Christian Universalist challenged by passage in Genesis

[deeplyloved]

In a debate recently, a claim made by a proponent of eternal torment, challenging a Christian Universaliist, was what was described as a parallelsm in Genesis 2:16-17

In the original Hebrew in v16, we have "in feasting, you shall continually feast ie., as in always full in the moment, and never ending; and in v17 "in dying, you shall continually die", physically and spiritually...with that never ending aspect as dynamically described in V16. Some commentaries seem to support this.

....can someone share some perspective on these scriptures in light of the promises of the unchanging Love of the Father assured us as outlined in the New Covenant? Thanks!
God's Richest Blessings.

[eaglesway]

I dont see any verse that aligns with the quote you have given, except Gen 2:16 and 17.....

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Paul, who called himself the "Hebrew of Hebrews"- and who was a zealous proponent of the Pharisees and teacher of the law, did not read it that way, because he taught that death will be abolished, and God will be all in all in the following verses-

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:26-28

Also, the question is not whether those who die are "continually dying". In whatever way they are dying, Jesus can give them life- even as all who believe have "passed from death into life(John 5:24)" so the question is, "Can Jesus give all men life?"

Jesus seems to think so. "If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me"- John 12:32

Paul seems to think so. "As in Adam all died so also in Christ shall all be made alive". 1 Cor 15:22

In mortal life, you live... continually living until you die.

In death, you continually die..... until you are made alive.

In Christ all shall be made alive. God will
be all in all

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be the glory forever." Romans 11:36

[deeplyloved]

Super! Thanks much for addressing this EW!
...(have since modified post to include full reference in Genesis)

God's Richest Blessings!

[marie glen]

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

         interesting.. in the day you eat of it you will be dying..? Until, amen, Jesus gives life.. :thumbsup:

[CST]

I see. Yes, that does seem to be a parallelism. For those who can't see it that's hardly surprising as it's not always conveyed very well in English.

The point appears to be that the phrase translated in the KJV as 'thou mayest freely eat' (Gen. 2:16) has behind it the Hebrew phrase "'akal 'akal". Similarly in the next verse the phrase 'thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen. 2:17 - KJV) has behind it the Hebrew phrase "muwth muwth".

That means that from what I can tell if you translated this into English word-for-word with no regard to any sort of grammar or context it would seem basically to read "eat, eat" and "die, die". I don't pretend to know what the Hebrew writers intended to suggest when they repeated words like this but given the number of different ways I've seen it translated I'm not sure the experts do either. The general approach seems to be that the words 'freely' and 'surely' are used to represent the respective repetitions.

I can't see why it matters though, Adam did it from the forbidden tree and took on the consequences. You can't claim, as this ET proponent is trying to do, that that means all the wicked are Hellbound and traditional traditional teaching is correct. Traditional teaching already incorporates this into why Jesus came and died for that very sin. The dispute between UR and ET proponent continues to be how efficient and successful that action was. The sort of claim the ET proponent seems to be making would render Jesus' action impotent for everyone which I'm sure he (or was it a she, you didn't say?) does not intend to suggest.

[jugghead]

I don't know if this is significant or not, but because of what and how CST explained it, that it is a repeat of the same word,

the thought that popped into my head was when Christ said Martha, Martha,  or verily verily (but John is the only one that has the word verily repeated, the other gospels only use it once)

My point is, what is the motive for the repeat and what came to mind with that is, the first time it is said is to get the attention of the person, the second is so the person would now look at the person speaking and give attention in return.

Is it the principle of sowing and reaping?

Also in the context of Genesis chapter one in "seed after his kind" or "cattle after his kind", a seed can only produce the same kind that it came from.

Sow death or dying and that is what you will continually reap unless what is sowed is changed

Sow life or living and that is what you will continually reap unless what is sowed is changed

Which goes back to what EW said:

In mortal life, you live... continually living until you die.

In death, you continually die..... until you are made alive.

Can we sow life and death together? is not the tares and the wheat an example of this? Are the sheep and goats the example of a separation of those who sowed death for all unless YOU do something..... (ET) and those who sowed life for all because HE did something.....(UR)

but this is just my opinion

[eaglesway]

My understanding is that Hebrew words were often repeated for emphasis. muwth muwth (certainly, surely) akai akai(freely, totally) olam olam(exceedlingly long or forever).

I like your point jugghead and agree. Tares and wheat are the life efforts of mortal passage- what we do with our lives. The tares have 'empty heads(bearing no fruit), the wheat have "seeds" to fall into the ground and bear more fruit for harvest, where they are gathered onto the "threshing floor" for separation(separate the wheat from the chaff), the chaff is burned, the seed is used to feed or to plant. This is similar to 1 Cor 3 where the wood, hay and stubble(works of imperfect motivation) are burned and the person "loses their reward" but is saved as "one passing through flames".

The flames, like the flames in Jesus' eyes(Rev 1), are the penetrating gaze by which the Lord "tries the reins(motives) and the hearts". Or as in John 15, the branches that bear no fruit are withered(dried up), cut-off and gathered to be cast into the fire. Similarly the salt that has lost its savor(saving, curing properties) is no good for anything but to be cast out and "trampled under the feet of men"(for traction in winter maybe?LOL).

All these images are metaphors for the end goal of God which is to harvest true, pure, beings, like Himself- the One who says "I Am That I Am"- with whom there is "no shadow of turning". Harvested into the freedom of love.

All of life and time for all who ever live is subjected to this purpose, for instance, in Daniel 7 there is a river of fire coming out from the throne. In Revelation there is a river of living water coming out from the throne.

Which is it?.

For literalists this cause a huge problem. The truth is, the living water and the river of fire are the same- depending on where you are standing. Fire to purge is water of life. After the purging you bathe in the same river and simply shine in it. God is light. God is love. God is a consuming fire.....

Which is He?

He is all of these things at the same time. We are oriented towards Him variously as adversaries or as lovers, friends, family- becoming like Him Who Is What He Is, always, immutably- and is bringing us into the same state of being- perfected in love, joy, freedom and righteousness.

In Revelation 4 there is a crystal sea before the throne. In Revelation 14 the beast and the false prophet are tormented in fire and sulfur(sulfur is a purifying agent used from ancient times even until till today) "in the presence of the Lord and His holy angels".

The lake of fire and the crystal sea may very well be exactly the same thing(I think they are). Think of it. What will it be like for someone who does not "rejoice at His appearing" because of wickedness, selfishness etc. That which is perfect peace to His children will be terrible to deal with for many who hate Him. How long can we sit in stillness until the deeply hidden beasts of our carnal mind rise up before us. We can turn them over to Him and "if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness". Eventually "every hidden thing will be brought to light" and all will confess, change and be changed, receive forgiveness, and be restored, engrafted into the One True Being as beings made true by grace through faith.

My experience of life is that the longer I walk in it the deeper He gets into my heart, dividing asunder soul and spirit and "making manifest" the thoughts and intentions of my heart. Things in which I thought I was "right" have become revelations of my blindness and selfishness. I am being continually separated on the threshing floor, beaten with the winnowing fork. Then the chaff is fanned into the oven and what is left is gathered into His bosom- and I am thankful for it- but it is not easy :o) It will not be easy for those who find themselves in His presence holding onto that darkness within- but no fear, He will bathe them in light and love and fire until all the impurities have risen to the top and they will fall to there knees and confess joyfully the Lordship of Perfect Love- Messiah Jesus, to the glory of God the Father.

The key is, God doesnt change. WE are changing as we are brought into His "all in all", His presence, His "heaven"- which is simply to be as He is, whether it begins in this world, or in the world to come, through a  process we can only glimpse through metaphors, prophecies and principles we KNOW to be true. Principles such as "the last shall be first and the first shall be last" and "mercy triumphs over judgment"......

When I was a young fire breathing Pentecostal preacher I was ranting about the spirit of error and the spirit of truth one day. An older brother said to me, "Jesus is full of grace and truth...you want a little truth?...Have a little grace. If you are going to err, err on the side of grace".

40 years later those words still burn like fire in my heart and mind, but they are water of life to me now. They were the flaming eyes of Jesus separating spirit from soul, bone from marrow and making manifest the secrets of my heart then- and I squirmed under them for quite awhile.

You know what I mean...... the worm would not die so the fire would not quench LOLOL

[Dandelion]

Whow, EW, can I copy this one and hang it on the wall?

You hit the proverbial nail on the head!

D.

[jugghead]

I agree Dandelion, ..... EW that is a testimony that will NOT be burned up or blown by the wind

Amen brother

[deeplyloved]

Thanks Jugghead...great illustration w/wheat and tares.
Much appreciate input!

[marie glen]

..amen.. I have long thought bible interpretation when discussed, very often should be "and" and not "or" when considering differences in understanding.. for example, I may believe the gathering of tares, refers to the gathering to armageddon (rev 14), but I also believe the tares/weeds in our nature and psyche (heart) will be gathered to be burned, like the chaff on His threshing floor..

..and often, I believe there is both a literal, and a metaphorical, understanding.. And often it needn't be one is 'wrong' and another 'right' - unless we are "contradicting the scripture" of course..

...sowed death for all unless YOU do something..... (ET) and those who sowed life for all because HE did something.....(UR)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: A-MEN!

[Eleutheros]

In a debate recently, a claim made by a proponent of eternal torment, challenging a Christian Universaliist, was what was described as a parallelsm in Genesis 2:16-17

In the original Hebrew in v16, we have "in feasting, you shall continually feast ie., as in always full in the moment, and never ending; and in v17 "in dying, you shall continually die", physically and spiritually...with that never ending aspect as dynamically described in V16. Some commentaries seem to support this.

....can someone share some perspective on these scriptures in light of the promises of the unchanging Love of the Father assured us as outlined in the New Covenant? Thanks!
God's Richest Blessings.

Greetings deeplyloved,

Would you be interested in a point of view of Genesis from someone who seeks the literal, earthly understanding of a story from scripture before attempting to glean a figurative, spiritual, understanding?

If so, then allow me to point out that the literal phrasing in Genesis 2:17 is notoriously difficult to translate straight off; for Jehovah Elohim just repeats the word for death, "...eat day thereof die die."

Now it can be logically assumed that The Awdam must have known what this phrase was supposed to mean because it's logical to assume that Jehovah Elohim knew how to convey His command to him in such a way that the consequences of eating the fruit from The Tree of The Knowledge of The Difference Between Good and Evil would be understood.

However, we are not The Awdam. But we are intelligent and understand that words are meant to communicate ideas. Therefore I can glean a hint, as have others more learned than I, about what Jehovah might have intended in His repetition of the word "die" at the point when the command was given because... Jehovah's words were not what Ishsha repeated back to the The Nacash!

In her reply to the inquiry of The Nacash—an inquiry that seemed deigned to get her to reveal her heart, like a lawyer's trick question might—Ishsha both added to, and subtracted from, the Words of Jehovah when she replied, "...no eat of, no touch, lest die."

In other words, she had come to believe that she would cease to exist if she so much as even touched the fruit, much less eat it!

Thus that cannot be what Jehovah intended to communicate because that did not happen!

So, from the point of view revealed in her words, exactly because she did not drop dead when she plucked the fruit from the tree, she was emboldened to eat. She then bit into it and, while chewing on it and swallowing it, she held it out to Ish... who, because of his silent acceptance from her of the fruit, might have been marveled in his soul by her words and sudden action, or through his silent acceptance, he might have been giving tacit agreement with her actions.

Therefore, we can conclude that the phrase, "eat day thereof die die, " cannot indicate an immediate physical death, or even a spiritual death, but rather the "death" of something that was not related to an interruption of the functions of the body, the functions that keep us alive.

Now, if death means "to cease to exist," then It seems reasonable to conclude that Jehovah's words meant that something not related to physical death would cease to exist, and that in the death of this Thing, physical death would follow.
Additionally, if death means to cease to exist, then this death cannot be referencing the spirit within them (a spiritual death), because if that spirit which was breathed into The Awdam, and thus passed on to us, as it was to Ishsha, died, then they, too, would die and we would not exist!

So, how should this phrase of Jehovah's be translated to convey the understanding that He intended to impart to The Awdam?

I put it to you that A.E. Knoch's translation, the Concordant Literal Version, takes this logic into account when he translated Jehovah's phrase to read: "...for on the day you eat from it, to die- you shall be dying."
Or maybe Jay P. Green Sr's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) might sum this idea up more succinctly when he translated the phrase to read: "...for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die."

Now interestingly, and insightful, is that The Nacash did repeat in its reply to Ishsha the exact phrase Jehovah spoke!
This could mean that It's words should be translated as a statement of surprise for hearing Ishah's distortion, rather than a contradiction to Ishsha's reply, which is the meaning conveyed in how It's and her words are usually translated.
In other words (using English punctuation) it's reply might read: "Not, 'eat thereof die die?!?'"

So, for holding this logic as something that might lead to a deeper, literal understanding, I asked myself, "Were the words The Nacash spoke next, 'For (Jehovah) Elohim knows that day eat of, eyes opened, exist (as) Elohim, knowing good (and) evil.' the truth, or a lie?"
I think it was the truth. But stated to Ish, after It learned from her reply the thoughts that were in her heart, in such a way that It confirmed her hearts' conclusion that Jehovah was "holding out on them."

So, something happened to them on that day that radically changed them.

I propose that what changed in them was that they acquired a conscience... which implies that a conscience did not exist in them prior to eating from, "The Tree of The Knowledge of The Difference Between Good and Evil!"

Is not "the knowledge of the difference between good and evil," the very definition of a conscience?

In other words, Ish and Ishsha were truly innocent! And in such a way that we cannot comprehend because that state of existence is not ours to experience because we are all born with a conscience that awakens in us as our spirit leads us to become self aware.

However innocence is a useless thing because, without a conscience, virtue cannot exist.

Therefore, I hold that the Words of Jehovah about what would happen on the day they ate the fruit of this tree should read like this: "In the day you eat of it, in dying, you will die."
I surmised this rendering long before I read J.P. Green's translation because it implies something dramatic would change in them, rather than them just simply dying (either spiritually or physically), which is what Ishsha wrongly came to believe Jehovah meant!

This is not a new idea. In fact it was suggested to me when C.S. Lewis in The Magician's Nephew implied that Aslan's permission was needed for the fruit of the Apple Tree planted in the fresh Narnia to affect, toward a good outcome, the effect for which the fruit was created.
Additionally, J.R.R. Tolkien implied in the Silmarillion concerning the Two Trees of Valinor, Telperion and Laurelin that, upon their destruction by Ungoliant, they could not be re-created because some things can only be done at the beginning.

You asked of the posters here:

....can someone share some perspective on these scriptures in light of the promises of the unchanging Love of the Father assured us as outlined in the New Covenant? Thanks!

Since the Nature of Jehovah is unchanging, but has been progressively revealed to us as the history of His interactions with Human Beings plays out, I can assume that the heart of a Father, as It is revealed to be in the New Covenant, was His Heart way back there at our beginnings.

So, with that conclusion ensconced in my heart, I wrote a story that might just provide an in-depth answer to your inquiry.

It's called Creation Hymn.

Please know, deeply loved, that because you are seeking a perspective on this scripture, I would be particularly interested in hearing what you think of my story.

Keep being good, and inquisitive, because that is what you were created to be!

[marie glen]

The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Lately I've been thinking, about this whole question - "challenged by passage in Genesis" .. or the Old Testament, is that how, if life can only succeed and be well if God is in full control, and God be God, how do you convince folks of the utter horror of the other option? :dontknow: that's my logic when someone, believer or atheist asks "how can God be so mean?" ..It's the only thing that makes sense to me, and it makes good solid sense to me, the question no longer exists for me.. :gsmile: and believing it makes me happy! :banana: :cloud9:

..that every 'soul' have stamped fully upon it, and in every fiber of their being.. go not that way.. ever.. (never)..

[CST]

Edit: Quote removed to attain word limit but quote box retained to preserve the reference to what I'm responding to.

First I'm starting to doubt I was correct in confirming this as a parallelism. I'm definitely seems like a poetic cue but to my memory Biblical parallelisms are things like: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18) and "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) where there first sentence is essentially identical in meaning to the second sentence. That isn't true here so the poetic device being used may be different.

At this point I think it worth pointing out that we should, perhaps, stop conflating the term 'literal' with the term'historic' when we talk out the 'literal' meaning of the Bible we tend to mean it's historical veracity. This is technically incorrect because texts can and usually do have literal meanings without have any relationship to real history. So it might be better, if you believe in the historic accounts of the Bible to use the word 'historic' rather than 'literal'

It can, indeed, be logically supposed that Adam knew what God meant at least to a point. As you say God hardly seems likely to give such a warning to Adam without some expectation that Adam could understand it. That said, we do not always make unambiguously clear to our children why we give them the warnings we do. And God already possessed the knowledge of Good and Evil He was warning Adam away from while Adam didn't. This lack of knowledge must surely affect his understanding.

There seems to be a lot of speculation in the next part of your answer. Speculation about the events described in the Bible is always worth doing but also risky and we must always be careful to avoid the sort of sexist directed interpretation that puts extra blame on the woman for the sin of eating from the tree and leading Adam into doing it. Here is what we know from the Bible.

God created Adam. He planted the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden and then put Adam in the garden and warned him not to eat from the tree lest he die. So much we know. God then decided it was not good for man to be alone (which may or may not mean it would be evil for man to be alone) and went through the creation of every other animal on the planet before creating the first female human who Adam was very pleased withe and named 'Woman'.

At which point Genesis 2 swiftly comes to it's end (two verses later) and Genesis 3 begins with the immediate introduction of the serpent. The woman was not present when Adam was given the command not to eat from the tree so we don't know how she came to learn of it. I see three possibilities.

1. She is 'understood' to have learned it in the moment Adam did. She was present 'in the flesh' as she is made from him. There is some reason to give this idea credence but it seems the least likely.

2. God repeated the instruction to her upon her completion and after Adam had finished speaking.

3. God deferred to Adam, her head, to impart the warning about the tree in the garden that they had been given responsibility for. In which case it is possible that the woman repeats the instruction as given to her by Adam. Which, to be honest doesn't seem unreasonable even if commentator making this point try to make it sound so. Why would they want to touch the fruit if the weren't going to eat it? To play catch? If they don't touch it they can't eat it. In principle it sounds perfectly safe.

Again, the statement the she was emboldened to eat because she didn't drop dead when she touch it is an inference and in some contradiction of the Bible which reads, "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6) According to the Bible she took from the tree because she'd been sold on what the serpent said it would do for her and she simply didn't appreciate the danger of having the knowledge of Good and Evil. The exact meaning of the phrase 'her husband with her' is also somewhat ambiguous.

This is the problem with literal readings of the Bible text. There's actual a lot of 'literal' things we're told the Bible says when it doesn't say any such thing. People have read it, drawn inferences, and then read those inferences back into the text when interpreting and translating it.

When trying to discern the literal meaning of the Bible it is necessary, though incredibly hard in practice, not only to know what the Bible says on a certain matter but also what it does not say in order to know what is actually in the Bible and what isn't.

Like, for example, 'Spiritual Death'. The phrase 'spiritual death' is not in the Bible you won't find it anywhere in the text. This has led a lot of people to conclude there's no such thing as spiritual death but it seems to me those people just don't know what spiritual death is. They read the term and think it means death of the spirit and as neither it or the term has any support in the Bible it's not a real thing. But that's not necessarily correct. There are lots of terms in our Christian vocabulary that aren't found in the Bible, the last judgement for example. The phrase isn't found in the Bible and the term Great Judgement may be better but no one disagrees the Bible speaks of the special situation at the culmination of this world that the term applies to. Several times over in fact.

So it is with spiritual death. Spiritual Death is a special theological phrase used to describe the the fallen human condition; that is, the idea the due to human sinfulness we are in exile from the presence of God, where we were intended to be, and suffer on account of this without any reference to any other external sufferings. This is because God is life and the source of all life and apart from that source we all perish.

That is Spiritual Death and it is described in the Bible although the way I am presenting it may be a little on the dramatic side. But it is in there all the same and to deny spiritual death is to deny that the Bible speaks of what the term represents which no-one here would want to do. And I take it you would accept this consequence of eating from the forbidden tree?

It is also possible, though I don't know how I could check, that things like 'die, die' in Hebrew are a male stress that a Hebrew writer would never put in the mouth of a woman or female character. However, the though of going through all such repititions in
the Bible is a tiring one I could at best not disprove the idea.

Lastly, on my response exclusively to you, I agree with your description of a conscience and how important it is. I do believe that Adam and the woman both gained a conscience that day. Indeed, I once thought, incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience. But it isn't and I don't think that's all they received.

Remember that Adam was put in the garden and given responsibility for it, he was given responsibility for the whole world in fact, we are made to be curator all creation, 'And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.' (Genesis 1:28) Note that the words translated as 'subdue' and 'dominion', particularly the first word are strong words and suggest that the world may be resistant to human attempts to do so.

This is important because, also remember, one of the big sticking points between evolution and creationism is that evolution requires that death and decay has always been a part of the world while a creationist takes a literal interpretation that says that all death entered the world with Adam eating from the tree and nothing died before hand.

I suggest here that as far a physical death is concerned the evolutionists are right. Death was already present and things were already dying but Adam just couldn't see it, or at least couldn't see it for what it was. Lacking the knowledge Good and Evil it was impossible for him to see death as evil.

This, to a degree, is a reiteration of what we both said to varying degrees above. You said Adam must have known what death was in order to have some idea what 'to die' meant. Even if we both allow God's warning did not entirely refer to physical death, it feels a bit of an odd reference to use if it's only operating in the abstract and has no reference to real death that Adam would have some experience of.

I agreed with what you said but pointing out that Adam may not have had a full idea of what death meant, this idea also bears that out, Adam has no know knowledge of Good and Evil at the time so could know that death was evil, that reference was missing. Again, it seems strange that the knowledge of Good and Evil that God has refers only to Good and evil in an abstract sense with no actual examples of Good and Evil present in the world for God to have knowledge of. Although when there is no world it must operate in the abstract.

The idea here is that upon gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil Adam and the woman he swiftly called Eve afterwards were able to see the great weight of their responsibility, they now had to get all the evil out of the world, weed it away so to speak... and they also had the power, if the so chose, to contribute to it. It it this burden that comes with the knowledge of Good and Evil that is what God's warning, I believe, actually refers to. Along with a few other things perhaps.

The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Lately I've been thinking, about this whole question - "challenged by passage in Genesis" .. or the Old Testament, is that how, if life can only succeed and be well if God is in full control, and God be God, how do you convince folks of the utter horror of the other option? :dontknow: that's my logic when someone, believer or atheist asks "how can God be so mean?" ..It's the only thing that makes sense to me, and it makes good solid sense to me, the question no longer exists for me.. :gsmile: and believing it makes me happy! :banana: :cloud9:

..that every 'soul' have stamped fully upon it, and in every fiber of their being.. go not that way.. ever.. (never)..

Hmm, I think you may be misrepresenting the law of entropy there somewhat. Not your fault I expect, your using it by analogy which an awful lot of people do and forgetting what it actually means, i.e. the tendency for energy to be 'used up' in a closed system (which science-based materialism takes the universe to be, God makes that proposition questionable)

On the actual quote, 'die, die' quote I've think I may have started a line of reasoning that is misleading us. The line of conversation certainly seems to have tended in that direction. That idea is that, because God's warning of the consequences of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a one time event that can never be repeated or undone, the phrase 'die, die' is a unique phrase that only appears here in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis.

Unfortunately for this discussion that isn't true:

'"Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, [die, die]thou, and all that are thine."' (Genesis 20:7)

'And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death [die, die].' (Genesis 26:11)

'And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: (die, die)' (Exodus 19:12)

Tat's just three examples from the Torah. There are also several outside it and many times where the term, used both singularly and in this dual form can only really be taken as meaning physical death. Suddenly translation like, "to die, you shall be dying" or "dying, you will die" don't seem to cut it so well because what happened when Adam, ate from the Tree happened to everyone anyway. That said I'm not sure of the difference between the curse on the ground because Adam ate from the Tree and the curse of the ground because Cain killed Abel, I'm not sure how the ground can be double curse like that. Mine you if they say, 'die, die' so often I suppose it's possible.

Sorry about the involved scriptural analysis in this post, I know invoking evolution might reawaken a topic of discussion that isn't really relevant to this topic and is highly controversial here. I'm just not sure how to make my point about what I see, at least in part as a logical understanding of what the Bible says, i.e. how can Adam be expected to understand 'death' without a frame of reference, without mentioning it.

[rosered]

In mortal life, you live... continually living until you die.

In death, you continually die..... until you are made alive.

Can we sow life and death together? is not the tares and the wheat an example of this? Are the sheep and goats the example of a separation of those who sowed death for all unless YOU do something..... (ET) and those who sowed life for all because HE did something.....(UR)

but this is just my opinion

   :thumbsup:

  I so believe this is truth   in the sense of this ,
  Blessed is He whom is in the first Resurrection , for the  2nd death has no power [hold ] upon you . . The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will ...

Rev 20 13The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death — the lake of fire. 15And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire....



Cross References
1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.!!!


What if    we consider   the many voices  , many waters from ABOVE  that are HIS VOICE   speaking ,   does not faith come by hearing ?  and those whom hear HIS VOICE shall live

Being ONE SPIRIT AND ONE GOD ,ONE FAITH,  ONE BAPTISM  this UNITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT  , seems to me, to be  connected to  LIFE IN CHRIST as a LIVING  THING ...

Jesus warns   the  7th church [last day ]church   of being spewed out of His mouth    , that is still  within His Body /Life ... 

Just my thoughts here  , but did not Jesus Christ speak of HIS BAPTISM [THE CROSS ] in Luke 12  , 49  to separate the sheep from the goats and what from the tares  within us all   by the Holy Spirit and fire ?   
  As judgement begins with  HIS HOUSE/BODY  ...WHEN GLORIFIED on the Cross given all power and authority to  distribute   judgement and he judges no man but rather judges with righteousness to the poor in spirit  and raises the dead to LIFE

21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes.

22Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgment to the Son,

23so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him....
now  being sent by the SON !

When he breathed on the disciples they 21Again Jesus said to them, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you." 22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld."...


Not Peace, But Division
48But the one who unknowingly does things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows.


From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and from him who has been entrusted with much, even more will be demanded.


49I have come to ignite a fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!


50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!...

  SON BEING GLORIFIED AS GOD IS LOVE

Love one another
(Romans 12:9-13; 1 John 3:11-24)
31When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. 32  If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify the Son in Himself—and will glorify Him at once.

33Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you: 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'

34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another."

This is the proof   of the fruit being in the root , being rooted and grounded in    CHRIST  EXPRESSING the LOVE OF GOD in the earth    by HIS SPIRIT ...  HIS WORKING   within us all ........... getting  the WORD OUT ......
He that rejects me and does not receive my words, has him who judges him: the word which I ... The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.

THE WORD IS A FIRE   JER 23
  :HeartThrob:

[sheila]

the 2nd resurrection is for the twice dead...they shrunk back unto the law[righteous and wicked/good/evil] seeking their own righteousness

  by works..instead of free gift of righteousness through belief Christ/Atonement...and God's grace that justified by faith

  note their reminding Jesus of all their works they did in His name.......  Pharisee's sadducee's offspring of viper[satn accusor

  of sins already made atonement for under the LAW/forgiveness...by GOD through HIS SON. two-fold the child of hell as the

  proselytes........anti-Christs/anti-atonement...seeking to establish their own righteousness...through the flesh,no less.

   when lalwlessness abounds the LOVE of the greater number will cool[people want eye for an eye under the law..don't want

  to keep putting up with one another]  but when sin abounds...GRACE is to abound more abundantly.....on the scales...... grace

  must/and does cover the price deficient[failure of man in his weak flesh/carnality]


   see that ye harm not the oil and wine[spirit without measure in Christ] water into wine at the wedding feast [best for last/joy in]

    we've been raised by wolves...but thankfully the good shepherd saw the wolf coming and laid down His life that we may live.


   goats are leaders..at the atonement  two goats/leaders..one lot..the Lord's...Jesus as the good shepherd accepted on the altar

  of God..the other..Azazels[satan] that goes forth bearing all the sins of the people on his head.....to perish in the wilderness.

  men are sheep...Judas goats are used to lead sheep to the slaughter. Judas pictured Azazel's goat when satan entered him...

  consorting with offspring of  viper spirits[pharisee/sadducee ]to put to death Christ for filthy mammon..........

   the law was written for the lawless ones..not Christ who fulfills the law. As kinsman redeemer He come to raise up progency

for His dead brother Adam[all in Adam] that progency  is  spirit eternal life....every family named in heaven and earth.

  He is the sandaled one.  Moses was instructed to remove his sandals/John the baptist spoke of the sandaled one/bridegroom.

   the TRUE MANNA FROM HEAVEN

           

[Eleutheros]

Greetings deeplyloved! (NOTE: This reply was intended for CST)

I wish to thank you, most heartily, for your thoughtful reply to my post. Please know that I type out my thoughts on these things here, and in other places, exactly because I wish to be challenged in my understanding. It is a unique one, I know, and since it is not derived from the medieval theologies that drive modern Christian thought, I recognize that I need challenges from the heart's of others if I am to improve my own understanding. After all, I can't think of everything!

I will reply, as succinctly as possible, to each part of your post that presented a challenge to my understanding, in hopes that you will reply, thus challenging me further.

At this point I think it worth pointing out that we should, perhaps, stop conflating the term 'literal' with the term'historic' when we talk out the 'literal' meaning of the Bible we tend to mean it's historical veracity. This is technically incorrect because texts can and usually do have literal meanings without have any relationship to real history. So it might be better, if you believe in the historic accounts of the Bible to use the word 'historic' rather than 'literal'

This point is understood and well received.

I keep as truth in my heart that the Bible is largely a collection of stories about Jehovah's interactions with His creation. Stories are the best way to convey understanding and teach abstract ideas like morality and consequences and how one should and should not respond to situations because they engage our imagination and create emotion. Thus, stories make a lasting impression on our minds, with true stories the most poignant.

So, from page one on, every story (apart from parables) in the Bible is a literal account of real-time human being's responses to their interactions among themselves and with their very real Creator. However, given the differentiation you pointed out between the meanings in the words "literal" and "historic" I concede and will change the thoughts in my heart to agree that historic is the better word choice to describe the stories in the Bible. After all, no one will argue that Jesus wasn't a real-time, historic figure and therefore a literal human being, even if they prefer to wish that the story of the creation of the world and it's first two human beings was only meant to be understood allegorically.

It is also possible, though I don't know how I could check, that things like 'die, die' in Hebrew are a male stress that a Hebrew writer would never put in the mouth of a woman or female character. However, the though of going through all such repititions in
the Bible is a tiring one I could at best not disprove the idea.

Well, in response to this, I did locate and examine all the verses where a Hebrew word, not just the word mooth (die), is doubled for emphasis. This can be done by using the KJV and searching for every instance where the word "surely" occurs, then reading those verses in various translations. However, I could not discover if there were any instances were a word was doubled and the KJV did not translate it "surely (fill in the blank)." For instance the repetition of kaw-yaw' "live live" is translated in the KJV as "surely live" and in the CLV as "live, yea live."

What I discovered was that every instance of repetition was either part of a warning to choose carefully what one's actions should be, or as a declarative statement of what would happen because of what was already done. Or, the repetition occurred as encouragement toward making wise decisions.

From this I was led to reexamine my conclusions, expressed above, concerning the exchange between Ishsha and The Nacash, and Ish, whom I concluded must have been there witnessing the whole exchange because logic dictates this, especially when one considers the sequence of events that would have to transpire if he were not. However, please know that I hold loosely to this conclusion because I can imagine an alternate scenario where Ish is approached later, but that would involve a long delay in the operation of the fruit as it did what it was designed to do, awaken them to the knowledge of the difference between good and evil; and that necessary delay is not indicated in the scriptures.

So, I thank you, CST, for leading me into this research.

However, there is no detriment done that I can discern to my core understanding for having to eliminate from my heart what I previously concluded. I just don't have, now, a reason to conclude that Jehovah was attempting to convey something a bit more to Ish than that death would most certainly follow the ingestion of the fruit. The major change in thought, though, is to now conclude that The Nacash both lied to Ishsha, "You shall not surely die" (KJV), and told the truth, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as (G)god(s) (The KJV plural and lowercase is suppositional), knowing good and evil." I conclude that The Nacash spoke the truth here because that is exactly what happened as confirmed by Jehovah when He said, "...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... ."

Lastly, on my response exclusively to you, I agree with your description of a conscience and how important it is. I do believe that Adam and the woman both gained a conscience that day. Indeed, I once thought, incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience. But it isn't and I don't think that's all they received.

So, why do you say that you concluded, "... incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience?"

Also, what else did you conclude they received at the ingestion of the fruit, apart from a conscience?

I am deeply curious.

It can, indeed, be logically supposed that Adam knew what God meant at least to a point. As you say God hardly seems likely to give such a warning to Adam without some expectation that Adam could understand it. That said, we do not always make unambiguously clear to our children why we give them the warnings we do. And God already possessed the knowledge of Good and Evil He was warning Adam away from while Adam didn't. This lack of knowledge must surely affect his understanding.

This, to a degree, is a reiteration of what we both said to varying degrees above. You said Adam must have known what death was in order to have some idea what 'to die' meant. Even if we both allow God's warning did not entirely refer to physical death, it feels a bit of an odd reference to use if it's only operating in the abstract and has no reference to real death that Adam would have some experience of.

I agreed with what you said but pointing out that Adam may not have had a full idea of what death meant, this idea also bears that out, Adam has no know knowledge of Good and Evil at the time so could know that death was evil, that reference was missing. Again, it seems strange that the knowledge of Good and Evil that God has refers only to Good and evil in an abstract sense with no actual examples of Good and Evil present in the world for God to have knowledge of. Although when there is no world it must operate in the abstract.

Sorry about the involved scriptural analysis in this post, I know invoking evolution might reawaken a topic of discussion that isn't really relevant to this topic and is highly controversial here. I'm just not sure how to make my point about what I see, at least in part as a logical understanding of what the Bible says, i.e. how can Adam be expected to understand 'death' without a frame of reference, without mentioning it.

There is a theory in anthropological studies of culture that says if a culture's language has no word for a concept, then the knowledge of that concept does not exist in that culture. For instance, "Telephone pole." If there is no word in a culture that represents that idea, an idea that would involve knowing about telephones, wires, electricity, etc., then "telephone poles" and the knowledge of all the things associated with that word do not exist in that culture, even abstractly. Or, more imaginatively explained, if a human culture existed for which there is no word for "war" then the knowledge of war, even abstractly, does not exist in that culture. Now wouldn't that be a grand thing!

In my contemplation of the Genesis account, I addressed the issue brought forth in your typing when I concluded that there must have been a period of time when The Awdam was taught by Jehovah Himself the language he would use; after all, there had to be an eighth day, a ninth day, a tenth day, etc.! So, in order for The Awdam to comprehend the concepts Jehovah needed to impart to him, Jehovah would have to teach The Awdam the concept, "to cease to exist," which would include a word for that concept. Therefore, the concept was known, even if only abstractly, and that because there was yet no "frame of reference," i.e. experience, with the concept.

The idea here is that upon gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil Adam and the woman he swiftly called Eve afterwards were able to see the great weight of their responsibility, they now had to get all the evil out of the world, weed it away so to speak... and they also had the power, if they so chose, to contribute to it. (OR not too, perhaps? Ed.) It it this burden that comes with the knowledge of Good and Evil that is what God's warning, I believe, actually refers to. Along with a few other things perhaps.

Goodness me! This is a most insightful and bold thing you've typed!

Without meaning to insinuate an attitude of disapproval toward anyone's thoughts, I must say that I've met only a precious few on Universalist boards who would dare to type what you typed here!

Concerning the other things you wrote, those things were taken into consideration in my thinking and satisfactory conclusions reached, with "satisfactory" meaning conclusions that meshed in a non-contradictory manner. All of which were incorporated into my story Creation Hymn a retelling of Genesis 1-3 in an imaginative way. Perhaps you might be interested in reading it?

Please know, CST, that I appreciate your reply and hope to hear more from you.

Be good!

[CST]

Greetings deeplyloved!

I wish to thank you, most heartily, for your thoughtful reply to my post. Please know that I type out my thoughts on these things here, and in other places, exactly because I wish to be challenged in my understanding. It is a unique one, I know, and since it is not derived from the medieval theologies that drive modern Christian thought, I recognize that I need challenges from the heart's of others if I am to improve my own understanding. After all, I can't think of everything!

I will reply, as succinctly as possible, to each part of your post that presented a challenge to my understanding, in hopes that you will reply, thus challenging me further.

At this point I think it worth pointing out that we should, perhaps, stop conflating the term 'literal' with the term'historic' when we talk out the 'literal' meaning of the Bible we tend to mean it's historical veracity. This is technically incorrect because texts can and usually do have literal meanings without have any relationship to real history. So it might be better, if you believe in the historic accounts of the Bible to use the word 'historic' rather than 'literal'

This point is understood and well received.

I keep as truth in my heart that the Bible is largely a collection of stories about Jehovah's interactions with His creation. Stories are the best way to convey understanding and teach abstract ideas like morality and consequences and how one should and should not respond to situations because they engage our imagination and create emotion. Thus, stories make a lasting impression on our minds, with true stories the most poignant.

So, from page one on, every story (apart from parables) in the Bible is a literal account of real-time human being's responses to their interactions among themselves and with their very real Creator. However, given the differentiation you pointed out between the meanings in the words "literal" and "historic" I concede and will change the thoughts in my heart to agree that historic is the better word choice to describe the stories in the Bible. After all, no one will argue that Jesus wasn't a real-time, historic figure and therefore a literal human being, even if they prefer to wish that the story of the creation of the world and it's first two human beings was only meant to be understood allegorically.

It is also possible, though I don't know how I could check, that things like 'die, die' in Hebrew are a male stress that a Hebrew writer would never put in the mouth of a woman or female character. However, the though of going through all such repititions in
the Bible is a tiring one I could at best not disprove the idea.

Well, in response to this, I did locate and examine all the verses where a Hebrew word, not just the word mooth (die), is doubled for emphasis. This can be done by using the KJV and searching for every instance where the word "surely" occurs, then reading those verses in various translations. However, I could not discover if there were any instances were a word was doubled and the KJV did not translate it "surely (fill in the blank)." For instance the repetition of kaw-yaw' "live live" is translated in the KJV as "surely live" and in the CLV as "live, yea live."

What I discovered was that every instance of repetition was either part of a warning to choose carefully what one's actions should be, or as a declarative statement of what would happen because of what was already done. Or, the repetition occurred as encouragement toward making wise decisions.

From this I was led to reexamine my conclusions, expressed above, concerning the exchange between Ishsha and The Nacash, and Ish, whom I concluded must have been there witnessing the whole exchange because logic dictates this, especially when one considers the sequence of events that would have to transpire if he were not. However, please know that I hold loosely to this conclusion because I can imagine an alternate scenario where Ish is approached later, but that would involve a long delay in the operation of the fruit as it did what it was designed to do, awaken them to the knowledge of the difference between good and evil; and that necessary delay is not indicated in the scriptures.

So, I thank you, deeplyloved, for leading me into this research.

However, there is no detriment done that I can discern to my core understanding for having to eliminate from my heart what I previously concluded. I just don't have, now, a reason to conclude that Jehovah was attempting to convey something a bit more to Ish than that death would most certainly follow the ingestion of the fruit. The major change in thought, though, is to now conclude that The Nacash both lied to Ishsha, "You shall not surely die" (KJV), and told the truth, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as (G)god(s) (The KJV plural and lowercase is suppositional), knowing good and evil." I conclude that The Nacash spoke the truth here because that is exactly what happened as confirmed by Jehovah when He said, "...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... ."

Lastly, on my response exclusively to you, I agree with your description of a conscience and how important it is. I do believe that Adam and the woman both gained a conscience that day. Indeed, I once thought, incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience. But it isn't and I don't think that's all they received.

So, why do you say that you concluded, "... incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience?"

Also, what else did you conclude they received at the ingestion of the fruit, apart from a conscience?

I am deeply curious.

It can, indeed, be logically supposed that Adam knew what God meant at least to a point. As you say God hardly seems likely to give such a warning to Adam without some expectation that Adam could understand it. That said, we do not always make unambiguously clear to our children why we give them the warnings we do. And God already possessed the knowledge of Good and Evil He was warning Adam away from while Adam didn't. This lack of knowledge must surely affect his understanding.

This, to a degree, is a reiteration of what we both said to varying degrees above. You said Adam must have known what death was in order to have some idea what 'to die' meant. Even if we both allow God's warning did not entirely refer to physical death, it feels a bit of an odd reference to use if it's only operating in the abstract and has no reference to real death that Adam would have some experience of.

I agreed with what you said but pointing out that Adam may not have had a full idea of what death meant, this idea also bears that out, Adam has no know knowledge of Good and Evil at the time so could know that death was evil, that reference was missing. Again, it seems strange that the knowledge of Good and Evil that God has refers only to Good and evil in an abstract sense with no actual examples of Good and Evil present in the world for God to have knowledge of. Although when there is no world it must operate in the abstract.

Sorry about the involved scriptural analysis in this post, I know invoking evolution might reawaken a topic of discussion that isn't really relevant to this topic and is highly controversial here. I'm just not sure how to make my point about what I see, at least in part as a logical understanding of what the Bible says, i.e. how can Adam be expected to understand 'death' without a frame of reference, without mentioning it.

There is a theory in anthropological studies of culture that says if a culture's language has no word for a concept, then the knowledge of that concept does not exist in that culture. For instance, "Telephone pole." If there is no word in a culture that represents that idea, an idea that would involve knowing about telephones, wires, electricity, etc., then "telephone poles" and the knowledge of all the things associated with that word do not exist in that culture, even abstractly. Or, more imaginatively explained, if a human culture existed for which there is no word for "war" then the knowledge of war, even abstractly, does not exist in that culture. Now wouldn't that be a grand thing!

In my contemplation of the Genesis account, I addressed the issue brought forth in your typing when I concluded that there must have been a period of time when The Awdam was taught by Jehovah Himself the language he would use; after all, there had to be an eighth day, a ninth day, a tenth day, etc.! So, in order for The Awdam to comprehend the concepts Jehovah needed to impart to him, Jehovah would have to teach The Awdam the concept, "to cease to exist," which would include a word for that concept. Therefore, the concept was known, even if only abstractly, and that because there was yet no "frame of reference," i.e. experience, with the concept.

The idea here is that upon gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil Adam and the woman he swiftly called Eve afterwards were able to see the great weight of their responsibility, they now had to get all the evil out of the world, weed it away so to speak... and they also had the power, if they so chose, to contribute to it. (OR not too, perhaps? Ed.) It it this burden that comes with the knowledge of Good and Evil that is what God's warning, I believe, actually refers to. Along with a few other things perhaps.

Goodness me! This is a most insightful and bold thing you've typed!

Without meaning to insinuate an attitude of disapproval toward anyone's thoughts, I must say that I've met only a precious few on Universalist boards who would dare to type what you typed here!

Concerning the other things you wrote, those things were taken into consideration in my thinking and satisfactory conclusions reached, with "satisfactory" meaning conclusions that meshed in a non-contradictory manner. All of which were incorporated into my story Creation Hymn a retelling of Genesis 1-3 in an imaginative way. Perhaps you might be interested in reading it?

Please know, deeplyloved, that I appreciate your reply and hope to hear more from you.

Be good!

I agree with you feelings about your thoughts, I have similar sources for my belief myself. I'll read your post more fully and try to respond if necessary later. Although you should know I am not deeplyloved, who you were responding to earlier but a different member CST.

Thanks for replying. :)

[rosered]

Jude

11Woe to them! They have traveled the path of Cain; they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam;

they have perished in Korah's rebellion.


12These men are the hidden reefs in your love feasts, shamelessly feasting with you but shepherding only themselves.


They are clouds without water, carried along by the wind; fruitless trees in autumn, twice dead after being uprooted.


13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever....


Matt 15 ...12Then the disciples came to Him and said, "Are You aware that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

13But Jesus replied, "Every plant that My Heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by its roots.


14Disregard them! They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."...


Letting  the scriptures speak the truth here also


Jer 1:10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.


Mt 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.


Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


Lu 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

To me the Body of JESUS CHRIST  is the good   and promised land  of the old testament promise AS the TREE OF LIFE .and no one can build on anything else   but the LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself ..



   ...7"Behold, the man who would not make God his refuge, But trusted in the abundance of his riches And was strong in his evil desire." 8But as for me, I am like a green olive tree in the house of God;

I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.

9I will give You thanks forever, because You have done it, And I will wait on Your name, for it is good, in the presence of Your godly ones....

Revelation 11:4
These witnesses are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.

Psalm 13:5
But I have trusted in Your lovingkindness; My heart shall rejoice in Your salvation.

Psalm 31:6
I hate those who regard vain idols, But I trust in the LORD.

Psalm 52:1
For the choir director. A Maskil of David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul and said to him, "David has come to the house of Ahimelech." Why do you boast in evil, O mighty man? The lovingkindness of God endures all day long.

Psalm 62:8
Trust in Him at all times, O people; Pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us. Selah.

Psalm 92:12
The righteous man will flourish like the palm tree, He will grow like a cedar in Lebanon.

Psalm 128:3
Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine Within your house, Your children like olive plants Around your table.

Jeremiah 11:16
The LORD called your name, "A green olive tree, beautiful in fruit and form"; With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are worthless.

Knowing Jesus warning  to make the tree good and its fruit good or make the tree evil ,   a tree is known by its fruit [knowledge of good and evil tree , being all of us  really !

To me this can mean  trusting in GOD  fully    for salvation or not   for those whom it is given  to know the difference by enduring till the end .

  Why are so many not given  spiritual  discernment  ? 

  To me this is being lead and taught of God ,  His Holy Spirit [gifts of God though the Lord Jesus Christ authority [Head ] of the Body .


  Philippians 1:9-10
And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;

Hosea 14:9

Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; Whoever is discerning, let him know them For the ways of the LORD are right, And the righteous will walk in them, But transgressors will stumble in them.

2 Samuel 14:17

"Then your maidservant said, 'Please let the word of my lord the king be comforting, for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and evil. And may the LORD your God be with you.'"

Job 6:30

"Is there injustice on my tongue? Cannot my palate discern calamities?

Isaiah 7:15

"He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.

Leviticus 10:10

and so as to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean,

Proverbs 28:11

The rich man is wise in his own eyes, But the poor who has understanding sees through him.

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Isaiah 11:3

And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;



Matthew 24:32-33
"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.

Esther 1:13
Then the king said to the wise men who understood the times--for it was the custom of the king so to speak before all who knew law and justice

1 Kings 3:9

"So give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?"

Jeremiah 23:5

"Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.

1 Corinthians 12:10

and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:29

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

Proverbs 28:7

He who keeps the law is a discerning son, But he who is a companion of gluttons humiliates his father.

Hebrews 5:14

But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Romans 12:2

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Psalm 119:66

Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Your commandments.

The more and more I see it really is calling on the name of the Lord   for your help in the hour of need  and choosing the good WAY  over the evil one present   set before us  at all times

[Eleutheros]

I agree with you feelings about your thoughts, I have similar sources for my belief myself. I'll read your post more fully and try to respond if necessary later. Although you should know I am not deeplyloved, who you were responding to earlier but a different member CST.

Thanks for replying. :)

Mea culpa, CST. :doh: I shall endeavor to be more careful about whom I assign a quote!

Lastly, on my response exclusively to you, I agree with your description of a conscience and how important it is. I do believe that Adam and the woman both gained a conscience that day. Indeed, I once thought, incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience. But it isn't and I don't think that's all they received.

So, why do you say that you concluded, "... incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience?"

Also, what else did you conclude they received at the ingestion of the fruit, apart from a conscience?

I am deeply curious.

I am still deeply curious. So, CST, if you choose to reply further, please know that I would much appreciate reading your reply to these inquires.

And, if you are willing to invest the time, I would also like to hear your thoughts on my story Creation Hymn.

Given what you've typed already, I think you would find it provocative.

Be good!

[CST]

I assure you it is mere time constraints that has prevented me from posting this reply sooner. It follows thus:

Greetings deeplyloved!

I wish to thank you, most heartily, for your thoughtful reply to my post. Please know that I type out my thoughts on these things here, and in other places, exactly because I wish to be challenged in my understanding. It is a unique one, I know, and since it is not derived from the medieval theologies that drive modern Christian thought, I recognize that I need challenges from the heart's of others if I am to improve my own understanding. After all, I can't think of everything!

I will reply, as succinctly as possible, to each part of your post that presented a challenge to my understanding, in hopes that you will reply, thus challenging me further.

This point is understood and well received.

I keep as truth in my heart that the Bible is largely a collection of stories about Jehovah's interactions with His creation. Stories are the best way to convey understanding and teach abstract ideas like morality and consequences and how one should and should not respond to situations because they engage our imagination and create emotion. Thus, stories make a lasting impression on our minds, with true stories the most poignant.

So, from page one on, every story (apart from parables) in the Bible is a literal account of real-time human being's responses to their interactions among themselves and with their very real Creator. However, given the differentiation you pointed out between the meanings in the words "literal" and "historic" I concede and will change the thoughts in my heart to agree that historic is the better word choice to describe the stories in the Bible. After all, no one will argue that Jesus wasn't a real-time, historic figure and therefore a literal human being, even if they prefer to wish that the story of the creation of the world and it's first two human beings was only meant to be understood allegorically.

CST: Bother, that should have been 'historical', I guess my hand got lazy. 'Historic' means something slightly different. I expect ultimately the word 'literal' will suffice for most people, however much it's limitations might be. I just had suspicions that the distinction could be important with God. Also, some people will try to deny Jesus was a real historical character. Because either they are of the impression that the Bible is fiction through and through (and/or have been taught to believe as much), or the alternative threatens their worldview. Or both, obviously.

Well, in response to this, I did locate and examine all the verses where a Hebrew word, not just the word mooth (die), is doubled for emphasis. This can be done by using the KJV and searching for every instance where the word "surely" occurs, then reading those verses in various translations. However, I could not discover if there were any instances were a word was doubled and the KJV did not translate it "surely (fill in the blank)." For instance the repetition of kaw-yaw' "live live" is translated in the KJV as "surely live" and in the CLV as "live, yea live."

What I discovered was that every instance of repetition was either part of a warning to choose carefully what one's actions should be, or as a declarative statement of what would happen because of what was already done. Or, the repetition occurred as encouragement toward making wise decisions.

From this I was led to reexamine my conclusions, expressed above, concerning the exchange between Ishsha and The Nacash, and Ish, whom I concluded must have been there witnessing the whole exchange because logic dictates this, especially when one considers the sequence of events that would have to transpire if he were not. However, please know that I hold loosely to this conclusion because I can imagine an alternate scenario where Ish is approached later, but that would involve a long delay in the operation of the fruit as it did what it was designed to do, awaken them to the knowledge of the difference between good and evil; and that necessary delay is not indicated in the scriptures.

So, I thank you, deeplyloved, for leading me into this research.

However, there is no detriment done that I can discern to my core understanding for having to eliminate from my heart what I previously concluded. I just don't have, now, a reason to conclude that Jehovah was attempting to convey something a bit more to Ish than that death would most certainly follow the ingestion of the fruit. The major change in thought, though, is to now conclude that The Nacash both lied to Ishsha, "You shall not surely die" (KJV), and told the truth, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as (G)god(s) (The KJV plural and lowercase is suppositional), knowing good and evil." I conclude that The Nacash spoke the truth here because that is exactly what happened as confirmed by Jehovah when He said, "...Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... ."

CST: Actually it's a little trickier than that. The word for duplication in the previous passage is 'freely' not 'surely'. To know for definite we'd found all the emphasizers by your method we'd have to be sure we knew what all the words that are duplicated are and what the corresponding emphasizers are, which we don't. At the time though my only point was that in theory I could go through the Bible and disprove that theory I had that a Hebrew writer would not put such emphasis in the mouth of a woman if I found an example of the doing so. But if I didn't it proves nothing except that no Biblical writer did so. Another Hebrew writer still may have done.

At lot of things aren't indicated in the scriptures but what does seem to be indicated in the scriptures is that the 'fall' came with Adam eating of the tree rather than his woman. The scripture has it that immediately there eyes were opened upon on him eating the fruit. I generally agree that a huge delay is unlikely (there's a work or two of the pseudepigrapha on this point) but it also seems equally as problematic to me the idea of Adam standing idly by watching while the serpent beguiles his wife, the Bible doesn't seem to suggest that either. This probably isn't the place to talk about how i think the Biblical writers understood the fall. After all, that would be a bit allegorical.

Lastly, on my response exclusively to you, I agree with your description of a conscience and how important it is. I do believe that Adam and the woman both gained a conscience that day. Indeed, I once thought, incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience. But it isn't and I don't think that's all they received.

So, why do you say that you concluded, "... incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience?"

Also, what else did you conclude they received at the ingestion of the fruit, apart from a conscience?

I am deeply curious.

CST: I didn't say 'concluded' I said thought, it was either a misremembering or just possibly I was using a very free-form translation and later I found a better one. Now, obviously I don't know how Hebrew writers would understand it but if I were writing in English and wanted to convey that the Tree gave Adam and his Woman a conscience I imagine I might rather call it the Tree of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong which is generally how we understand our conscience.

What do I think the first humans received apart from a conscience that's an interesting question which I touched on in later answers. Now I'll say something more general about it.

While I said above I thought that in English, if you wanted to convey that the primary consequence of eating from the Tree was gaining a conscience it would be better to call it the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, Jews, at least some Jews appear to disagree. I have a book called Commentary On The Torah. It's an author written translation of the first five books of the Bible with the author's own commentary on the text. The author is Richard Elliott Friedman who is Jewish. Therefore the translation and commentary is Jewish and derived from their understanding of the text, which you would have thought might have some weight given that God gave the texts to them first. Obviously though, it lacks the specific Christian interpretations found in the New Testament written by the Apostles, mainly Paul.

In Commentary On The Torah, and another Jewish translation I've checked for comparison it reads the Knowledge of Good and Bad. Friedman states that this is because the phrase Good and Evil implies only moral knowledge (a conscience I would suppose) which may not in fact not be the case. Friedman says that while it may have been clear to the original readers exactly what was meant from context that information is lost to us now. He gives the following possibilities for what the knowledge of good and bad could refer to none of them being mutually exclusive: morality, aesthetics, utility, pleasure/pain. I think that it four is a strange number and I wonder if I've forgotten one, but I don't think I have.

For my part I reject the concept that 'Evil' only refers to moral knowledge, in English it is the stronger word and i would expect it to have a naturally greater scope than 'Bad'. I also don't know what reasons the other translator(s) used to choose to apply 'bad' over 'evil'.

It can, indeed, be logically supposed that Adam knew what God meant at least to a point. As you say God hardly seems likely to give such a warning to Adam without some expectation that Adam could understand it. That said, we do not always make unambiguously clear to our children why we give them the warnings we do. And God already possessed the knowledge of Good and Evil He was warning Adam away from while Adam didn't. This lack of knowledge must surely affect his understanding.

This, to a degree, is a reiteration of what we both said to varying degrees above. You said Adam must have known what death was in order to have some idea what 'to die' meant. Even if we both allow God's warning did not entirely refer to physical death, it feels a bit of an odd reference to use if it's only operating in the abstract and has no reference to real death that Adam would have some experience of.

I agreed with what you said but pointing out that Adam may not have had a full idea of what death meant, this idea also bears that out, Adam has no know knowledge of Good and Evil at the time so could know that death was evil, that reference was missing. Again, it seems strange that the knowledge of Good and Evil that God has refers only to Good and evil in an abstract sense with no actual examples of Good and Evil present in the world for God to have knowledge of. Although when there is no world it must operate in the abstract.

Sorry about the involved scriptural analysis in this post, I know invoking evolution might reawaken a topic of discussion that isn't really relevant to this topic and is highly controversial here. I'm just not sure how to make my point about what I see, at least in part as a logical understanding of what the Bible says, i.e. how can Adam be expected to understand 'death' without a frame of reference, without mentioning it.

There is a theory in anthropological studies of culture that says if a culture's language has no word for a concept, then the knowledge of that concept does not exist in that culture. For instance, "Telephone pole." If there is no word in a culture that represents that idea, an idea that would involve knowing about telephones, wires, electricity, etc., then "telephone poles" and the knowledge of all the things associated with that word do not exist in that culture, even abstractly. Or, more imaginatively explained, if a human culture existed for which there is no word for "war" then the knowledge of war, even abstractly, does not exist in that culture. Now wouldn't that be a grand thing!

In my contemplation of the Genesis account, I addressed the issue brought forth in your typing when I concluded that there must have been a period of time when The Awdam was taught by Jehovah Himself the language he would use; after all, there had to be an eighth day, a ninth day, a tenth day, etc.! So, in order for The Awdam to comprehend the concepts Jehovah needed to impart to him, Jehovah would have to teach The Awdam the concept, "to cease to exist," which would include a word for that concept. Therefore, the concept was known, even if only abstractly, and that because there was yet no "frame of reference," i.e. experience, with the concept.

CST: I have three points (I think) to make on this. The first point is that, while that sounds like a grand idea in principle, when you invoke the 'war' thing in practice I don't see how it works. In this instance we're using the word 'death' but if we believe that 'death' here does not mean the immediate discontinuation of existence because that not what happens but, nevertheless, we believe in some circumstances it can mean that, even though if we think about it we become aware we can't really conceive that because it requires us losing all capacity to conceive anything which we can't properly imagine.

Also under discussion, and even more pertinent to the discussion and this part particularly are the words 'good' and 'evil' which we see God use when He warns Adam away from it, presumably for this to work Adam much understand the concepts connected to the words 'good' and 'evil' for them to operate, which he can't or the Tree would already have lost all power to be dangerous.

That said, another 'alteration' that is made when Woman explains her understanding of the warning she does not say the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; she says 'the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden' (Genesis 3:3) quite possibly because it seems more pertinent to how the serpent presents his argument.

But the third and, I think, biggest problem is your suggestion of how God explained death to Adam and when. You are invoking eighth days, and ninth days and tenth days and goodness knows how many others. I don't know how many days you think past before the serpent beguiled Woman, I think there's textual evidence to think it's day seven but most of that is beside the point.

What isn't beside the point is the textual tension between the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, some commentators, atheists mainly, I suspect, believe the contradictions are irreconcilable. I think otherwise but so far as I can tell they do cause a problem for your argument.

According to Genesis 1 God creates the Heavens and the Earth and all it's multitude in 6 days (the 7th day is the beginning of Chapter 2) creating Man and Woman as equals of the sixth day as the pinnacle of creation to rule over it.

According to Genesis 2 God creates Adam, who appears to be one example of man out of the dust of the Earth, on what by descriptions sounds very like the third day. He then decides it is not good for man to be alone and proceeds to create every other life form on the planet before creating Woman as an 'help meet' for Man. Since man can be conceived as being incomplete without woman, that what happens in Genesis suddenly looks like a gloss is understandable.

I can also imagine God, in principle at least, bringing a creature He's made to Adam to name and then killing it so Adam can see death before his eyes. I can imagine that, but in doing so I have made a gloss because that's not how Genesis 2 plays out.

Genesis 2 has God create Adam on what sounds like Day 3:  'And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.' (Genesis 2:5) and then plant the garden in the East in Eden where He puts Adam and where the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is put. This is Day 3, or maybe Day 4 if we suppose Adam needs Sunlight to see the Tree when God shows it to him. And is is and this point God gives Adam His warning. You don't have days eight, nine and ten which violates (from what I can tell) the continuity of the Bible. You have Day 3 and maybe 4, and possibly the beginning of 5 but I doubt it.

The idea here is that upon gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil Adam and the woman he swiftly called Eve afterwards were able to see the great weight of their responsibility, they now had to get all the evil out of the world, weed it away so to speak... and they also had the power, if they so chose, to contribute to it. (OR not too, perhaps? Ed.) It it this burden that comes with the knowledge of Good and Evil that is what God's warning, I believe, actually refers to. Along with a few other things perhaps.

Goodness me! This is a most insightful and bold thing you've typed!

Without meaning to insinuate an attitude of disapproval toward anyone's thoughts, I must say that I've met only a precious few on Universalist boards who would dare to type what you typed here!

Concerning the other things you wrote, those things were taken into consideration in my thinking and satisfactory conclusions reached, with "satisfactory" meaning conclusions that meshed in a non-contradictory manner. All of which were incorporated into my story Creation Hymn a retelling of Genesis 1-3 in an imaginative way. Perhaps you might be interested in reading it?

Please know, deeplyloved, that I appreciate your reply and hope to hear more from you.

Be good!

CST: 'And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.' (Genesis 2:15)

'And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.' (Revelation 11:18)

Huh, I thought the burden of human responsibility was pretty clear from the text of the Bible. People may be inclined against mentioning because they know, like I know and which the Bible also makes perfectly clear, we all tend to fail at keeping it;and, yes, I thought the caveat 'OR not to' was implied in the term chose. If a person is to have even the semblance of choice they must also have the semblance of the opposite choice.

That said, I have struggled to find cross-references to the above citations from the Bible so either the concept isn't as common as I thought or people who write Bible either miss it or willfully avoid drawing attention to those parts of the text.

I thank you for your blessing to "Be good!" I hope to achieve it but fear and expect I will fail more frequently than I succeed.

[marie glen]

The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Hmm, I think you may be misrepresenting the law of entropy there somewhat. Not your fault I expect, your using it by analogy which an awful lot of people do and forgetting what it actually means, i.e. the tendency for energy to be 'used up' in a closed system (which science-based materialism takes the universe to be, God makes that proposition questionable)

en·tro·py
noun
1.
PHYSICS
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"
synonyms:   deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse

I'm simply saying that to me, it seems not very complicated, as definition number 2 is what we see all around us.. that matter as is now, tends toward less order, but when God created and said each day "behold it was all good" it seems evident to me there was no deterioration, decline, decomposition, etc.. And after man and woman given dominion of land and sea, ate of the fruit which God had said the day you eat of it.. you shall then be dying.. Which I tend to think was the reference and intent, otherwise I think Adam and Eve would have dropped dead immediately upon eating it, if that had been the intent of God's words.

[marie glen]

The second creation account in Genesis 2, I think serves as an insert.. the first account being of the ground as to the whole, the planet, but the second is of the garden.. and He had formed creatures before Adam, but after putting him in the garden, He also formed creatures like already formed, from the ground of the garden specifically, which He brought to Adam to be named before creating Eve, so that Adam exclaimed when seeing her "At last!" (A seed? to help man to appreciate woman? who, as a weaker version, would in the coming imperfection find herself most often dominated by man.)

Either that or it is simply, like in the Book of Revelation, not strictly (everywhere) written in order of occurrence.. In Genesis 2 a looking backward to how He'd created the creatures from the ground and now brought each to Adam to be named.. this makes more sense to me than some sort of two creations, or other theories which are out and about these days.

Ecclesiastes - "God has made life simple, but man has many inventions" / complications? And of course the atheist, and indeed the culture says, "has God really said?" or "this is what God really meant to say.." seeking to trip the faith up in minutiae.. or seeming to trip it, that is :gsmile:

[CST]

The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Hmm, I think you may be misrepresenting the law of entropy there somewhat. Not your fault I expect, your using it by analogy which an awful lot of people do and forgetting what it actually means, i.e. the tendency for energy to be 'used up' in a closed system (which science-based materialism takes the universe to be, God makes that proposition questionable)

en·tro·py
noun
1.
PHYSICS
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"
synonyms:   deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse

I'm simply saying that to me, it seems not very complicated, as definition number 2 is what we see all around us.. that matter as is now, tends toward less order, but when God created and said each day "behold it was all good" it seems evident to me there was no deterioration, decline, decomposition, etc.. And after man and woman given dominion of land and sea, ate of the fruit which God had said the day you eat of it.. you shall then be dying.. Which I tend to think was the reference and intent, otherwise I think Adam and Eve would have dropped dead immediately upon eating it, if that had been the intent of God's words.

Yeah, dictionaries aren't always reliable. They tell us how words are used in common parlance but common parlance isn't always very good at understanding what words properly mean.  I our matter this can cause problems for Biblical translation.

And we already have a word for the spiritual tendency towards decay, destruction and death: sin. We don't need to invoke a materialistic idea of the world to explain what happened at the Fall. Entropy is a term of the natural universe's tenancy to its own destruction. Eventually to the position where the universe can't perform any work. If the Word of God as recorded in the Bible is correct as we believe it is, I serious doubt we'll ever get their. God will intercede to end the age first.

Honestly, I am starting to feel I'm being rather querulous here, I'm not quite sure why this is bothered about this. Sorry about that. I just somehow feel it's spiritually incorrect to use the term 'entropy' to describe sin and its consequences.

[CST]

The second creation account in Genesis 2, I think serves as an insert.. the first account being of the ground as to the whole, the planet, but the second is of the garden.. and He had formed creatures before Adam, but after putting him in the garden, He also formed creatures like already formed, from the ground of the garden specifically, which He brought to Adam to be named before creating Eve, so that Adam exclaimed when seeing her "At last!" (A seed? to help man to appreciate woman? who, as a weaker version, would in the coming imperfection find herself most often dominated by man.)

Either that or it is simply, like in the Book of Revelation, not strictly (everywhere) written in order of occurrence.. In Genesis 2 a looking backward to how He'd created the creatures from the ground and now brought each to Adam to be named.. this makes more sense to me than some sort of two creations, or other theories which are out and about these days.

Ecclesiastes - "God has made life simple, but man has many inventions" / complications? And of course the atheist, and indeed the culture says, "has God really said?" or "this is what God really meant to say.." seeking to trip the faith up in minutiae.. or seeming to trip it, that is :gsmile:

I best try and explain, within the limits of this discussion, how I understand this.

Paul in his epistles uses two rather unusual allegorical terms for Jesus they are; the second Adam, the first fruits of the new creation.

It would seem to follow that the original Adam - first Adam or just Adam as he's usually known - would be first fruits of the original creation. As I understand here this is what Genesis 2 suggests. That Adam, the first human was created out of the dust of the Earth before any other life had been created, before it even had produced any other plant, Adam is correctly called the first fruit of the Earth in this instance.

God then plants the Garden of Eden puts Adam in it and also creates all the other animals before creating Woman as the ideal 'help meet' for Man.

This passage comes in for a lot of stick I've seen it come in for all sorts of interpretations including feminist ones where God creates man, decides He can do better and creates Woman and rather Deity-diminishing ones where God tries and finds it increasingly harder to create a 'help meet' for Adam. In this account God is presented as getting increasingly desperate in His struggle to find Man's ideal mate woman. Obviously this in nonsense.

What I believe actually happened is this.

God intends for human beings to be the top of creation and have dominion over the world so as to steward it. He intends this for both male and female, man and woman are essentially creates equal and an argument can be made that the terms translated in the KJV as 'help meet' mean 'equal'

In Hebrew thought, so I understand, it is believed that to name something is to put your authority on it. So as God creates each animal and brings it to Adam to name and is becoming master of each creature as he does so.

Then having created all the animals God creates Woman out of Adam's flesh. I imagine this is because if He had created Man and Woman separately they would only have authority over the animals they especially named, which may create conflict. God creates Woman from Man after Adam has put his authority on all the animals and, being made from him the authority is distributed between them. This was what I meant when I said above that there was an argument that Woman was present when Adam received the warning about the Tree. Even though she wasn't physically present and had no ears to hear it.

It my speculative interpretation clear?