear of sin. To refuse to accept guilt and bear it for the sake of another has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity. "If I refuse to bear guilt for charity's sake," Bonhoeffer argues, "then my action is in contradiction to my responsibility which has its foundation in reality" (Ethics, p.241). The risk of guilt generated by responsible action is great and cannot be mitigated in advance by self-justifying principles. There is no certainty in a world come of age. No one, in other words, can escape a complete dependency on the mercy and grace of God.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bonhoeff/
There is not a place to which the Christian can withdraw from the world, whether it be outwardly or in the sphere of the inner life. Any attempt to escape from the world must sooner or later be paid for with a sinful surrender to the world.
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics
Quote from: Molly on August 08, 2010, 09:36:04 AM
"In him we live and move and have our being; For we are indeed his offspring."
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: micah7:9 on July 26, 2010, 01:03:36 AM
Rom 8:20 for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,
Premium post bro! :goodpost:
...willieH :happy3:
willieH: Hi brother N... :hithere:
What a post! :bgdance:
I especially enjoyed
this portion below:
Quote from: Nathan on July 27, 2010, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: thinktank on July 27, 2010, 07:01:34 PM
Quote from: CHB on July 26, 2010, 10:50:56 PM
Hi Nathan,
I think the Garden of Eden did/does exist on earth. I do believe there is a spiritual lesson to be learned from it all.
Where was the Garden of Eden?
http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec096.htm
CHB
I agree, sometime we overspiritualize things because we don't understand it. But to me the garden of Eden has trees, fruits, man made from the Earth, Euphrates river, to many references to Earthly things, it may not make sense to the natural how Adam being Earthly can hear and see God and see the flaming Cherubims, but there's is bound to be a reasonable explanation, and one of those I came up with is that Adam's spirit was alive and did not become spiritually dead until eating the fruit. I think also the curse that God put upon Adam and Eve has something to do with it.
Overspiritualize? See, I could reverse that and use your words for the same argument against the idea that it's a literal place. But this isn't about winning a debate. If it's overspiritualizing to you, I'm fine with that. I didn't search out another meaning because I didn't understand the original one. That's just it, I 'did" understand the original meaning in that there was a literal place east of Eden called the garden . . .I didn't go "looking" for another way to see it, I thought I was already seeing it. But when one part of a belief starts to crumble, it affects the whole beleif system
My understanding of hell has collapsed. My understanding of losing your salvation has collapsed. My understanding of the rapture has collapsed it goes on and on and on. Included in that "on and on" part is my understanding that the garden is a natural place. I could swear I put a post out earlier today on this but I don't see it.
One reason why I don't think it was a natural place is dealing with the verse where God walked with Adam in the cool of the day . . .for whatever obsurd reason, the translators chose to us the word "cool" for the word that literally means "breath" or "breathe". It's the same word used through the rest of the Old Testament for the word "spirit". In that light, God walked with Adam IN THE SPIRIT of the DAY. The Day being Christ. The spirit being "spirit". Meaning it was a spiritual place.
Out of the garden flowed "one" river with no name. One, the number of sovereignty. AFTER the river flowed through the garden, it formed into 4 other rivers. 4 is the number of the natural realm. The earth consists of 4 major elements in water, fire, air and earth. There are four seasons. There are four major directions . ..when I see something change from one to four, for me, it's speaking of something passing from invisible to visible, from spirit to flesh. I believe the river did indeed flow out of the garden, but it didn't "visibly" manifest until the four heads.
Incidentally, the Eurphrates is said to dry up in Revelation. Coundless denominations and religious systems believe that to be literal. It's supposed to dry up as preparation for the kings of the east. I used to think that was literal to, until one does a LITTLE digging and finds that the modern technology today can EASILY maniupulate an army across a river whether it's dried up or not.
But in the kingdom perspective, I see the river is to be the great accomplishments of man's works. It literally means fruitfulness. Mans fruitfulness is going dry up. All men, may not be all at once according to time in this realm, but regardless of whether it's instantaneous or a process, our personal accomplishments in our belief system will be/is drying up for the purpose of the kings of the east. What that is, is the removal of an old system making way for the entrance of a new one. The new one is us. We are kings and we are priests. And the fact that we are "of the east" speaks volumes to what our identity is. East speaks of resurrection. That's why the garden was "east" of Eden and the gate to the garden was also east. Everything in the tabernacle of Moses faces the east. Even when Jesus was born, the wisemen came from the east . . .it's all about resurrection, the rising of the Son.
Or would I rather revert to the traditional beleif that a literal river is going to dry up so the warrirers of China can cross it.
The more I see Eden as a spiritual place, the more I see how that unlocks other things in Scripture when dealing with "ascended" places. If Scripture depicts men as trees, and there were many trees in the garden of Eden . . .who's to say the other trees in the garden couldn't be connected to the offspring of Adam and Eve. That was their directive early on, that they were to reproduce and multiply.
When God was reexplaining what they were about to experience in thier new world . . .earth . . he didn't tell Eve that she'd now be able to reproduce. Instead he said now when she does, it's going to be painful. For me there's to much evidence there to think it's anything else "but" a spiritual place.
Good stuff bro... :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi T-tank... :cloud9:
Quote from: thinktank on July 25, 2010, 07:40:39 PM
I belive God is infinite, so if Adam had chosen the tree of life, then God would have had a different plan for Adam and the human race, but Adam choose the tree of knowledge and so God set up the redemption plan.
(no offense, brother T-Tank) but, ...what a lot of unfounded speculation... :thumbdown:
Adam could NOT have "chosen" other than He did, for His choice was already noted by the
WORD of GOD --
Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17 -- so no "alternate" imagined scenario was even possible.
Before even one second of this realm took place it was ALREADY DECLARED (by the
WORD of God), END to BEGINNING, what (every UNDONE thing=everything) would take place...
This included ADAM & Eve choosing to eat, the Death & Resurrection of
CHRIST, unto this DIGITAL day we now live in... :dontknow:
:omg: You propose that God "
reacts" to the agenda/doings of man... Instead of the reverse!
Had Adam had such a "choice", and enacted it (picking the tree of Life) ...Then the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil (known only to
GOD) would NOT have been shared with man, and therefore
GOD would NOT and could NOT be ALL in ALL... For the LIVING experience and REVELATION of that KNOWLEDGE would be "negated"...
There are no "what
if's" with God, T-tank... "what
if's" are nothing but
imaginations... and concerning man, they are VAIN ones --
Rom 1:21 -- 2 Cor 10:5 -- Jer 17:9It
IS NOT GLORIFYING to God to note Him as needfully "REACTING" to the vanity of men (having to set up a "redemption plan", due to their "choosing")... This portrays God as "kicking the wall" ...looking toward
JESUS saying "dang! Look what THEY DID! Now YOU are going to have to go down there and DIE, to bring those dumb bozos home! Why didn't
they choose the RIGHT tree?" :thumbdown:
It
IS GLORIFYING to GOD to note that ALL MEN, having come to KNOW EVIL as well as GOOD (because
GOD intended they KNOW what they have in His eternal kingdom -- ZERO suffering, pain, sorrow, loss, etc.), and all because HE was willing to sacrifice His ONLY PERFECT and SINLESS Son, to bring us (bozos) all HOME, and into SUBJECTION to Him [and His love] which is GOOD... :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Cardinal on August 08, 2010, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen." But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.
Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.
:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....
Then the teaching of a "falling" I do not believe is comprehendable nor does it edify. One does not fall from a postion if one held no postion of falling from.
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 09, 2010, 03:19:15 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on August 08, 2010, 02:37:16 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen." But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.
Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.
:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....
Then the teaching of a "falling" I do not believe is comprehendable nor does it edify. One does not fall from a postion if one held no postion of falling from.
Your welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.
:hihat:
I'm a bit sloppy writing this so please bare with me as it is late and I'm feeling drowsy.
(no offense, brother T-Tank) but, ...what a lot of unfounded speculation... thumbdown
No offense taken. I realize that this is advanced stuff im proposing, as for one, the very thing I propose did not happen and did not come to pass, therefore it makes this position difficult for me on a scriptural basis. But nevertheless I do believe what I said is in harmony with the word of God and explains, why God gave the command to freely choose any tree, except that one tree. Gods commands are not in vain and there was a specific reason for that command and I belive that was the test towards Adam and Eve, just like how we today are tested by God on many occasions throughout our life. If they obeyed the command God would have done something else for humanity, you say they didn't and that is true but also an easy thing to say for it is history.
Adam could NOT have "chosen" other than He did, for His choice was already noted by the WORD of GOD -- Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17 -- so no "alternate" imagined scenario was even possible.
Before even one second of this realm took place it was ALREADY DECLARED (by the WORD of God), END to BEGINNING, what (every UNDONE thing=everything) would take place...
This included ADAM & Eve choosing to eat, the Death & Resurrection of CHRIST, unto this DIGITAL day we now live in...
I don't see how that Romans verse explains why Adam ate the tree. That verse is talking about how Abraham, despite evidence to the contrary belived and had faith in God who calleth things that be not as though they are. This is what we do when we pray and excercise faith, we believe in things that are not as though they are, we believe in health when we are sick, believe in riches while we are poor etc.
The lord who declares things from the beginning is talking about major events, such as the birth of a messiah, the creation of the earth etc. He's not really concerned and declared that you would drink 2 cups of coffe today and not 3, or whether you had cornflakes or rice krispies for breakfast, these are your decisions and it's the reason why a lot of christians are unhealthy and/or overweight due to their unhealthy choices. If God truly declared all things he would declare that all his people be in good health and prosperous, but no we have to contend for these things by faith and living a godly lifestyle through Christ within us who shapens us over the course of time, while others he does instant miracles for.
Omg You propose that God "reacts" to the agenda/doings of man... Instead of the reverse!
I think you are overusing that sign post, it's starting to weaken due to the wormwood. You remind me of my sister in some ways with her shocking expression all the time, If I say boo.
The scriptures I read are saying that God does react to us, this is what I read in my bible on a daily basis I don't know why you are shocked. Prayer for example what's that all about? Is it not for God to react to us, to react to our prayers. If God answered your prayers I'm sure you'd be shocked.
Had Adam had such a "choice", and enacted it (picking the tree of Life) ...Then the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil (known only to GOD) would NOT have been shared with man, and therefore GOD would NOT and could NOT be ALL in ALL... For the LIVING experience and REVELATION of that KNOWLEDGE would be "negated"...
That's a very eye opening statement, so your saying that God knows good and evil therefore if he would be in us we would also know good and evil.
That's the beauty of the cross, and the love of God. Even though Adam and Eve desired power knowing good and evil and to be as God, God set up a plan that would bring them back to him.
As the bible says he loved us not that we loved God.
If Adam choose good then I guess that God would not be in all, but rather we would all be like Adam and Eve. It would still be a glorious existence, we would have the garden and peace. The angels of God have already experienced life without evil, so if they did I'm sure that Adam and Eve could have. Adam and Eve knew God, walked and talked but they didn't have the holy spirit within them, which is our gift thanks to Jesus.
There are no "what if's" with God, T-tank... "what if's" are nothing but imaginations... and concerning man, they are VAIN ones -- Rom 1:21 -- 2 Cor 10:5 -- Jer 17:9
That romans verse is not talking about what if's. It's talking about men who rejected God, even though they knew him they changed him from the uncorrupt to that which is corrupt. These men were not interested in God and did not want his rightousness so God, just like how he gave the Israelis their hearts desires in the wilderness in moses time a sandfull of meat that they chocked upon, God also gives up these men to their corrupt minds.
Again the corinthians verse is talking about the same thing, except it is more about an instruction to the church to cast down vain imaginations, there is nothing concerning what if's or the choices of man.
The Jeremiah verse even supports what I'm saying, it says I try the reign and give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
So here we have nothing about God declaring, but rather God is searching, trying, judging mens hearts and what they sow they reap, according to his ways.
It IS NOT GLORIFYING to God to note Him as needfully "REACTING" to the vanity of men (having to set up a "redemption plan", due to their "choosing")... This portrays God as "kicking the wall" ...looking toward JESUS saying "dang! Look what THEY DID! Now YOU are going to have to go down there and DIE, to bring those dumb bozos home! Why didn't they choose the RIGHT tree?"
I belive it is glorifying in the sense that God allows us free reign but ends up saving us all anyway. What attribute you think wins most if God gives us free reign but saves us all anyway?
Now what attribute wins or is magnified if God declared every detail in life and declares that we be all saved without us having a say?
So which one of those attributes is God?
I like you story about God kicking the wall, I think that is the jist of it, remember what did Jesus do before he went to the cross?
Didn't he pray to his father that this cup pass away from me?
And didn't the holy ghost answer this request by appearing to Pontius Pilates wife in a dream in an effort to save him?
But the father had to answer Jesus request but also make sure he went to the cross, so this dream took place, which answered Jesus prayer, but father had to make sure he went to the cross, so the woman had her heart hardened.
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:44:11 AMYour welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.
I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.
So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 09, 2010, 05:10:45 AM
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:44:11 AMYour welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.
I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.
So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:
How did man fall from grace, when we do not read of grace until Gen 6:8 And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 09, 2010, 05:10:45 AM
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:44:11 AMYour welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.
I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.
So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:
I assumed that those catholic paintings, were a depiction of the fall of lucifer and his recruits, rev12.
But I have not researched what they meant, so maybe you are right, but I have not heard of catholics say that Adam and Eve were originally angels, maybe you assumed also :dontknow:
You are right about the definitions, those were wise words. One can call us angels in a sense because we sit in heaveanly places and are as the angels of heaven, maybe that's what people here mean, but to me that is confusing people and so I rather say as scriptures point out that we will in future become children of the resurection and will one day be as the angels and put on immortality, but currently we reside upon the earth in moral bodies.
How did man fall from grace, when we do not read of grace until Gen 6:8 And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
Micah
I placed favour and grace together for it is similar, or to make it plainer Gods smile upon Adam and Eve, do you think God was happy when Adam and Even trangressed. To me God was pleased to create Adam and his grace was given in the sense that he had paradise to live in. Sometimes I wonder how long were they actually in the garden for, maybe they lived there in paradise for months, wouldn't that be grace?
That God provided a place for them to live?
The same way in which we are grateful for our parents, when they housed us?
:cloud9: @ TT in reply to your previous post......I'm not offended, hope you can say the same. In reply to this last post; YES, TT, that IS what I'm trying to say, but I'm digging into what our "state" was BEFORE we came into flesh, whether you call that a fall or whatever you want to call it. You can't fall from a place you've never been before, nor can you return (Hos. 6) to a place you've never been before.
I have reasons for digging, one of which is a record of one of the kings that destroyed one of the temples, who mocked them because he mistakenly thought the ark of the covenant was the "god" the Israelites were worshiping, instead of THE invisible God.
He mocked them, because the cherubim were depicted as naked children with wings, one male, one female. Though I don't listen to pagan kings, this lines up with some other revelational truth He has given me, as to the understanding of the cherubim on the ark, so I'm pursuing it, ie. angels. Blessings....
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 06:33:29 AMI assumed that those catholic paintings, were a depiction of the fall of lucifer and his recruits, rev12.
It was 3:30 am when I typed that :winkgrin:
You are right that it means the fall of lucifer and his army (for most). But just as on the fall of man there are different opinion on the fall of angels.
It has a reason there are so many demoninations. And TM members come from those many denominations. So I think we all brought our defenition with us. No matter if we still do or don't believe them.
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 09, 2010, 06:31:46 AMHow did man fall from grace, when we do not read of grace until Gen 6:8 And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
Maybe like TT said perhaps... grace... favor.
I view it as an honor to live in that garden. Father has taken that honor away. The lost their status. They fell in status.
But again things getting more complicated. The topic starts with "fall". Then "angel" is added. And now "grace" is added.
I'm not saying those words shouldn't be in this discussion. (I think they belong here) It just complicates things more.
Each of those 3 words are enough for scholars to fill a whole bookshelf with.
And then we are use 3 of them in one discussion... :winkgrin:
Note to Micah: I'm not attacking your views or trying to ridicule you as you assumed before. I just have a strong belief that the various defenitions can make the/a discussion almost impossible.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 08, 2010, 08:22:19 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 08, 2010, 08:14:41 AMWhat does it read?
I'll simplify my question for you: Do you agree with what I quoted in post#85. Yes or No?
I do not believe the eoman talked to a snake
Adam missed the mark . .that's what sin is . . .he fell. And snakes don't eat dust for their meat . . so it's not as we see things literally. Carnality eats flesh . . when we don't walk in the spirit, we become food for the carnality in us.
To me the snake that eats dust is a reference to Satan who must rely on man for his food. For dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return. If Gods food is rightoeusness then the devils food is carnality.
Not sure whether there is actually a snake in the garden, but in a literal sense snakes, mostly slither in rocky, dusty, dry places and their mouths are close to the floor. Perhaps originally snakes were more similar to the cobra, who is able to erect themselves upright. So what happened in the garden could be a reference to the physical and the spiritual. :2c:
TT, I agree that the snake likely was not a snake. But just lets call it a snake.
Man = dust.
Sin/death is linked to earth.
=> Sin = dust
Snake eats dust.
=> Snake eats sin.
Snake eats sin? That doesn't seem to fit. I see it as when I walk in carnality . . .it (carnality) consumes ME. When I walk in anger, I've already been consumed by a situation. When I walk in worry, same thing. When I walk in lust . . .it's all the same pattern and principle.
The serpent "in" the tree is what governs the realm of that tree. We live in this realm of the flesh, we are governed by the flesh and our minds govern our understanding . .. in this realm . . .it all changes when we walk "in the spirit."
Quote from: Nathan on August 09, 2010, 10:57:38 PMconsumes ME.
ME=flesh=dust=carnality=sin
Eat=feed=thrive
The snake thrives on (the) sin (of man).
Thrives=>Snake has grown to a dragon of Rev.
:2c:
I'll give you that . . .we've been feeding the thing ever since we entered into the realm of the flesh. We've been feeding it us and have been under it's control as a result. Some have been born again into religion and it's simply followed us there. It still controls our minds and vision and veils our understanding.
Only when we enter into a relationship with the True Father rather than someone's image of him, are we then broken free from the power of this beast within us. It's the nature that governs this realm we live in. When left up to it's own devices, it will cause us to turn on ourselves and destroy one another. Our warring with others is evidence of the fact our nature is consumed by the beast of man.
By warring, I don't mean debates . .. I mean aggressively attacking, condemning and degrading . ..
Quote from: Nathan on August 09, 2010, 08:59:19 PM
Adam missed the mark . .that's what sin is . . .he fell. And snakes don't eat dust for their meat . . so it's not as we see things literally. Carnality eats flesh . . when we don't walk in the spirit, we become food for the carnality in us.
Here is just something that was revealed to me not to long ago. Sin is to miss the mark, but
the first time "sin" is mentioned in the Book is Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be its desire, but do thou rule over it. And nothing to do with Adam, yet I have taken serious thought that man is still at Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
But then again, I lean more to understanding the Books of Gen. 2 and further on as allegorys, and that causes my imput to be somewhat diminished in debate.
Quote from: WhiteWings on August 09, 2010, 09:19:07 PM
TT, I agree that the snake likely was not a snake. But just lets call it a snake.
Man = dust.
Sin/death is linked to earth.
=> Sin = dust
Snake eats dust.
=> Snake eats sin.
I believe it will edify more that we call it a serpent, since it is never called a snake [only to our human definition] I also lean toward believing that the "dragon" was present in the prophetical and spirit of Gen.1:21 "whales" H8577 from H8565 tan
From an unused root probably meaning to elongate; a monster (as preternaturally formed), that is, a sea serpent (or other huge marine animal); also a jackal (or other hideous land animal): - dragon, whale. Just my :2c:
Quote from: micah7:9 on August 09, 2010, 11:50:35 PMI believe it will edify more that we call it a serpent,
No problem. In my own language the two words are practically the same. Not only as an animal but also all kind of negative meanings. "My" Bible uses snake instead of serpent.
Anyway I'll use serpent (if I remeber)
willieH: Hi T-tank... :happygrin:
Quote from: willieH(no offense, brother T-Tank) but, ...what a lot of unfounded speculation... :thumbdown:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMNo offense taken.
Good. :wink2:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMI realize that this is advanced stuff im proposing
:laughing7:
Actually your viewpoint, is nothing but common Orthodox thought, which is hardly "advanced", rather is that which is ensnared in the practices of addition to Biblical text and subsequent conjectures... Like I have told you before, I had affiliations of 25years with Orthodoxy, so I am a bit familiar with the beliefs.
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMas for one, the very thing I propose did not happen and did not come to pass, therefore it makes this position difficult for me on a scriptural basis. But nevertheless I do believe what I said is in harmony with the word of God and explains, why God gave the command to freely choose any tree, except that one tree.
FIRST -- you admit to your proposal as having NOT occured... (imagined)
SECOND -- you admit that it has NO Scriptural basis... (no foundation)
THIRD -- you "nevertheless" believe what you say is IN HARMONY to the
WORD.
:JCThink: This sounds like a method of someone that is purposely and stubbornly, SELF-DELUSIONAL.
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMGods commands are not in vain and there was a specific reason for that command and I belive that was the test towards Adam and Eve, just like how we today are tested by God on many occasions throughout our life.
No one is implying that GOD's COMMANDS are ever given "in vain"... They are HIS COMMANDS, and He made MAN, ...KNOWING and DECLARING what MAN would do... when faced with the "COMMAND" given.
Also...
CHRIST was already SLAIN from the foundation, before those COMMANDS which GOD KNEW would be disregarded (for He had already
DECLARED they would be disregarded)... in order to RESTORE the ones which HE KNEW would need RESTORING, because of their
DECLARED disregard.
This is PURPOSE already set in place, not a conjecture of ---
"if this happens, I'll do that" :rolleye:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMIf they obeyed the command God would have done something else for humanity, you say they didn't and that is true but also an easy thing to say for it is history.
If I had strong enough legs I could jump to the moon... or,
If I had harder teeth I could eat steel... or,
If I was born in the beginning, I would've been Adam... or,
If I was Bill Gates I wouldn't need my social security money... or,
If I was not human I could be a giraffe... or,
If I was not 65 years old, I could be a kid... or,
If I didn't have a stomach, I'd need another system to digest my food... or if, ...or if, ...or if, ...or if, ..... :wacko2:
Quote from: willieHAdam could NOT have "chosen" other than He did, for His choice was already noted by the WORD of GOD -- Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17 -- so no "alternate" imagined scenario was even possible.
Before even one second of this realm took place it was ALREADY DECLARED (by the WORD of God), END to BEGINNING, what (every UNDONE thing=everything) would take place...
This included ADAM & Eve choosing to eat, the Death & Resurrection of CHRIST, unto this DIGITAL day we now live in...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMI don't see how that Romans verse explains why Adam ate the tree. That verse is talking about how Abraham, despite evidence to the contrary belived and had faith in God who calleth things that be not as though they are. This is what we do when we pray and excercise faith, we believe in things that are not as though they are, we believe in health when we are sick, believe in riches while we are poor etc.
You don't
see a lot of things, T-tank... just because you do not "
see" them, does not mean they are not there...
It conveys a PRINCIPLE which you refuse to "
see"... which is that GOD calls things that ARE NOT... as though THEY WERE...
It is not specific to ABRAHAM... just like
Ex 20:1-3 is not specific to the JEWS, nor is it specific to the CONTEXT it has been spoken in, rather... is TRUTH in PRINCIPLE concerning ALL, and is free of the BOUNDARIES which men like yourself might attempt to IMPOSE upon it.
It is the principle of PROPHECY... which is also DUE and come forth from the FOREKNOWLEDGE of GOD and which "manifests" without fail TO THE LETTER, each thing which is foretold!
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThe lord who declares things from the beginning is talking about major events, such as the birth of a messiah, the creation of the earth etc.
Typical BLIND Orthodox vision... The text of --
Isaiah 46:10 -- does not SPECIFY that which you just named... so your statement is an ADDITION to it...
It CLEARLY SAYS that HE DECLARED the END from the BEGINNING, those
THINGS ...NOT YET DONE... How many "
things" is that, T-tank? :dontknow:
The
COUNSEL of
YHVH is mentioned in this verse... as well as this one:
Eph 1:11 -- which BOTH state that
HE is "doing, the DOINGS"!
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMHe's not really concerned and declared that you would drink 2 cups of coffe today and not 3, or whether you had cornflakes or rice krispies for breakfast, these are your decisions and it's the reason why a lot of christians are unhealthy and/or overweight due to their unhealthy choices.
That you had not had your coffee yet this morning, was ALREADY KNOWN and DECLARED, irregardless of the triviality you pretend to reduce them to... for even in your own words, you note that men are making (what YOU consider) UNHEALTHY choices (not that they are necessarily "unhealthy")
And in your statement, you note that GOD is not concerned with these DETAILS even though they are potentially detrimental to the individuals "choosing"? That is plain and simple...
INDIFFERENCE.
You therefore name GOD, as
INDIFFERENT to your "unhealthy choosings", which INDIFFERENCE, ...is the actual OPPOSITE of
LOVE. (not "hate" as you likely percieve)...
You would propose that GOD is not concerned with EVERY MOMENT and DETAIL of your life, as you just alluded... yet He NUMBERS the very Hairs upon your head (not that He necessarily finds that a difficult task :laughing7:)...
Now WHY would He do this, if He was not concerned with the DETAILS of YOUR LIFE, T-tank? He is concerned about the death of each SPARROW... yet you dispense with the depth of His
LOVE for men? ... :thumbdown:
Which blindness sadly, :sigh: ...is the reason
WHY you believe Him to be in the end, the greatest cosmic MURDERER of all time! (annhilating the creatures He
LOVES and gave His Son to redeem)
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMIf God truly declared all things he would declare that all his people be in good health and prosperous, but no we have to contend for these things by faith and living a godly lifestyle through Christ within us who shapens us over the course of time, while others he does instant miracles for.
All this notation is, amounts to YOU pretending to be HIM (God)...
For He INDEED DECLARED the DEATH of His Son, before a moment of this realm transpired --
Rev 13:8 -- But YOU, as did PETER (when he was addressed as "satan"), would've OBJECTED and DO OBJECT to the doings of GOD, ...for YOU just stated that "
If God truly declared all things he would declare that all his people be in good health and prosperous" --
However, the health of
JESUS was NOT GOOD! Instead by the DECLARATION of GOD --- He was AFFLICTED, SMITTEN, STRICKEN, BRUISED, and CHASTISED for US! --
Isaiah 53:3-5 -- Nor did He "PROSPER" as you inaccurately
imagine, ...yet was DECLARED by
YHVH to endure these things for a
REASON... do you even know what that REASON is. T-tank? (of course you will not answer, for ignorance is your best method of evasion)...
Quote from: willieH:omg: You propose that God "reacts" to the agenda/doings of man... Instead of the reverse!
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMI think you are overusing that sign post, it's starting to weaken due to the wormwood. You remind me of my sister in some ways with her shocking expression all the time, If I say boo.
Please... do you even know what "wormwood" is? ...offer your definition.
As far as "overuse"... that is your opinion, which I THINK is quite OVERUSED by you in the stead of the
WORD. :pitiful:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThe scriptures I read are saying that God does react to us, this is what I read in my bible on a daily basis I don't know why you are shocked. Prayer for example what's that all about? Is it not for God to react to us, to react to our prayers. If God answered your prayers I'm sure you'd be shocked.
You are where you are T-tank... which is not your "fault", nor is it my place to judge the position you occupy presently, as I at one time, ...sat in that ORTHODOX, seat... :declare:
Do you really know what PRAYER is, T-tank? Do you think it to be the expression of the desires of your heart? Or is it requests that
need to be filled in your life? What you want for "christmas"? A raise at work? World peace?
Tell me what you THINK that PRAYER is... and why (whatever it IS), ...that IT should CAUSE GOD to "react" to IT? :dontknow:
The ALMIGHTY does not any more "react" to you, than do you "react" to the dirt in your backyard. For we are nothing but DIRT which is destined to return to it --
Gen 3:19You (as do many Orthodox)... WAY overestimate yourself before Him... and because you do... you shall ...
REAP what you SOW...
Quote from: willieHHad Adam had such a "choice", and enacted it (picking the tree of Life) ...Then the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil (known only to GOD) would NOT have been shared with man, and therefore GOD would NOT and could NOT be ALL in ALL... For the LIVING experience and REVELATION of that KNOWLEDGE would be "negated"...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThat's a very eye opening statement, so your saying that God knows good and evil therefore if he would be in us we would also know good and evil.
You fail to even grasp the elementary levels of spirituality and PURPOSE of this realm.
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThat's the beauty of the cross, and the love of God. Even though Adam and Eve desired power knowing good and evil and to be as God, God set up a plan that would bring them back to him.
Again... as most ORTHODOX minds contend... desiring to BE like GOD, is somehow WRONG? Do you not desire to BE as is GOD, T-tank? If you do not aspire to BE like GOD, ...who do you wish to be LIKE? :dontknow:
Adam & Eve didn't know what they were actually doing when they did what they did... They were following the INTENT of their Creator... and the PATHWAY which was DIRECTED by Him that they would follow --
Prov 16:9 -- 20:24 -- 21:1 -- Jer 10:23 -- you however, would jettision these PLAIN and SIMPLE remarks in the
WORD for they are not conduscive to your "choosings" which you esteem to be free from His (indifferent to details) INFLUENCE... :bumbrage:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMAs the bible says he loved us not that we loved God.
Wait just a darn, cotton pickin', "free will" minute here! I thought YOU "chose" to LOVE Him, ...
of yourself, using your "free will" to do so?
Singeth thou now, a different tune? :blah:
I mean... it is your belief that YOU decide your pathway. And if LOVE for GOD, appears upon it... that it is YOU which decided to LOVE Him, of your own "free will"? Ain't that
it, T-tank? :Chinscratch:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMIf Adam choose good then I guess that God would not be in all, but rather we would all be like Adam and Eve.
More imaginary dialogue... "
If Adam had jumped to the moon, then Neil Armstrong... would've been, ..."just another guy"
I will continue in another post... :heat:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi T-tank... :icon_king:
continuing...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMIt would still be a glorious existence, we would have the garden and peace.
Only from the view of GOD which KNOWS GOOD (as well as EVIL), and thereby is able to determine it as GOOD... due to that KNOWLEDGE.
As for YOU, ...You would have no KNOWLEDGE of your existence as being "GOOD" T-tank! For that KNOWLEDGE would not be possessed by you. Any more than me, as an uneducated musician, can KNOW how the internal workings of my computer can instantly put this site on my screen, and digitally transfer my postings to this site.
The KNOWLEDGE... is a 2 sided KNOWLEDGE, one indicating the other, one NEEDING the other to find its DEFINITION... without this KNOWLEDGE, one would be alive, without AWARENESS as to the STATE of that LIFE... just alive... but COMPLETELY unaware of the GOODNESS and MIRACLE that LIFE is... for NO DEATH exists to oppose it... no NEGATIVITY exists to indicate it to be POSITIVE, etc...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThe angels of God have already experienced life without evil, so if they did I'm sure that Adam and Eve could have. Adam and Eve knew God, walked and talked but they didn't have the holy spirit within them, which is our gift thanks to Jesus.
The angels had no reference to GOOD and EVIL, until it has been REVEALED here, T-tank. This is part of the RICHES of HIS GLORY as the REVEALING of the Sons of GOD, has manifest by the WORKING of GOD which WORKS ALL THINGS --
Eph 1:11 -- (including Adam & Eve's choice to eat) ... Don't you get it?
Quote from: willieHThere are no "what if's" with God, T-tank... "what if's" are nothing but imaginations... and concerning man, they are VAIN ones -- Rom 1:21 -- 2 Cor 10:5 -- Jer 17:9
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThat romans verse is not talking about what if's. It's talking about men who rejected God, even though they knew him they changed him from the uncorrupt to that which is corrupt.
And so the BLIND (false PROPHETS) do not admit to their blindness... claiming they can SEE... and because of this, their SIN REMAINS --
John 9:39-41 -- Matt 7:22-23 -- Try on the shoe, if it fits, wear it, T-tank! :sigh:
Your "
what IF's" are nothing but VAIN imaginations which DO NOT glorify God, and which are supplied by YOU to give YOU a foundation of FANTASY to speak from... as you observe the
WORD of God before others. :sigh:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThese men were not interested in God and did not want his rightousness so God, just like how he gave the Israelis their hearts desires in the wilderness in moses time a sandfull of meat that they chocked upon, God also gives up these men to their corrupt minds.
Any MAN which inserts his/her own "IMAGINATIONS" into the mouth of the Creator, is disinterested in HIM as God... Seeking GLORY for their own
imaginations, rather than the GLORY of the LOVE of the TRUTH --
2 Thess 2:10-11 -- wallowing in their
IMAGINATION, rather than in what IS WRITTEN... with the BLINDED "
what IF's" of their conjectures.... instead of WHAT is NOTED to BE or have BEEN, by the
WORD.
SHAME is the destiny of these, as they present what they consider "wonderful works" to the Lord... which names those (supposed) "wonderful works" -- INIQUITY --
Matt 7:22-23Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMAgain the corinthians verse is talking about the same thing, except it is more about an instruction to the church to cast down vain imaginations, there is nothing concerning what if's or the choices of man.
More of your sidestepping...
Why do you therefore FAIL to cast them (imaginations) DOWN, T-tank? Instead you propose your "
what IF's", throughout
this and other postings done by you...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMThe Jeremiah verse even supports what I'm saying, it says I try the reign and give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
And what of YOURSELF, T-tank? What about your "
what IF's"? What of the DECEIT of their INVALIDITY? What of these VAIN proposals that note that the WRITING in the HOLY
WORD which is an UNCHANGING and TRUTHFUL notation, is indeed opposed by your "
what IF's"?
If GOD's
WORD is PERFECTLY COMPLETE and TRUTH... wherein is found your ALTERNATIVE "
what IF" imagined scenario, T-tank? Are you getting any of this T-tank? Did you come here to learn? Or just to continually spout your "
what IF" IMAGINATIONS which propose that what is WRITTEN in the PERFECT
WORD of God "could've happened otherwise"? Do you not see the blasphemy in that propostion? That it is INSULTING to God?
:sorry: WALKING upon HOLY GROUND, with your
SHOES ON --
Ex 3:5Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMSo here we have nothing about God declaring, but rather God is searching, trying, judging mens hearts and what they sow they reap, according to his ways.
You reduce the ALMIGHTY to your vision of Him... failing to learn, failing to observe the
WORD as it is WRITTEN, displacing it with your IMAGINARY scenarios... insulting the ETERNAL
WORD, with the imaginary substitutions of your humanity... :pitiful:
Quote from: willieHIt IS NOT GLORIFYING to God to note Him as needfully "REACTING" to the vanity of men (having to set up a "redemption plan", due to their "choosing")... This portrays God as "kicking the wall" ...looking toward JESUS saying "dang! Look what THEY DID! Now YOU are going to have to go down there and DIE, to bring those dumb bozos home! Why didn't they choose the RIGHT tree?"
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMI belive it is glorifying in the sense that God allows us free reign but ends up saving us all anyway. What attribute you think wins most if God gives us free reign but saves us all anyway?
Don't you see that you FACILITATE yourself with these words T-tank? So YOU can have your "free reign"? Separating yourself from Him in doing so?
You would make God a parent which "ALLOWS" His Children to MISBEHAVE? Is THAT your method of parenting? Did or DO you ALLOW your children to MISBEHAVE, so that THEY can maintain a "free reign" from YOUR CONTROL?
This METHOD of parenting, is of the MOST IRRESPONSIBLE... Those who do NOT discipline their Children for MISBEHAVIOR, but ALLOW them to MISBEHAVE, are not parenting in the best interests of the child. Do you fail to see this, T-tank? Is pride such an issue that you shall cling to it at any cost?
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMNow what attribute wins or is magnified if God declared every detail in life and declares that we be all saved without us having a say?
That in ALL THINGS, HE was guide to their end... That whether GOOD or EVIL, ...God's INTENTION in ALL THINGS was manifest...
Why do you think He RAISED PHAROAH to DO what he DID, T-tank? --
Rom 9:17 -- in WHAT WAY do you find GLORY in God's raising of PHAROAH? Which ENSLAVED His people?
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMI like you story about God kicking the wall, I think that is the jist of it, remember what did Jesus do before he went to the cross?
Didn't he pray to his father that this cup pass away from me?
As would any MAN... He did of Himself KNOW NOTHING... which is
WHY He "asked"... the FLESH shall NEVER aspire to being murdered... would YOU T-tank?
However, unlike other men, He ALWAYS submitted to the WILL of
YHVH which was that He indeed MUST BE MURDERED... in order to REDEEM mankind...
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMAnd didn't the holy ghost answer this request by appearing to Pontius Pilates wife in a dream in an effort to save him?
What EMBELLISHMENT to what is WRITTEN --
Matt 27:19 -- (since YOU did not bother to name the reference)
Where is the Holy Ghost mentioned in this? :dontknow: Where is it said that the Holy Ghost "appeared" to her?
And to propose that the Holy Spirit was "in cahoots" with the dispensing of the sacrifice of
CHRIST... is to state a position IN CONTENTION with
YHVH... which had FOREORDAINED that sacrifice!
Peter was reprimanded for this CONTENTION and addressed as "satan"... you now blashpheme the Holy Spirit, by saying that the DREAM was an EFFORT to NEGATE the SALVATION NEEDED SACRIFICE of
JESUS?
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMBut the father had to answer Jesus request but also make sure he went to the cross
What a crock... :thumbdown:
The "answer" from
YHVH, ...was SILENCE! :nod:
Quote from: thinktank on August 09, 2010, 04:52:04 AMso this dream took place, which answered Jesus prayer, but father had to make sure he went to the cross, so the woman had her heart hardened.
Where is this "hardening" mentioned, aside from your IMAGINATION, T-tank?
This was not an answer to the prayer of
CHRIST...
The "answer" was found in the MANIFESTATION of what in fact, occured... and what was manifest, had nothing to do with the wife of Pontius Pilate... except to note that the MURDER was UNJUST.
Had Pilate submitted to the request of his wife... YOU and I would not have SALVATION. :sigh: (nor would anyone else!)
...willieH :cloud9:
:goodpost:
Jeremiah 8
At that time, declares the LORD, they will bring out the bones of the (Serpent) Kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves.
They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the ground.
And death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the places to which I have driven them," declares the LORD of hosts. You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD:
Do men fall and not get up again?
Does one turn away and not repent?
Why then has this people, Jerusalem, Turned away in continual apostasy?
They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return. I have listened and heard and they have spoken what is not right. No man repented of his wickedness, Saying, 'What have I done?'
Everyone turned to his course, like a horse charging into the battle. Even the stork in the sky knows her seasons; and the turtledove and the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration; but My people do not know the ordinance of the LORD.
How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, and what kind of wisdom do they have?
Therefore I will give their wives to others, their fields to new owners; because from the least even to the greatest everyone is greedy for gain; from the prophet even to the priest everyone practices deceit. They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, saying, 'Peace, peace,' but there is no peace.
Were they ashamed because of the abomination they had done?
They certainly were not ashamed, and they did not know how to blush; therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time of their punishment they shall be brought down, says the LORD.
I will surely snatch them away, declares the LORD; there will be no grapes on the vine and no figs on the fig tree, and the leaf will wither; And what I have given them will pass away. Why are we sitting still?
Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the fortified cities. And let us perish there, because the LORD our God has doomed us and given us poisoned water to drink, for we have sinned against the LORD.
We waited for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror!
From Dan is heard the snorting of his horses; at the sound of the neighing of his stallions.
The whole land quakes; for they come and devour the land and its fullness, the city and its inhabitants. For behold, I am sending Serpents against you, Adders (venomous snakes or vipers) for which there is no charm, and they will bite you, declares the LORD.
My sorrow is beyond healing. My heart is faint within me! Behold, listen! The cry of the daughter of my people from a distant land: Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King not within her? Why have they provoked Me with their graven images, with foreign idols?
Harvest is past, summer is ended, and we are not saved. For the brokenness of the daughter of my people I am broken; I mourn, dismay has taken hold of me. Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?
Why then has not the health of the daughter of my people been restored?
"Many would rather deny their own senses, than come to their senses."