I see this topic was tossed around here a few years ago. That is actually how I ended up here following a Google on the phrase. I was in the process of writing a song about this subject a few years back but because it was mostly speculation on my part at the time I decided to hold off until I could receive a better understanding. It is a truth hidden in metaphor that possibly describes the world as it existed when Adam was created. Since it has been said we are "going back to Eden" it seems to be a good idea to understand what exactly happened to bring about such a tragic end to a period of such perfection. History is prone to repeat itself if we do not or can not learn from it because the truth of it has been hidden from us.
I know some were quick to put this to rest quoting "Eve was the mother of all living". Well, I've said all scripture is of compound revelation. With Jesus saying let the dead bury their dead, I think "living" has been shown to have a deeper meaning than just alive.
Eve wasn't Adam's mother was she? So she wasn't the mother of everyone alive. That must not be what was meant.
I think this merits giving the topic another look.
Back to the trees. We are told as Christians we are being planted as "trees of righteousness". Having living water coming out of our bellies or inner most being, with twelve manner of fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations. Kings and priests reigning with Christ to the nations of the earth.
The scripture in Ezekiel 31 describes trees in the garden who fall through envy of the greatest among them while part of a government that is ruling over the nations. Now go back to Genesis. God told Adam he could "eat" from all the trees in the garden (except one) and that they were good for food.
If the trees were people and God said they were good for food, then it was spiritual food they were dispensing.
Jesus said "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you'll have no life in you" did He not? He wasn't talking cannibalism.
He meant partaking of the Word brings life.
So these trees at one time before Adam's fall were trusted advisors and counselors standing with the Tree of Life, to speak the words of life.
Trees of righteousness. A garden planted of the Lord. Like we are to be. Planted also implies staying where you are put. Holding a position.
We then need to know what could cause these trusted advisors of the Word of God, these priests to the nations to fall.
The serpent said to Eve "your eyes will be opened and you'll be as one of the gods." Then afterwards God said nearly the same thing.
"The man has become as one of "us" knowing good from evil"...
Adam was found by God where? Hiding among the trees. Did Adam really think the forests were so thick that God could not find him?
I think not. I think he was hiding among those he had listened to and joined with. He had become as one of them. Right?
Both God and Satan had said so. Ones that God Himself had said once could be trusted. But something had changed. What changed?
For one Adam's arrival had changed something. He was the first man created as a "living soul".
He was obviously different from them. Perhaps the beginning of a different order, a different world.
Potentially a future viceroy, as a Son of God he would have been above them in the hierarchy "when" he reached the point of his adoption or placing in the Father's kingdom. But obviously, that didn't happen did it?. If he was the first man created as a living soul, what then were these others? I have my ideas, but that's all they are at this point.
They apparently had something he lacked. An understanding of good and evil for one thing. Adam was alive spiritually.
He had eternal life from before his very creation, but was not immortal. He had a body waiting, his representation in heaven.
But he didn't come through that. He came here first straight from God, to be tested and tried by the Word.
Like we did and everyone since Adam. One must be trained first for such a position. Character is not a gift, it is a victory.
"The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp"...A child of God? Building strength through adversity.
So then we appear to be heading back into a similar situation. Back to Eden. Kings and priests, trusted counselors ruling the nations with a rod of iron. The cyclic nature of time on this world. Hopefully we will always remember where He drew us from. Only through the grace that bought us such a precious salvation paid by the price of His own blood would we ever be there.
Let us pray we never forget, like others perhaps did before us. Maybe that is still part of the test, to be so exalted someday and remain true. The seventh day after all is still part of the week.
How could we truly judge angels lest perhaps we walked awhile in their shoes. Just a thought.
The song's still on hold.
And now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.
Good job with this info , its beautiful
Well put together Visitor and a better depth of understanding , Thank you . you reminded me of many things in the scriptures that connect to this .
We are like trees , My Favorite example is the King Nebuchadnezzar being cut down''as a tree '' over a Kingdom and spared the roots in the earth
till he suffered and changed his ways learning righteousness in the earth and to Give God His due Glory .
I love how the example of Jesus was conceived By Holy Spirit in a virgin and the new Jerusalem from above is the Mother of us all born again and [ spiritual by nature]
We become a City set on a hill with a Light[Christ] that shines in the darkness that cannot be hid
Adam cannot hide in the trees nor from the Light of Jesus Coming into the World as the Day dawns in our hearts ..
but exposes the nakedness
When Jesus spit in the eyes of the blind man and saw men as trees walking Mark 8
He was taken by the hand first and led by Jesus , Just like Saul was taken by the hand and led by a man the Lord chosen to guide him , till he was restored as well
healed and made well/whole ..
Jeremiah 17
7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh , but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Good post TV,
Made me think of the wheat and the tares.
I often think of wheat and tares as being doctrine and how the good and bad grow together. You can't just cut the bad out without harming the good. Let them grow together........................we are God's garden. It is God who helps us to work through our doctrinal issues. We judge ourselves, that we would not be judged.
1 Corinthians 3
6 I have planted , Apollos watered ; but God gave the increase . 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase . 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
God's building? Temple? As a corporate we are the building of God.
Stay where you are put and be the building of God......be the garden as well, cultivated by a constant relation with the husbandman.
EW putting the axe to the root of the tree is a recent interest of mine concerning the book of Matthew and the judgement of the Israel.
TV, I want to hear more about your song writing if you get a chance.
Amen ed
good stuff for sure !!
the trees planted by the waters of Life that flow '''freely ''
I am the root and offspring of David the promise of God and His mercy to Israel
Rev 22 15Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. 16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches.
I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.
" 17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
Quote from: eaglesway on November 30, 2014, 09:26:29 AM
And now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.
0Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
12The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.
13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;
14He cried aloud, and said thus,
Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches:15
Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth:16L
et his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.17This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones:
to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
for me this means he was allowed to live after suffering some judgments and was receiving knowledge of God to learn Gods righteousness
as the ONLY ONE IN CONTROL of all things
Trees, chosen of the Lord, planted for the privilege of providing shade and a refuge from the heat of the sun often forget that they were the planting of the Lord, watered by Him, and the start to take pride in their height and breadth and strength and the fruit and the shade.
Turn then to the parable of the unrighteous tenants(Mt 21:33-46) who are left to care for the landowners estate. In time forgetting who the owner is and what his charge was(to tend to and care for the vineyard and those who tended it with them) and begins to treat the landowners estate as if it were their own possession and beat the other servants and begins to horde for themselves the produce of the land, even to the point of sending the landowners messengers back to Him battered and bruised.
What shall be done with such a them? they might be placed in chains of aidos darkness for "leaving their proper abode"(jude 6). They may be "put to death" and better stewards found to take their place.
Lay the ax to the root of the tree, make room for a new planting.
Quote from: eaglesway on November 30, 2014, 07:09:14 PM
Trees, chosen of the Lord, planted for the privilege of providing shade and a refuge from the heat of the sun often forget that they were the planting of the Lord, watered by Him, and the start to take pride in their height and breadth and strength and the fruit and the shade.
Turn then to the parable of the unrighteous tenants(Mt 21:33-46) who are left to care for the landowners estate. In time forgetting who the owner is and what his charge was(to tend to and care for the vineyard and those who tended it with them) and begins to treat the landowners estate as if it were their own possession and beat the other servants and begins to horde for themselves the produce of the land, even to the point of sending the landowners messengers back to Him battered and bruised.
What shall be done with such a them? they might be placed in chains of aidos darkness for "leaving their proper abode"(jude 6). They may be "put to death" and better stewards found to take their place.
Lay the ax to the root of the tree, make room for a new planting.
:thumbsup: never thought of that , sprouts coming up from the death of one tree . I have seen this before in the real !! :thumbsup:
or new beginnings/plantings saplings
Luke 23 ...30"Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, 'FALL ON US,' AND TO THE HILLS, 'COVER US.'
31"F
or if they do these things when the tree is green,
what will happen when it is dry?"
32Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him.
Thank you all for your kind words. And rosered for the scripture in Daniel. It had been awhile since I read it. How similar is it to the account of Eden. It seems pride is much the same wherever it rears its ugly head. Especially for those in power.
It's kind of a humbling experience when others can find flaws in your theories, but it's perhaps even worse when you read it over and find them yourself. So, I have a correction to my original post here that may need pointing out. Where I said "as a Son of God he would have been above them in the hierarchy "when" he reached the point of his adoption or placing in the Father's kingdom. But obviously, that didn't happen did it?"... I don't know that it actually didn't happen. Come to think of it.
This person described in Ezekiel 31 was so great, if it was Adam ("the cedars in the garden of God could not hide him"...thank you Jesus!) he may have reached his adoption and placing as a Son of God over the kingdom for a small period of time before the fall. He just did not partake enough of the Words of life to reach immortality. The scriptures only say Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. The time for the fall would have been approximately one year before Cain and Abel were born. Cain wasn't counted to his linage in the genealogy and he murdered Abel. So Adam's only listed first age starts at Seth. Assuming that Cain and Abel were offering their first sacrifice at their "coming of age" somewhere between 18 and 30 years of age, we have about a hundred years from Adam's creation to the fall still unaccounted for.
This great one in Eden was also called "the Assyrian". There are winged disks and bearded men with wings that depict someone called the Assyrian carved into stone all over that area. The lower foundation stones of the temple at Baalbek, Lebanon are stones 1200 tons each carved perfectly and laid together to form a wall or foundation.
The Roman's came along thousands of years later and built their temple to Jupiter with much smaller inferior stones right on top of them as many often do, but not even the Roman's knew what the lower stones were for or who set them. They were that old. There is still a 1200 ton stone laying in the quarry where they were hewn, like the project was abandoned without being completed. We have no machinery today that could take them from that quarry around to the other side of the mountain where the other foundation stones lie. I've long wondered if this temple that was never completed was for "that" Assyrian mentioned in Ezekiel 31. He was called a "cedar in Lebanon". Look's like it was quite the ambitious project for someone anyway. Some things we may never know.
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_7.jpg) (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9jgsDeKMrwJvoAzvAxOzzivJJ7t0EISOoPFwhPX3MjZffGB7C)
Quote from: rosered on November 30, 2014, 05:50:32 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on November 30, 2014, 09:26:29 AM
And now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.
0Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:
12The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.
13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven;
14He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches:
15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth:
16Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
17This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
for me this means he was allowed to live after suffering some judgments and was receiving knowledge of God to learn Gods righteousness
as the ONLY ONE IN CONTROL of all things
It's enough to make you go out and hug a tree.
Then a shoot will grow from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
2
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him—
a Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
a Spirit of counsel and strength,
a Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
3
His delight will be in the fear of the Lord.
He will not judge
by what He sees with His eyes,
He will not execute justice
by what He hears with His ears,
4
but He will judge the poor righteously
and execute justice for the oppressed of the land.
He will strike the land
with discipline[a] from His mouth,
and He will kill the wicked
with a command from His lips.
5
Righteousness will be a belt around His loins;
faithfulness will be a belt around His waist.
6
The wolf will live with the lamb,
and the leopard will lie down with the goat.
The calf, the young lion, and the fatling will be together,
and a child will lead them.
7
The cow and the bear will graze,
their young ones will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8
An infant will play beside the cobra's pit,
and a toddler will put his hand into a snake's den.
9
None will harm or destroy another
on My entire holy mountain,
for the land will be as full
of the knowledge of the Lord
as the sea is filled with water.
Never heard this thought, "Since it has been said we are "going back to Eden"..." and I personally never had a want to go back to Eden, and still don't.
Now here you have said something I find quite profound, "For one Adam's arrival had changed something. He was the first man created as a "living soul". Now on that I would like to hear what you have to say, I believe that is a true statement but not understood by many.
I did find many one liners in your OP that would be great discussions. :Peace2:
Adam had no earthly mother.
Jesus had an earthly mother.
A daughter of mankind.
Visitor says
The serpent said to Eve "your eyes will be opened and you'll be as one of the gods." Then afterwards God said nearly the same thing.
"The man has become as one of "us" knowing good from evil"...
Adam was found by God where? Hiding among the trees. Did Adam really think the forests were so thick that God could not find him?
I think not. I think he was hiding among those he had listened to and joined with. He had become as one of them. Right?
Both God and Satan had said so. Ones that God Himself had said once could be trusted. But something had changed. What changed?
First thing Adam and Eve did gives clues.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
They could have hid from God without going to the trouble of making loin cloths for themselves.
They could have made the loin cloths immediately because they knew ,
they were in the field of vision of someone else. ?
"If the trees were people and God said they were good for food, then it was spiritual food they were dispensing.
Jesus said "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you'll have no life in you" did He not? He wasn't talking cannibalism.
He meant partaking of the Word brings life.
So these trees at one time before Adam's fall were trusted advisors and counselors standing with the Tree of Life, to speak the words of life.
Trees of righteousness. A garden planted of the Lord. Like we are to be. Planted also implies staying where you are put. Holding a position.
We then need to know what could cause these trusted advisors of the Word of God, these priests to the nations to fall.
The serpent said to Eve "your eyes will be opened and you'll be as one of the gods." Then afterwards God said nearly the same thing.
"The man has become as one of "us" knowing good from evil"...
Adam was found by God where? Hiding among the trees. Did Adam really think the forests were so thick that God could not find him?
I think not. I think he was hiding among those he had listened to and joined with. He had become as one of them. Right?
Both God and Satan had said so. Ones that God Himself had said once could be trusted. But something had changed. What changed?"
To TheVisitor I am sure you know, if not, now you will, there has been a teaching out there for years about the "trees" and what you offer.
-micah7:9. I pretty much explained how I arrived at theses points as I went along step by step from one conclusion to the next best that I could. I see metaphors used all through the bible with trees as people. I believe the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge were people. Satan and The Lord. There is only one source of the Words of life. What I didn't see till recently was the possibility that other trees in the garden are people too. The more I look the more it seems to fit.
This is just my opinion.
-dajomaco. A believe scripture has a compound element to it. To be spiritually naked is to be without a covering, or representation of a spiritual body. Also it could be a sacrifice that covers ones sins. Religion is a covering. Jesus said the Laodiceans were naked and didn't know it. See what I mean. Nakedness also has a spiritual definition. They were naked spiritually but were not ashamed until they sinned. Then they needed a sacrifice for their sin, and God provided one. He instituted the lamb as a sacrifice until the real one came, Jesus Christ. Hope this helps.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 02, 2014, 02:30:16 AM
-micah7:9. I guess the underlined parts are what you have questions about. We'll, I explained how I arrived at theses points as I went along step by step from one conclusion to the next. This isn't a doctrine of some church, it is research I did over a period of several years in the process of writing a song as I said. I see metaphors all through the bible with trees as people. I've always believed the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge were people. Satan and The Lord. There is only one source of the Words of life. What I didn't see till recently was the other trees in the garden as people too.
This is just my opinion.
-dajomaco. A said scripture has a compound element to it. To be spiritually naked is to be without a covering, a spiritual body. A sacrifice that covers ones sins. Religion is a covering. Jesus said the Laodiceans were naked and didn't know it didn't he. See what I mean. Nakedness also has a spiritual definition.
Believe me TheVisitor, your "tree" obsevation has been around for quite awhile, for you to embrace it as a revelation from your studies, well it's a mistake not uncommon.
As for your reply to dajomaco, " Religion is a covering." religion is a makeup of the minds of men, not a covering, but only a sanctum of alibiing. At that moment, Gen 3:7 And unclosing are their eyes, they two,
and knowing are they that they are naked. And sewing are they fig leaves and making for themselves girdle skirts."
Man had the Knowledge of Good and Evil and that is confirmed in.....
Gen 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim,
"Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!
Can one say the Lord's Plan and Purpose had begun! Glory and thank you Lord :dsunny:
That's OK, I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. No offense taken. I should probably have followed Jesus' example. He rarely spoken plainly in public did He? Here I am trying to do just the opposite. What was that proverb that covers this?
Proverbs 11:13 A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 02, 2014, 05:29:48 AM
That's OK, I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. No offense taken. I should probably have followed Jesus' example. He rarely spoken plainly in public did He? Here I am trying to do just the opposite. What was that proverb that covers this?
Proverbs 11:13 A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
:loveit:
Really though!
:dsunny:
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 02, 2014, 05:29:48 AM
That's OK, I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. No offense taken. I should probably have followed Jesus' example. He rarely spoken plainly in public did He? Here I am trying to do just the opposite. What was that proverb that covers this?
Proverbs 11:13 A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
I understand what you said, but now with Prov. 11:13 well.
QuoteBelieve me TheVisitor, your "tree" obsevation has been around for quite awhile, for you to embrace it as a revelation from your studies, well it's a mistake not uncommon.
micah7:9,
I know this idea the Trees of Eden represented people is not new entirely, but I don't think any of the previous versions you have heard are exactly like this. This has nothing in common with the Willie Martin racist rant once posted here for example. I don't see it implying anything like that.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 03, 2014, 04:42:13 AM
QuoteBelieve me TheVisitor, your "tree" obsevation has been around for quite awhile, for you to embrace it as a revelation from your studies, well it's a mistake not uncommon.
micah7:9,
I know this idea the Trees of Eden represented people is not new entirely, but I don't think any of the previous versions you have heard are exactly like this. This has nothing in common with the Willie Martin racist rant once posted here for example. I don't see it implying anything like that.
Willie who? :dontknow:
From the topic... "What were the trees in the Garden of Eden"... started here about one year ago.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/what-were-the-trees-in-the-garden-of-eden/msg163519/#msg163519
Trees are in some places analogous metaphors for people.
Just as seas are also sometimes analogous for nations, or general masses of people.
That doesnt mean every time I read sea it means nation or that every time I read tree it means person.
These variations require some discernment and some context and some interpretation, and it is therefore quite likely there will be disagreement :o)
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 03, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Quote from: TheVisitor on November 30, 2014, 09:12:06 AM
Back to the trees. We are told as Christians we are being planted as "trees of righteousness". Having living water coming out of our bellies or inner most being, with twelve manner of fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations. Kings and priests reigning with Christ to the nations of the earth.
The scripture in Ezekiel 31 describes trees in the garden who fall through envy of the greatest among them while part of a government that is ruling over the nations. Now go back to Genesis. God told Adam he could "eat" from all the trees in the garden (except one) and that they were good for food.
70 trees are 70 (fallen) angels. The serpent was one of them. They were parts of the counsel of Elohim.
After Babel fell they formed 70 nations (during atonement day a bull was sacrificed for each of them)
Likely 10 of them got judged during the 10 plagues of Egypt (every plague is linked to a false god)
:2c:
Is that like, from the scriptures?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 03, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
The serpent was one of them. They were parts of the counsel of Elohim.
I don't know where he got the 70 number, but this part (the quote) is kind of what I'm seeing and I've never read what he's talking about.
Like I said before, Proverbs 11:13 probably applies here.
A talebearer is a gossip, as I read it. A faithful person does not gossip, "revealing secrets". I don t see the connection.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 03, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
A talebearer is a gossip, as I read it. A faithful person does not gossip, "revealing secrets". I don t see the connection.
Not so much gossip. Why did Jesus speak in parables to the multitudes. Some things just aren't for all people at all stages of their journey.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 03, 2014, 09:11:30 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 03, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
The serpent was one of them. They were parts of the counsel of Elohim.
I don't know where he got the 70 number, but this part is kind of what I'm seeing and I've never read what he's talking about.
Don't blame me for your lack of insight.
QuoteLike I said before, Proverbs 11:13 probably applies here.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 03, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
A talebearer is a gossip, as I read it. A faithful person does not gossip, "revealing secrets".
A righteous person doesn't slander.
QuoteI don t see the connection.
You could have learned something on another level. No problem. Keep groveling in your ignorance. Case closed.
Signed,
The unfaithful one.
WhiteWings...
I wasn't calling you a talebearer please don't get me wrong. I was referring to myself. The part I said I was seeing was the part I highlighted in the quote. But, I'm not quite sure I see that they were "fallen" before the Serpent beguiled Eve. Why else would God say their fruit was good? Fruit is their teaching according to Jesus. I didn't mean to offend you. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 03, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
A talebearer is a gossip, as I read it. A faithful person does not gossip, "revealing secrets". I don t see the connection.
I agree. The Hebrew word "rakil" was translated as "slanderer" in other places, connected to the word for merchant, like a hawker/peddler. I think the idea in the proverb is one who goes about betraying a confidence. I could see the idea connected to a merchant as the idea is trading secrets for the pleasure being seen as a knowledgable person, the reward of gossip being seen as an insider and having the praise of men.
Proverbs 20
19He that goeth about [as] a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips.
The implication being that a tale bearer trades flattery for secrets, then goes about betraying confidences for praise.
Quote from: Seth on December 03, 2014, 10:26:06 AM
trading secrets for the pleasure being seen as a knowledgeable person....., the reward of gossip being seen as an insider and having the praise of men.
Good point. Either of these doesn't sound too good. I'm really beginning to regret I brought it up. It's worse than I thought it was.
Just for the record though, I never claimed I had all this figured out from the start. I'm bouncing ideas off people learning as I go. It seems to help my learning process seeing my thoughts wrote out, editing them down and having to try and answer people's questions.
I actually think that plain speech is pretty good practice, personally speaking.
Matt 10:27
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
2 Cor 3
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
I think you are absolutely right, that Christ rarely used plainness of speech, but I think he did that for a specific purpose for a specific time. I think now is the time for us to speak plainly to eachother and to those who are still in the dark about ET etc. I believe as we are given freely, so we should freely give, so if I come across a piece of info that I believe could help someone, I try to be as plain and clear as possible. Just my own personal approach. Everyone has different styles of communicating though, and we all find what is most effective for our purposes. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 03, 2014, 10:32:18 AM
Quote from: Seth on December 03, 2014, 10:26:06 AM
trading secrets for the pleasure being seen as a knowledgeable person....., the reward of gossip being seen as an insider and having the praise of men.
Good point. Either of these doesn't sound to good. I'm really beginning to regret I brought it up. It's worse than I thought it was.
Just for the record though, I never claimed I had all this figured out from the start. I'm bouncing ideas off people learning as I go. It seems to help my learning process seeing my thoughts wrote out, editing them down and having to try and answer people questions.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Seth on December 03, 2014, 10:43:19 AM
I actually think that plain speech is pretty good practice, personally speaking.
Matt 10:27
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
2 Cor 3
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
I think you are absolutely right, that Christ rarely used plainness of speech, but I think he did that for a specific purpose for a specific time. I think now is the time for us to speak plainly to eachother and to those who are still in the dark about ET etc. I believe as we are given freely, so we should freely give, so if I come across a piece of info that I believe could help someone, I try to be as plain and clear as possible. Just my own personal approach. Everyone has different styles of communicating though, and we all find what is most effective for our purposes. :HeartThrob:
..That's awesome! :thumbsup:
..."being planted as "trees of righteousness". Having living water coming out of our bellies or inner most being, with twelve manner of fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations."
..water came out of Jesus' side when He was "pierced" ..blood and water.. blood being redemption, water being life giving.. like Eve came out of Adam's rib, so too "a bone of Him was not broken" (I just read that in some footnotes this morning)..
Breaking Him (the bread of life) on the cross, was redemptive, but also opened up the floodwaters of the Life Giving Spirit to flow toward the body of believers and also through believers .."in your innermost part will be a fountain of fresh water.."
..I've always figured Jesus spoke in parables because it is part of God's plan/drama/truth-play that only some find redemption and life during this life time..
..."being planted as "trees of righteousness". Having living water coming out of our bellies or inner most being, with twelve manner of fruit and leaves for the healing of the nations."
I think it will require a thousand years (millennium) to prepare ourselves for the (long lasting?) day of judgment (review of all human history).. wherein I believe there will be much weeping and wailing, even among the saved/elect, as history is reviewed.. (by the elect, as sorrow, even shock weeping)
Before God's (deeply?) engraving of His law of love (and obedience in thought, word and deed) upon the hearts, minds and psyche` of all "in heaven and earth" the "government" (under high angel Lucifer) was able to become corrupt, but once all ("in heaven and earth") are in Jesus and fully understand that God is life and also perfection and to disagree with Him in any tiny way is to become imperfect, the opposite of life.. That it simply cannot be done..
If God had not built into creation from the very beginning (foundation) the redemption/rescue, we would all perish.. When God endowed thinking ability to angel and man, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about, because with thinking ability, sooner or later, comes the ability to choose. And so.. life as we presently know it. But what was God's other option? No rational creatures ever?
:Peace2: :smile:
Could you elaborate pls? "When God endowed thinking ability to angel and man, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about, because with thinking ability, sooner or later, comes the ability to choose. And so.. life as we presently know it. But what was God's other option? No rational creatures ever?"
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 03, 2014, 10:32:18 AM
Quote from: Seth on December 03, 2014, 10:26:06 AM
trading secrets for the pleasure being seen as a knowledgeable person....., the reward of gossip being seen as an insider and having the praise of men.
Good point. Either of these doesn't sound too good. I'm really beginning to regret I brought it up. It's worse than I thought it was.
Just for the record though, I never claimed I had all this figured out from the start. I'm bouncing ideas off people learning as I go. It seems to help my learning process seeing my thoughts wrote out, editing them down and having to try and answer people's questions.
That's cool bro(bro?), there is no "worse". Our discussions involve a fair amount of back and forth due to the limitations of the medium and as we get to kno each other's minds/perspectives. There is a fair amount of disagreement as well, but we just want to stay in an edifying spirit- a humble exchange of ideas.
I hav learned so much from brothers and sisters on the forum, especially through our sometimes disagreements, which test the mettle of our beliefs and hopefully broaden all of our horizons.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 03, 2014, 09:39:15 AM
WhiteWings...
I wasn't calling you a talebearer please don't get me wrong. I was referring to myself. The part I said I was seeing was the part I highlighted in the quote. But, I'm not quite sure I see that they were "fallen" before the Serpent beguiled Eve. Why else would God say their fruit was good? Fruit is their teaching according to Jesus. I didn't mean to offend you. Sorry for the confusion.
Appears a misunderstanding. Your apology is gracious.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 03, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
I have learned so much from brothers and sisters on the forum, especially through our sometimes disagreements, which test the mettle of our beliefs and hopefully broaden all of our horizons.
The people here have added so much, been so kind. You've given this more of a positive reception than I ever expected. Even with the new insight that one's own personal motivations for perhaps wanting to appear knowledgeable about such things are in fact betraying a confidence or seeking the praise of men, and that is some brutal introspection...I still consider it a positive learning experience.
However, I have realized there is quite possibly a real need for some hesitation here, some circumspection on this topic. If the trees did represent some kind of angelic council, I must now stop to consider the implications if true, of all that could mean. First thing comes to mind are the warnings of II Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 to those who would talk of things they really don't understand. I don't want to fall into that category, or be the cause of others doing so either. I think I fit pretty well already into the "don't understand" part, but I would like to stop short of being counted as "someone who continues to talk about it". I don't think I have much more to offer here. Not at this time anyway.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 04, 2014, 10:20:42 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on December 03, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
I have learned so much from brothers and sisters on the forum, especially through our sometimes disagreements, which test the mettle of our beliefs and hopefully broaden all of our horizons.
The people here have added so much, been so kind. You've given this more of a positive reception than I ever expected. Even with the new insight that one's own personal motivations for perhaps wanting to appear knowledgeable about such things are in fact betraying a confidence or seeking the praise of men, and that is some brutal introspection...I still consider it a positive learning experience.
However, I have realized there is quite possibly a real need for some hesitation here, some circumspection on this topic. If the trees did represent some kind of angelic council, I must now stop to consider the implications if true, of all that could mean. First thing comes to mind are the warnings of II Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 to those who would talk of things they really don't understand. I don't want to fall into that category, or be the cause of others doing so either. I think I fit pretty well already into the "don't understand" part, but I would like to stop short of being counted as "someone who continues to talk about it". I don't think I have much more to offer here. Not at this time anyway.
hi! I like to stick pretty close to just reading the Word. Sure there are spiritual application to many things, but for example, to me, trees in the garden would be just that.. Why would the Word be so mysterious? When it says Lucifer was part of the "covering" of the garden.. So many times I wonder, why shroud and cloak in mists of mytery things which are spoken openly and plainly in other portions of the Word?
I think we have enough mysteries, like Jesus being the bread of life.. we can believe that, because Jesus said it.. But there are times when people are simply baking or eating simple bread, eating a meal and not in mystical union with God but just simply have a loaf of bread they made.. We can however think of the mystical applications of bread and sharing bread, on and on, but the days are short.. If we read more straightforward, perhaps it will be a better redeeming of time.. :Chinscratch: :2c: :2c:
Quote from: marie glen on December 04, 2014, 05:10:59 PMTo me, trees in the garden would be just that... Why would the Word be so mysterious?
Many reasons, for one the example I just made from II Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10. Not causing people to speak evil of things they don't understand or have been taught differently. Another example would be for separation. The Word separates from all unbelief. It separates you from unbelief, and unbelief from you. It is a two edged sword. Some will still believe even though they don't understand it while others will walk away. John 6:66. Another thing is what I would call the "nursery rhyme factor". You would tell your children when they are very young things in such a way they would understand as a child..."trees, eating fruit, etc...Then when they are of "full age" you tell them plainly when they can understand. God does the same thing with His children. Paul taught this way...Babes, milk, full age, strong meat. Then there is this... "The Spirit searches out the deep things of God" His Children He has promised to "raise up" in this day (Hosea 6:2) will not be satisfied with milk and shallow teachings for long. They will grow past it and need deeper things to feed their souls and mature in the Word.
Quote from: marie glen on December 04, 2014, 05:10:59 PMWhen it says Lucifer was part of the "covering" of the garden... So many times I wonder, why shroud and cloak in mists of mystery...
He was called a "covering Cherub" for one and was also said to have been "made perfect" with "every precious stone as his covering" and many other things. We are also being made perfect in this day. "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" A rock or stone is a revelation from God. When Peter said to Jesus; "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", Jesus said; "This understanding came not by flesh and blood, but was given to you of the Father and upon this rock"...What rock? The revelation of who He is... "I'll build my church, and the gates of hell shall not stand against it". Lucifer had every precious stone...the understanding of every revelation and knew who God is, yet he turned away. Christ is arming His church with the only weapon that can withstand him. The same thing. A clear, complete, understanding of the Word of God and who He is.
Quote from: marie glen on December 04, 2014, 05:10:59 PMI think we have enough mysteries,... If we read more straightforward, perhaps it will be a better redeeming of time...
To just read over the Word without desiring a deeper understanding of the meaning would in my opinion not be a "better redeeming of the time" but exactly the opposite. After a certain point, it would be spending your time in vain. What purpose does it serve to read something over and over again, without understanding it. It becomes a vain repetition. God doesn't want that. He said so. When young Christians are just starting out it is normal for them to desire the "sincere milk of the Word". They should start with the first principles such as repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands as Paul taught. The obvious, simple things. Sure. But as they mature they must reach a point when the time for that "milk" is over. Hebrews 6:1. The end result being we must have our senses exercised in the discernment of both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14. That has to do first and foremost with an understanding of the Word, since Lucifer was the most proficient being ever created at wielding it. He even tried using it against Jesus did he not?. I believe that takes us back and ties in to the opening post on this topic. Full circle. But I do I hope I have not offended you.
Hi Vister
I found this long ago as helpful , very helpful .
I had to unlearn a lot of things and relearn many things that confused me
I am sharing this only because I care for you and the truth is far more helpful and loving than believing those things that do not makes sense .
God bless you with More of the Lords Spirit and truth , we are all hungering and thirsting after His righteousness
I hope you stay , you are in a good place here at the Tent with some wonderful brothers and sisters in the Lord and the info page is also well stocked
Glad your sharing what is in your heart
here is the shortest answer I can find , but if you research this with google or any other service you will find a lot of good articles about the latin word Lucifer the Babylonian King of Tyre
Where did the name "Lucifer" come from?
Despite the popular mythology about a wicked angel called Lucifer, the word only occurs once in the Bible and it has nothing to do with angels. The name Lucifer comes from Isaiah 14:12 which says (in the KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning...
This is the only place in the Bible where the word Lucifer occurs and it does not occur at all in most modern versions. If you look back to verse 4 it is clear that this passage is about the king of Babylon Also Isaiah 14:16-17 calls him a "man" — not a fallen angel! So how did the name become associated with an angel?
Lucifer is a Latin word meaning the "morning star" or Venus, the brightest object in the sky just before dawn. In fact, modern versions translate the word as "morning star". The king of Babylon was very proud and imagined himself to be a god. He said "I will make myself like the Most High" (v14) and apparently thought of himself as being "in heaven" like Venus. Instead, he fell to the earth in defeat. Isaiah describes him as a metaphorical morning star — appearing bright and elevated, but about to plunge below the horizon and disappear.
A similar passage is Ezekiel 28 which is about the king of Tyre, although it is also often incorrectly interpreted as applying to a wicked angel.
:friendstu:
Quote from: rosered on December 05, 2014, 12:41:06 AMThe name Lucifer comes from Isaiah 14:12 which says (in the KJV)How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning...
If you look back to verse 4 it is clear that this passage is about the king of Babylon Also Isaiah 14:16-17 calls him a "man" — not a fallen angel! So how did the name become associated with an angel?
Good point and true the passages start out talking about men, the kings of Babylon or Tyre. But if you take the entire passages in context they are not only talking about these men. A son of the morning fallen from heaven is talking about an angel not a man, a Cherub. That is not a man. In Ezekiel 28:13 the Cherub that had been in Eden the garden of God was not a man. Again it was plainly identified as a Cherub. The king of Tyre was never in the garden of God, on the holy mountain or walked amongst the stones of fire. Lucifer the angel was. The part you are confused about is when they switch back and forth between describing the man and the angel in the same verse. There is a reason for that. These men were being used as hosts by a spiritual being that is a separate entity from the men. So the scripture has to switch back and forth between the two. It can be confusing but make no mistake. Satan is a real being. It was done that way for our example so we could understand how he works in humanity, not to be explained away by astronomy. I have read that explanation before. Pagans who worshiped astronomy had to be placated by the early roman church and brought into the fold by compromising on the Word. Rome did this with all the pagan religions they could. Read about it by doing a google on the Nicene council 325 A.D.
"Again it was plainly identified as a Cherub. The king of Tyre was never in the garden of God, on the holy mountain or walked amongst the stones of fire. Lucifer the angel was. The part you are confused about is when they switch back and forth between describing the man and the angel in the same verse." Thevistor
I must refrain from entering this discussion unless you my friend can show me scripture and verse as to where in the Bible that "lucifer" was ever made an angel. The adversary is identified in Rev. 12:9 and Rev. 20:2 and I fail to see a reference to "lucifer." I my friend am not confused, not at all.
Rev_12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev_20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
I agree with Micah. I too do not wish to engage in a discussion on Lucifer.
When I read the link below taken from bibletruths.com, it explained a great deal about this wrong understanding.
http://bible-truths.com/lake9.html
:2c:
Quote from: joeteekay on December 05, 2014, 08:45:29 PM
I agree with Micah. I too do not wish to engage in a discussion on Lucifer.
When I read the link below taken from bibletruths.com, it explained a great deal about this wrong understanding.
http://bible-truths.com/lake9.html
:2c:
Thank you :dsunny:
Isaaih 25;7 on this mountain He will destroy the shroud[covering cherub] that enfolds all people. the sheet that COVERS ALL NATIONS
please note palm trees and cherubs worked into veil/tent/temple curtains. rent flesh/veil[flesh and blood can not enter or please God]
when sin entered[man's flesh] the wage of the deed was death/shroud...image of corrupt...that seperates us from God...[see goats separated..into lof with demons]....
when we see Him face to face,we are like Him[in His image]
now satan has his angels..and God his..and Michael[who is like God?] stands up.........and all the people are delivered.
there was war in heaven..satan and his angels fought and Michael and his angels[woe to the earth and those who dwell in it
for the devil has come down. when you think on these things..consider the temple curtain rent..and the cherubs and palm trees
embroidered into them.....also check out the work of an embroiderer and embroidered garments in the scriptures.
I fully agree that Satan is a being. As far as the origin "story" and whether Ezekiel 28 refers to Adam prophetically or Satan/Lucifer or is limited to the actual king of Tyre- her's what I think(regardless of whether anyone cares :laugh:).
There is no solid ground upon which to teach any of the three views.
We get real literal when it supports our view, real metaphoric to support another view.
It is clearly a matter of interpretation.
For instance in Isaiah 27:1
In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. In that day sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine.
One could use the verses in Revelation 12 and rev 14 and rev 20and reasonably interpret this as a prophetic reference to the appearing of the Lord in glory at the end of this age.
One could also interpret this in light of Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.....
as a look into the slaying of the carnal mind by the sword of the Spirit and the fruitfulness that comes when that has occurred.
Both would be correct actually, imo.
So, one person can say what Ezekiel 28 "clearly" does or does not represent, they may or may not be correct.
Either way, as to whether Lucifer is Adam or Satan - requires a fair amount of interpretation.
In either case, as regards these kinds of issues - we ought to share our views, or not as we choose, in a humble and non-confrontational manner :o)
Quote from: sheila on December 05, 2014, 09:19:08 PM
Isaaih 25;7 on this mountain He will destroy the shroud[covering cherub] that enfolds all people. the sheet that COVERS ALL NATIONS
please note palm trees and cherubs worked into veil/tent/temple curtains. rent flesh/veil[flesh and blood can not enter or please God]
when sin entered[man's flesh] the wage of the deed was death/shroud...image of corrupt...that seperates us from God...[see goats separated..into lof with demons]....
when we see Him face to face,we are like Him[in His image]
now satan has his angels..and God his..and Michael[who is like God?] stands up.........and all the people are delivered.
there was war in heaven..satan and his angels fought and Michael and his angels[woe to the earth and those who dwell in it
for the devil has come down. when you think on these things..consider the temple curtain rent..and the cherubs and palm trees
embroidered into them.....also check out the work of an embroiderer and embroidered garments in the scriptures.
Although I don't disagree with your point, I do not see "covering cherub" in Isaiah 25:7....only "covering", as in veil or shroud.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 05, 2014, 12:01:31 AM
To just read over the Word without desiring a deeper understanding of the meaning would in my opinion not be a "better redeeming of the time" but exactly the opposite. After a certain point, it would be spending your time in vain. What purpose does it serve to read something over and over again, without understanding it. It becomes a vain repetition. God doesn't want that. He said so. When young Christians are just starting out it is normal for them to desire the "sincere milk of the Word". They should start with the first principles such as repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands as Paul taught. The obvious, simple things. Sure. But as they mature they must reach a point when the time for that "milk" is over. Hebrews 6:1. The end result being we must have our senses exercised in the discernment of both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14. That has to do first and foremost with an understanding of the Word...
I absolutely agree! meditating upon His Word.. I was referring to folks in some 'denominations' which get so caught up in their own thoughts
about the word, that they become dreamers, caught up in
human reasoning supposedly upon the Word, where every tiny word becomes a mystic message and hidden knowledge for special more wise ones... Very subtle, yes.. I hope I didn't offend! not meaning to imply there is no 'deeper' meaning to many things, but I think it's a mistake to throw out simplicity..
I do feel the trees of Eden were trees, not governing powers, but I also think when God endowed thinking ability to angel and man(kind) a whole new world (or TREE) of possibilities and potential came about.. So of that tree in Eden, the one of knowing good from evil, I do see as symbolic. Not negating it as a real tree, in a very real original garden, the only one told not to eat from, representing disobedience and imperfection.
With thinking ability comes sooner or later the ability to make choices.. and so we have the hand reaching out towards the forbidden.. towards disagreeing with what God chooses (in any 'tiny' way) which makes one the opposite of life.
..Because God, surely, is Life. And also Perfection. A real paradox and Pandora's box, but what would be the other option? no rational creatures, ever?
The happiest thing of all, imo, is since God is Perfect, surely?! The 'end' result of all this (life as we presently know it, i.e. the TREE of chewing on the learning of good from evil/life from ?, and human history) can only be the utter best one possible...
:Peace2: God bless! :smile:
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 03, 2014, 08:37:18 PM
Could you elaborate pls? "When God endowed thinking ability to angel and man, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about, because with thinking ability, sooner or later, comes the ability to choose. And so.. life as we presently know it. But what was God's other option? No rational creatures ever?"
Seventeen years ago, when my son was 16 (it's his b'day today:) he asked me two questions, which i answered but I wasn't satisfied with my answers so i prayed to know the answers.. better. What came back to me knocked my socks off, changed my life and I was a pretty solid believer already.
He asked me "why was the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden?" and "isn't it great we get to be an ant farm?" (so cynical so young!)
The answers came back to me quickly, like bam! bam, bam! and ended with a question.
Simple summary: that's the 'problem'! we're noT an ant farm, tho aLL is firmly in only His Will. (please Lord, keep me short winded. :eek: )
Here's what seemed to come to me. God can only be perfect. Or He too would fade..
God Himself is life, the life force, the breath of life.. What else could or would be??
Before He began any creating, He could see all possibilities stretched out before him like a blanket spread out before his eyes, is the image i saw in my mind's eye. All possibilities and potentials he of course knew. And every single thing he has done he has chosen in just that way, in order to bring about the very best of all possibilities..
First, the straight out from Him one, the only Begotten-straight out from Him one, within which all others would live and have their being.. "This is
the decree, You are my begotten Son" ps 2
You see? When He endowed thinking ability, which sooner or later, includes choice, tho limited, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities came about.
Because thinking ability includes being able to make choices.. albeit of course, limited. Once one chooses in any tiny thought, word or deed, aNy thing which disagrees with what He chooses, they become imperfect, the opposite of life.
And W/o the rescue/redemption built in from the beginning we all would fade away, perish. Period. This is a very strong support of UR. Since the Father opened the Pandora's box bringing all this (life as we know it, imperfection, suffering, death) about, Himself, of course he has engineered and built into all things from the beginning the rescue/redemption/life for all, seeing as he is the one who engineered all things just the way He did and opened the Pandora's box of rationality which includes the ability to make choices.
[Because He is Perfect, the 'end' result of all this, can only-be the best-one-possible.]
God, surely, is only able to be honest, so there was that tree in the garden.. ("why was the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden?")
Since He iS life, he lives through, suffers and experiences aLL sufferings which ever occur! Why would he put himself through all that? Because he's not creating robots or an ant farm, but His very own family, and an un-breakable paradise/perfection. Un-breakable, because the full understanding of good from evil (life from nonlife!) will be deeeeply, i believe, engraved upon eveRy heart, mind and psyche. The full knowledge that one simply cannot walk away from God/Life/Perfection in any teeny tiny way, for to do so can only ever result in a self destructive puff of smoke. Can't be done. Don't do it. Why bother. "Apocalypse" in its modern definition of collapse, is the unveiling of truth.
With thinking ability, sooner or later someone was bound to think, do we really have to do everything the way God says..? Or we'd be robots or an ant farm.
The question all this ended with, and which came to me in conclusion, was "Why did God wait so very long, and only create the universe and man&woman, not onlyafter the first bound to occur rebel thought occurred, but after that thought had matured into outright rebellion, sedition and trickery? Surely He knew what would occur?" - Of course He did! What patience! It seemed plain, how He waited a very long time.. what with there being 'only' the Father, the Son and the angels.. surely there wasn't that much to go astray about!
Why did He wait so long? So aLL would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together, at once.. Or one would stray now.. another later.. and another later.. and on and on, taking virtually 'for ever'..
those were the answers i received that day.. I believed in UR before. But after those answers, insights, I knew that I knew, that I knew.. What peace!! all the pieces fit together, a total picture.. my socks are still knocked off. He is utterly Perfect. Everything is perfect, because it is all accomplishing His end/plan/blueprint/utter-perfection.
:Peace2: :Peace2: :smile:
EZEKIEL 28:13
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
EZEKIEL 28:14
14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:15
15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
EZEKIEL 28:16
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:17
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Take these verses as one in context. The numbers to the verses were added later. It is one story about this same "Covering Cherub". Now I don't see Covering Cherub in vs.7 either, it could mean that. But in these verses it does say Cherub.
Again... these kings of Babylon and Tyre had never been in Eden or the Holy Mountain of God. The Cherub had. Now lets look at the Isaiah verses.
ISAIAH 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
ISAIAH 14:13
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
ISAIAH 14:14
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
ISAIAH 14:15
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
ISAIAH 14:16
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Now I would agree the "hell" in this context is possibly neither an eternal destination or complete destruction "to the vanishing point".
I believe in this context hell is possibly the grave and the pit is a holding cell. That doesn't mean I'm ready to say there is no hell as a temporary place of torment and punishment. I dont believe that is an eternal place, because there is only one source of eternal life and thats God but the scriptures do quote the spirits that spoke to Jesus as saying; "have you come to torment us before the appointed time". So that sounds like a period of torment for some at least. Exactly what that means I don't think anyone knows. But that's a whole other issue. Back to this one, according to the scriptures the devil gets let out of the pit at some time in the future as so do some other creatures, so it is more like a holding cell where they put prisoners before judgement.
Isaiah uses the name Lucifer, and both Isaiah and Ezekiel say this one will be cast to the ground or the pit, and people will see them being defeated in their shame. Here Lucifer "did weaken the nations" and will be cast into the pit. In Revelation, Satan is cast into the pit...(Rev. 20:3) and when he is let out of the pit 1000 years later (Rev 20:7), the first thing he does is go out to "deceive the nations".
Looks like the same person doing the same things to me, just my opinion though.
Brother, I would read the provided article if were you...
Quote from: Seth on December 05, 2014, 11:21:46 PM
Brother, I would read the provided article if were you...
True, no where in the bible does it say hell is going to be eternal. The words "everlasting" or the phrase "for ever and ever" are both speaking of a period of time. They do not speak of eternity. That is what the White Throne judgement is going to be for. Every case will be carefully decided individually. There is no unmerciful God that throws every sinner into a hell of eternal torment as though they were all the same. The hardest thing every great move of God had to deal with, was for the movement to hold its head above all the fanaticism that followed it. I believe Martin Luther said that.
I am not qualified to say what it is completely, maybe no one is at this time. It do beleive it appears to be a place of temporary punishment for some and possibly a complete destruction "to the vanishing point" for others. But a place of eternal torment...I just don't see that.
But, like I said I'm not an expert on the subject either.
One of the things the article points out is that lucifer is not a name in the first place. You quoted Ezekiel and Isaiah, prophecies laden with metaphor. A metaphor is symbolism which does not use the term "like." So, when the prophecy aimed at a king, says "you are fallen from heaven" in simile form it would be "you are like one who has fallen from heaven." That's the very nature of a metaphor. It's like when Jesus said that he lays down his life for his sheep, that is a metaphor. The simile version would be "the people I lay my life down for are like my sheep."
I don't take the "thou" in Isaiah and Jeremiah to be directed to anyone other than it says it is directed to: the king. If the prophecy was addressed to Satan himself, then the "thou" statements would be about him. But I don't take the address of the prophecy to be completely different just because it incorporates metaphors. It's one thing to make that leap, as the church does, and it's another to make it a matter of official doctrine. I stop short of the latter.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 05, 2014, 11:05:42 PM
EZEKIEL 28:13
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
EZEKIEL 28:14
14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:15
15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
EZEKIEL 28:16
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
EZEKIEL 28:17
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Take these verses as one in context. The numbers to the verses were added later. It is one story about this same "Covering Cherub". Now I don't see Covering Cherub in vs.7 either, it could mean that. But in these verses it does say Cherub.
Again... these kings of Babylon and Tyre had never been in Eden or the Holy Mountain of God. The Cherub had. Now lets look at the Isaiah verses.
ISAIAH 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
ISAIAH 14:13
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
ISAIAH 14:14
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
ISAIAH 14:15
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
ISAIAH 14:16
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
Now I would agree the "hell" in this context is possibly neither an eternal destination or complete destruction "to the vanishing point". I believe in this context hell is merely the grave and the pit is a holding cell. That doesn't mean I'm ready to say there is no hell as a temporary place of torment and punishment. I dont believe that is an eternal place, because there is only one source of eternal life and thats God but the scriptures do qoute the spirits that spoke to Jesus as saying; "have you come to torment us before the appointed time". So that speaks for itself. Take it or leave it. But that's a whole other issue. Back to this one, according to the scriptures the devil gets let out of the pit at some time in the future and so are some other creatures, so it is more like a holding cell where they put prisoners before judgement.
Isaiah uses the name Lucifer, and both Isaiah and Ezekiel say this one will be cast to the ground or the pit, and people will see them being defeated in their shame. Here Lucifer "did weaken the nations" and will be cast into the pit. In Revelation, Satan is cast into the pit...(Rev. 20:3) and when he is let out of the pit 1000 years later (Rev 20:7), the first thing he does is go out to "deceive the nations".
Looks like the same person doing the same things to me, just my opinion though. Study to shown thine own self approved. Decide for yourself.
My friend as long as you continue to emphasize this word "lucifer" as your doctrine foundation, I cannot engage. You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel. My :2c: Very good Seth :dsunny:
Quote from: Seth on December 05, 2014, 11:59:12 PM
One of the things the article points out is that lucifer is not a name in the first place.
Yes, I've wondered a thing or two about that myself. It does mean "light bearer" or "shining one" which both sound more titles than names. The scriptures do say Lucifer was the cherub in the garden that was cast out as "profane". Satan is said to be the "Old Serpent" I believe that creature was a man, not a snake. Whether both Lucifer and Satan were the names of the spirit using the man who was referred to as the Serpent or they were just titles, or...one was for the man and the other for the spirit is a little confusing to say the least. The main orthodox thinking of course is that the name Lucifer was the name of the angel before it fell and had it's name changed to Satan at that time. I'll go with that one, not because it's the most commonly held view but it's what looks the most likely to myself at this time anyway.
A snippet from the article:
Even such an eminent translator as Rotherham seemed to follow the Septuagint in this verse, however, from his comments within parenthesis, it is clear that he was fully aware of the fact that whatever this word meant, it was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:
"How has thou (Babylon—see context) fallen from heaven, O Shining One (O howl)—Son of the Dawn! (Babylon conspicuous as Venus). Hewn down to the earth, O crusher of nations."
Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven (as conspicuous as Venus, the brightest star of the morning) in her wealth, power, and glory. Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."
Next I will list the King James renderings of the word that is found in the "Hebrew" texts and transliterations of its various forms in every occurrence in the entire KJV Bible. Now you can be the judge. In all Hebrew or Aramaic texts of Isa. 14:12, the only word found is "heh-lehl," eill, which is a form of the Hebrew stem "yah-lahl," ill, meaning howl. Here is Kittel's Hebrew Text for the Hebrew Stem ill—"yah-lahl"—HOWL:
Isa. 13:6 eiliu Howl ye
Isa. 14:31 eili Howl
Isa. 15:2 iilil shall howl
Isa. 15:3 iilil shall howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil Howl
Isa. 16:7 iilil shall howl
Isa. 23:1 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:6 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 23:14 eililu Howl ye
Isa. 52:5 eililu make to howl
Isa. 65:14 eililu shall howl
Jer. 4:8 ueililu Howl
Jer. 25:34 eililu Howl
Jer. 47:2 ueill and shall howl
Jer. 48:20 eilili Howl
Jer. 48:31 ailil will I howl
Jer. 48:39 eililu They shall howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 49:3 eilili Howl (Howl ye)
Jer. 51:8 eililu howl
Ezek.30:2 eililu Howl ye
Hos. 7:14 iililu They howled
Joel 1:5 ueililu And howl
Joel 1:11 eililu howl
Joel 1:13 eililu And shall be howlings
Amos 8:1 ueililu and howl
Micah 1:8 uailile howl ye
Zeph. 1:11 aililu Howl
Zech.11:2 eill howl
Zech.11:2 eililu howl
Isa. 14:12 eill Lucifer (??)
I don't believe one has to be a Hebrew scholar to see at a glance that "Lucifer" is totally out of place in this list. The meaning of this word is clear; eill is a verb that means "HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 12:13:38 AM
You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel.
True, I gave two examples of a cherub which is a type of angel being in the garden and the holy mountain and "Lucifer" as the "son of the morning" that fell from heaven. The two are not directly tied together here without some interpretation. But if you add Revelations where the Dragon who's tail cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth and is also cast down himself who is Satan...Then I'd say whether these are just titles or names you are talking about the same person. Still it is a little questionable with the scriptures we have to work with, so I will agree you have a valid point.
To TheVisitor, could you please tell me where your thoughts of "trees" and "lucifer" originated? I ask because I myself at one time looked into the "tree" teaching from articles and material I had read. As for your "lucifer" thinking well I do not believe you have much to go on to back it up but as EW said, other than, interpretation. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: micah7:9 on Today at 12:13:38 AM
You must first establish two witness's in scripture and you have not as yet shown one scripture and verse for your thought that lucifer was an angel.
True, I gave two examples of a cherub which is a type of angel being in the garden and the holy mountain and "Lucifer" as the "son of the morning" that fell from heaven. The two are not directly tied together here without some interpretation. But if you add Revelations were the Dragon who's tail cast 1/3 of the stars to the earth and is also cast down himself who is Satan...Then I'd say whether these are just titles or names you are talking about the same person. Still it is a little questionable with the scriptures we have to work with, so I will agree you have a valid point.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger.
You should do more research on your "lucifer" you have absolutely no evidence to tie the dragon to "lucifer" and satan(which is not a proper noun but means adversary)
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 12:23:56 AM
It was referring to none other than the context of these verses which is Babylon and not Satan:
Clearly the reference is to Babylon and none other. It was Babylon which was exalted to heaven...Yet just as Capernaum, God says she is brought down to the earth, the one who was a "crusher of nations."
"HOWL", and not a noun than can be twisted into a personal name such as "lucifer"!
Ok, good points...both of you. I will concede there is a lot of evidence that Lucifer is not a name and Babylon was thrown down like Capernaum. But, there is also a precedent in the scriptures for calling a person a city, especially a city they represent or are closely connected with. The Bride, the Lamb's wife is called New Jerusalem when it appears as a bride adorned for her husband. So with this in mind it is possible the same thing is going on here. Satan can be referred to as the king of Babylon while suffering a similar fate as that city by being cast down from heaven.
But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place
Ezekiel 28
The word of the Lord came again to me, saying, 2 "Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, 'Thus says the Lord God,
"Because your heart is lifted up
And you have said, 'I am a god,
I sit in the seat of gods
In the heart of the seas';
Yet you are a man and not God,
Although you make your heart like the heart of God—
3 Behold, you are wiser than Daniel;
There is no secret that is a match for you.
4 "By your wisdom and understanding
You have acquired riches for yourself
And have acquired gold and silver for your treasuries.
We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.
Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."
From Isaiah
But you said in your heart
'I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol,
To the recesses of the pit.
16 "Those who see you will gaze at you,
They will ponder over you, saying,
'Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
So the context here, again is of a man who God used to shake the kingdom of Israel, then he would turn his wrath from Israel to the king of Babylon. Why? For becoming proud. For thinking he can be ASCENDING to heaven. This is not addressed to someone who already was in heaven, in actuality but that is what he said to himself to "have his heart lifted up" to a high place. But his destiny would be a man, who will instead fall into the grave to be eaten by worms.
"For dust thou are and To dust you shall return"
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place...
That's where it gets a little tricky. I believe it is talking to the man, but its also talking to or about the spirit in the man. At least in type.
I believe this speaks of the rebellion. In Isaiah 14:13 where it says;
"I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" this refers to the same stars spoke of in Job 38:7
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" This is what Satan wanted to rule over. He was allowed to attend these meetings even after the fall. Job 1:6
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them."Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.
Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."
And I totally agree the first part is talking to the man. And possibly being a little sarcastic. The first 12 verses. You did a good job of separating that out.
But then the second part from verse 13-16 is obviously not talking about a man.
EZEKIEL 28:13-16
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. This part is not sarcastically calling a man a Cherub, this is referring to or speaking to the actual Cherub the man is somehow tied to in type at least.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 01:56:56 AM
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
But it's not addressed to Satan in the first place...
That's where it gets a little tricky. I believe it is talking to the man, but its also talking to or about the spirit in the man.
This speaks of the rebellion. To "raise my throne above the stars of God" refers to the same ones in Job 38:7
" When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" This is what Satan wanted to rule over.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
We have here a clue as to why God uses the terminology of falling from heaven. The only reason he must fall from heaven is to show him "yet you are a man." Realizing that he is only a man is how the king falls from heaven, metaphorically speaking.
Essentially, God is being sarcastic with him like Elijah was being sarcastic with the prophets of Ba'al. In modern parlance it would be like saying, "you think you are a god, not a man? Well,you are about to fall from heaven. Your heart is lifted up, but I will make you fall and crash to the ground, Mr. Cherub."
And I totally agree the first part is talking to the man. And possibly being a little sarcastic. The first 12 verses. You did a good job of separating that out.
But then the second part from verse 13-16 is obviously not talking about a man.
EZEKIEL 28:13-16
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
This part is not sarcastically calling a man a Cherub, this is referring to or speaking to the actual Cherub the man is somehow tied to in type at least.
IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam imo. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine, and that is yours to do, but I speak somewhat boldly, a good many of the servants on this forum have studied and are not swayed by unsound doctrine and teaching; you friend have offered speculation and interpretation as to what you believe....I do not believe you gain much ground. But that is just my opinion. :HeartThrob: :dsunny:
I am glad that at least we agree that the address of the prophecy is to a man. As far as anything else that is inferred beyond what is actually written, I take it as unsupported. That's my own view of it. It's a hypothesis, but not a proved one, to me. You and I can both prove with the text that it's addressed to a man, but neither of us can prove beyond hypothesis that it is addressed to anyone or anything else. I am not against hypothesizing, but I don't think it should be taught as a matter of solid doctrine like the church does.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 02:24:57 AM
IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine.
No Adam is not a Cherub. The verses from Ezekiel 13-16 don't use the word man one time. It plainly says there was a Cherub in the garden. And No, I am not sticking to any "doctrine" I am repeating the words straight from the book.
This is a really good article if any one cares to read it
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/sep2006/green.pdf
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 02:38:39 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 02:24:57 AM
IF your assumption has any validity at all then the "man" you are referring to would be Adam. Sir, it seems you are sticking with your doctrine.
No Adam is not a Cherub. The verses from Ezekiel 13-16 don't use the word man one time. It plainly says Cherub.
And No, I am not sticking to any "doctrine" I am repeating the word straight from the book.
Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy? The prophecy is indeed referring to a man. God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? I see no reason why God wouldn't refer to a man as a cherub when speaking metaphorically. And again, the prophecy is literally addressed to a man, and nowhere does God tell Ezekiel to go out and prophecy to Satan himself. That is the unsupported idea.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:25:07 AM
I am glad that at least we agree that the address of the prophecy is to a man. As far as anything else that is inferred beyond what is actually written, I take it as unsupported. That's my own view of it. It's a hypothesis, but not a proved one, to me. You and I can both prove with the text that it's addressed to a man, but neither of us can prove beyond hypothesis that it is addressed to anyone or anything else. I am not against hypothesizing, but I don't think it should be taught as a matter of solid doctrine like the church does.
For my clarification, is your post addressed to me Micah?
No, to TheVisitor. I think we posted at the same time.
Quote from: rosered on December 06, 2014, 02:39:35 AM
This is a really good article if any one cares to read it
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/sep2006/green.pdf
I particularly found the comparisons to the language of Adam in Genesis to be very interesting.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AM
Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy?
I didn't, I thoroughly explained the dual nature of the scripture.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AMThe prophecy is indeed referring to a man.
Not entirely, but you seem to have quite an interest in limiting it to that.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AMGod said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 02:53:53 AM
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AM
Why isolate Ezekiel 13-16 from the rest of the prophecy?
I didn't I thoroughly explained the dual nature of the scripture.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AMThe prophecy is indeed referring to a man.
Not entirely, but you seem to have quite an interest in limiting it to that. I'm starting to get curious why.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 02:42:49 AMGod said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.
So they were gods in a SENSE. Exactly my point. If man can be a god in a sense, he certainly could be called a cherub in another sense.
You explained YOUR VIEW of the nature of Ezekiel/Isaiah prophecy being addressed to two sentient beings at once, I simply find that to be unsupported hypotheses in this case. Proof is in the eye of the beholder, but there is nothing in the prophecy to suggest to me that the prophets were speaking to anyone other than who God told them to speak to.
For my benefit alone Quote from: Seth on Today at 02:42:49 AM
God said to the judges of Israel "ye are gods." Did he mean that they were literally gods like him? ...
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.
Would you mind elaborating on the bold print? I am sometimes slow...thanks :dsunny:
If we look at the context of Psalm 82, it's that the judges of Israel were called gods because God is a judge. That was the manner in which they were gods. The comparison is set up from early in the psalm.
Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 03:00:28 AM
Would you mind elaborating on the bold print?
I'll have to let you chew on that one a while. I have to go, talk more later.
To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 03:19:13 AM
Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.
Well, apples and oranges are at least both fruit :winkgrin:
The use of the word cherub is specific to me in the sense that it refers to the king that the prophet was told to speak to. That is why you said "that's where it gets a little tricky" when I pointed out who the prophecy is addressed to.
Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all. You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.
The fact that the prophecy is addressed to a man is not tricky. The hypothesis that it is addressed to Satan as well? I agree that gets "tricky."
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 03:28:09 AM
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 03:19:13 AM
Could be "in a sense" God calling a man a Cherub. I understand that's your opinion, and thats OK.
In my opinion calling one that the Word comes to a god...is not the same thing. Apples and Oranges. The use of the word Cherub is too specific.
Well, apples and oranges are at least both fruit :winkgrin:
The use of the word cherub is specific to me in the sense that it refers to the king that the prophet was told to speak to. That is why you said "that's where it gets a little tricky" when I pointed out who the prophecy is addressed to.
Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all. You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.
The fact that the prophecy is addressed to a man is not tricky. The hypothesis that it is addressed to Satan as well? I agree that gets "tricky."
:happyclap:
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 03:28:09 AM
Yeah it's tricky when the Bible clearly says one thing, but we must infer something else in addition without the clear language to support it. In other words, if the Bible named two recipients of the prophecy message, it wouldn't be "tricky" at all.
You could just point to the verse, like I do when I point to the king of Babylon, explicitly named in the book.
No, actually you can't. The truth in the bible lies in proper context that is true. But not only proper context. It also lies between the lines. No amount of studying Greek or Hebrew words will reveal that to you. If one continues to limit the truth to what they can only see with their eyes, and not what he is writing upon your heart you will only see the rhema and not the true Logos of the Word.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 03:06:04 AM
If we look at the context of Psalm 82, it's that the judges of Israel were called gods because God is a judge. That was the manner in which they were gods. The comparison is set up from early in the psalm.
True, there is that but I wasn't talking only about those judges.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 03:00:28 AM
Yes, in a manner of speaking He did. Jesus said "you call the ones the Word came to gods and they were"...Like these prophets of old, the elect are attributes of God's own self. From the only eternal source of life. They were gods in that sense, Jesus said so.
Would you mind elaborating on the bold print? I am sometimes slow...thanks.
The prophets were "men of God" born with the Spirit seeing visions from their youth. They were gods. Jesus said so. The witch of Endor said so when she saw Samuel coming up out of the earth. Jesus said no man until His time was greater than John, but the least in His kingdom are greater than he. We have been given the power to become the Sons of God. Not will be, but now are. That makes us gods.
I hope that's enough of an explanation.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 03:25:39 AM
To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger
You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.
QuoteNo, actually you can't. The truth in the bible lies in proper context that is true. But not only proper context. It also lies between the lines. No amount of studying Greek or Hebrew words will reveal that to you. If one continues to limit the truth to what they can only see with their eyes, and not what he is writing upon your heart you will only see the rhema and not the true Logos of the Word.
If you are saying that I need to rely on another teacher to reveal truths which are beyond what is written as a matter of authoritative doctrine, I have to disagree. I want to communicate what I am and what I am not saying.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have interpretations and look for other possible layers of meaning. What I am saying is that I don't take those interpretations as essential doctrine. Is Jesus the Son of God? Yes, because the Bible says so. We don't have to wonder. That is why we don't have lengthy discussions on whether he is the Son of God. In my opinion, it would be illegitimate to disagree on that point because it is so clear.
But with the traditional teaching of Lucifers fall, I find there is legitimate reason to disagree. That's not to say that I don't respect the fact that someone might interpret it to be, but to me it remains an unproved hypothesis, and therefore not something I take as an essential doctrine. I don't even believe it is intrinsic to the gospel message.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 09:37:29 AM
But with the traditional teaching of Lucifer's fall, I find there is legitimate reason to disagree. That's not to say that I don't respect the fact that someone might interpret it to be, but to me it remains an unproved hypothesis, and therefore not something I take as an essential doctrine. I don't even believe it is intrinsic to the gospel message.
Well said Seth. Where it comes to the traditional teaching of Lucifer's fall there is so little information it may be "safer" to stay in the literal wording for the most part. Before you can unlock most metaphors you do need some sort of baseline "this always means that" to reference from. Now in this case we can use Eden as a reference point in time. Since I don't believe either of those kings lifetimes went back to the time of Eden, it is a mater of simple logical deduction and taking the Word at face value to say they were not the Cherub that was said to be there. Your use of a possible reverse metaphor calling a man who could not possibly have been there a Cherub would seem to be much more unlikely and more of a hypothesis to me. Loosely calling a man a god like those judges were over the people is a long way from being the same thing as using a specific definition such as a covering cherub. In this case I do not believe I am the one making the case for an unproved hypothesis. This puts me on the "safer" side of literal wording on this one small part, but the rest of my previous statement about the dual nature of the kings I would agree is just speculation at this point.
QuoteSince I don't believe either of those kings lifetimes went back to the time of Eden, it is a mater of simple logical deduction and taking the Word at face value to say they were not the Cherub that was said to be there.
Yet I believe I am taking the scripture at face value by saying that the prophecy is spoken to one person only, and therefore the imagery to follow works naturally as metaphors work throughout not only the Bible but pretty much throughout literature itself. The very fact that we disagree shows that the language is not explicit as to the recipient of the prophetic message being Satan, and is therefore a matter of subjective thinking, not objective fact, to say that it was.
Basically, your subjective interpretation doesn't have to become my truth.
What Biblical literalists may or may not realize is that unless the scripture says "this is meant to be taken literally" the assumption of a literal meaning is a subjective analysis. That's fine and dandy to me. We all have our approaches. If the scripture said "thou hast been in Eden, and that should be taken literally" then it's no longer a subjective analysis, but an objective fact as to the intended meaning. If you interpret the Eden reference as literal, you are doing so subjectively. I take it subjectively to be a metaphor. However, my interpretation allows me to take Ezekiel 28:12 at face value when it says, "take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus."
Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that, your literal interpretation has caused you not to take that verse at face value, but to add a concept to the verse not found in the actual words. That is why I say that one person's interpretation does not have to be another person's truth.
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that...
The verse doesn't have to say that specifically. There is a principle that may be in effect here that would explain this. "To have authority one must be under authority" For example the case with the Centurion. If in a hierarchy the ruler decrees this or that to be done, those under such authority are not even named. It is written the ruler decreed and it was so. In this case by talking to the king of Tyre he could be referring to the powers above him giving him his authority, in this case Satan.
Just a thought. Subjective, objective...? A little of both...? You're ideas on this are just as valid as mine though. I would agree not doctrine material.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 03:25:39 AM
To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger
You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.
Strong's Cherub H3742 Of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure
Young's Cherub .... one grasped; held fast
I find that BDB defines cherub as how the word is used.
Cherub does not mean messenger and I did not say that. And whether one uses a small "a" or a large "A" and angel whether OT and NT is a messenger, yes a minister as well, but not a cherub.
I have found that most cherubs or cheribum were "man made- fashioned" others were seen in visions. There is a heavenly host, but I found no heavenly angels.
Perhaps google would give me a better insight than the Bible? The verses below speak volumes.... you have the cherub and you have the devil..
Eze 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 06:37:06 PM
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 06, 2014, 03:25:39 AM
To TheVisitor,I must refrain to my post #60....for some clarification, since you did not answer.
What is a cherub? What is a "type" of angel? And angel, although most fain from using it properly is a messenger
You must have meant refrain from using it properly. Sure it means messenger. And in that definition an angel (small "a") is just a man with a message from God such as a minister. But as far as heavenly Angels go you could probably do a google to find out what different "types" there are and what the definition of Cherub is. They could tell you better than I. I don't claim to be an expert in that area. I doubt most of the currently living are either.
Strong's Cherub H3742 Of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure
Young's Cherub .... one grasped; held fast
I find that BDB defines cherub as how the word is used.
Cherub does not mean messenger and I did not say that. And whether one uses a small "a" or a large "A" and angel whether OT and NT is a messenger, yes a minister as well, but not a cherub.
I have found that most cherubs or cheribum were "man made- fashioned" others were seen in visions. There is a heavenly host, but I found no heavenly angels.
Perhaps google would give me a better insight than the Bible? The verses below speak volumes.... you have the cherub and you have the devil..
Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
I love the descriptives in Ezel 1 and Eze 10 of just what the Cherub ''represents '' or is symbolic for Gods presence
I find everything of God amazing because I was looking into those things right before this this very post
and the reason was in Hebrews , when I was reading about them I found it really odd that whomever wrote Hebrews mentions the cherubim refer to something briefly and without going into detail.
saying exactly that !! cherubim hebrews 9 ;5
Above the ark were the
cherubim of the Glory,
overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
they seem to be like the covering of the many veils of a diadem [Isaiah 3 ] and if you look at the word diadem in Revelation 19 11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire,
and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
It gets really interesting and mysterious when you see them used in Rev 12 as the satan / adversary NET Glossary: in the Old Testament this refers to the inscribed plate that was tied to the turban of the high priest (Exod 29:6); in the New Testament it refers to a jeweled crown or headband worn as a symbol of sovereignty (e.g., Rev 12:3; 13:1: 19:12)
Diadem [EBD]
the tiara of a king (Ezek. 21:26; Isa. 28:5; 62:3); the turban (Job 29:14). In the New Testament a careful distinction is drawn between the diadem as a badge of royalty (Rev. 12:3; 13:1; 19:12) and the crown as a mark of distinction in private life. It is not known what the ancient Jewish "diadem" was. It was the mark of Oriental sovereigns. (See CROWN.)
Diadem [NAVE]
DIADEM.
Ezek. 21:26.
DIADEM [SMITH]
What the "diadem" of the Jews was we know not. That of other nations of antiquity was a fillet of silk, two inches broad, bound round the head and tied behind. Its invention is attributed to Liber. Its color was generally white, sometimes, however, it was of blue, like that of Darius; and it was sown with pearls or other gems, (Zechariah 9:16) and enriched with gold. (Revelation 9:7) It was peculiarly the mark of Oriental sovereigns. In (Esther 1:11; 2:17) we have cether for the turban worn by the Persian king, queen or other eminent persons to whom it was conceded as a special favor. The diadem of the king differed from that of others in having an erect triangular peak. The words in (Ezekiel 23:15) mean long and flowing turbans of gorgeous colors. [CROWN]
DIADEM [ISBE]
DIADEM - di'-a-dem: There are seven Bible references to the diadem, four in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. The Hebrew words do not mark any clear distinctions.
(1) tsaniph, tsanoph, tsaniphah (all from tsanaph, primarily "to wrap," "dress," "roll") mean a headdress in the nature of a turban or piece of cloth wrapped or twisted about the head. The word is also rendered "hood," "mitre." Job 29:14: "My justice was as a robe and a diadem" (RVm, "turban"); Isa 62:3: "a royal diadem in the hand of thy God."
(2) tsephirah, means "a crown," "diadem," i.e. something round about the head; Isa 28:5 "a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people."
(3) mitsnepheth, means an official turban or tiara of priest or king, translated also "mitre." Ezek 21:26: "Remove the mitre, and take off the crown."
(4) diadema, the Greek word in the New Testament for "diadem," means "something bound about the head." Found 3 t, all in Rev 12:3: "a great red dragon .... and upon his heads seven diadems" (the King James Version "crowns"); Rev 13:1: "a beast .... and on his horns ten diadems"; 19:11,12: "a white horse .... and upon his head are many diadems."
Its about the true Heavenly priesthood and the false one in the earth that Jesus comes to destroy
oddly enough the Cherub have the ''form of a mans hand under their wings ?
Acts 17 ...24"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25
nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
took up some of it and put it into the hands of the man in linen, who took it and ...
in the great day, the earth, and all the works that are therein, will be burnt up. ... 8The cherubim appeared to have the form of a man's hand under their wings.
I wonder if the adversity/satan of lies is the works of mens hands against the Son of Mans Hand power and He is doing the works though the Cherubim of Glory coving the mercy seat
all the works of mens hands will be burned up the wood , hay and straw and the gold and such will be tested as by fire
1 Corth 3 ;12...11For no man can lay a foundation
other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire,
and
the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work....I found this an interesting read http://bible-mythbusters.com/cherub-cherubim-seraphim.html
I sure do not understand it all , just some bits and pieces of the Whole
and it is quiet the mystery to me
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 06, 2014, 05:42:44 PM
Quote from: Seth on December 06, 2014, 11:52:56 AM
Your literalist interpretation of verse 13, however, means that verse 12 cannot be taken at face value because a face value reading of that verse would have to be, "take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus....and Satan." Since the verse does not say that...
The verse doesn't have to say that specifically being subject to a common principle; "To have authority one must be under authority" Jesus showed this to be the case with the Centurion. If in a hierarchy the ruler decrees this or that to be done, those under such authority are not even named. It is written the ruler decreed and it was so. In this case by talking to the king of Tyre he is automatically referring to the powers above him giving him his authority, in this case Satan.
MATTHEW 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].
All above is your interpretation. You have admitted such. Like I said, your interpretation does not have to be my truth.
Yeah, I had to change a little of the wording of my last post after some time to think.
I would agree this is just one persons interpretation and yours is as valid as mine in that effect.
I haven't been keeping up with the thread because I'm not interested in debating if trees are people or "angels," and I think the figurative vs. literal thing is a matter of personal perspective that is not just about milk vs. meat. I tend to interpret more literally, and I don't believe in pre-Adamic humans. I just read through the thread, and I think Rose brought up a good point in Reply #42 about "Lucifer" which is just another example of the deception of orthodoxy supported by forgery in the translation of scripture. "Lucifer" is used once in the King James Version as an intentional mistranslation of the Hebrew for "howl" (Isaiah 14:12). The same exact Hebrew word is translated "howl" in the King James Version in (Zechariah 11:2). (See the attachments.) Variations of the word are in (Isaiah 13:6; 14:31; 15:2,3; 16:7; 23:1,6,14; 52:5; 65:14). The idea that Satan is a fallen "angel" named "Lucifer" is a lie. There are a few verses used to try to prove the so called "fall of Satan" that is not in scripture. Ezekiel refers to the king of Tyre not Satan (Ezekiel 28:15). The king of Tyre is a man, and Satan is not a man (Ezekiel 28:2,9). Isaiah refers to the King of Babylon in the future day of Israel's restoration not Satan's fall in the past (Isaiah 14:3-20). Then Satan will have been cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:9). The King of Babylon is a man (Isaiah 14:16), and Satan is not a man. Luke refers to Satan's action in response to the casting out of demons in Christ's name not the so called "fall of Satan" (Luke 10:18). "From the beginning is the Adversary sinning." (1 John 3:8) "He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44) Satan, the Adversary, has been the chief messenger of evil from the beginning, but he will not torture the majority of mankind in fire forever. God is operating all according to his will (Ephesians 1:11); God controls Satan (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6); and Satan will eventually lose his power (1 Corinthians 15:24) because Christ's blood on the cross reconciles all on earth and in the heavens to God (Colossians 1:20) who will ultimately be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hey Tom (with a cleat of humor) where did you get your information? Could it be from the Bible? :2c:
good guess
Psalm 1:2
But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers.
Ezekiel 47:12 By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing."
Rev 22:2 On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Isaiah 50:4 The Lord God has given me the tongue of the learned,
that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary:
he wakens morning by morning,
he wakens mine ear to hear as the learned.
Isaiah 61:3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.
I loved this....... Beautiful....
Isaiah 50:4 The Lord God has given me the tongue of the learned,
that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary:
he wakens morning by morning,
he wakens mine ear to hear as the learned.
Quote from: eaglesway on December 07, 2014, 04:03:31 AM
Isaiah 61:3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.
Trees of righteousness. Thank you eaglesway. I think this got a little sidetracked for a while but this returns me back to the reason for my opening this topic. The point here was not meant to prove the bible speaks of people as trees. That part is irrefutable. My original message was "why" are we being planted as theses trees of righteousness. In the kingdom on earth that is now being set up in the hearts of His people, Jesus the second Adam is restoring everything back that the first Adam lost. That first Eden was a seventh day. A rest. And this seventh day that's upon us now is also His day of rest. The first Eden had its trees with their good fruits teaching the world of His righteousness. He is restoring us back to all that was lost. He repaired the breach of sin that has since Adam separated man from God. We will never forget where He drew us from, how He saved us and redeemed us. After a thousand years of that new heaven on earth, the adversary will be turned loose again to roam the garden. I don't believe Eve will listen his time to the lies, because she will be fortified by His Word having her senses exercised in the discernment of good and evil. This time she'll be waiting and ready for the assault to come...
Are you saying we are to be headed back to the Eden of Genesis as the goal? I mean really....Why? The Lord God was finished with that work. He is moving forward. I am aghast! [I hope I spelled aghast properly]
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 07, 2014, 06:34:32 AM
Are you saying we are to be headed back to the Eden of Genesis as the goal? I mean really....Why? The Lord God was finished with that work. He is moving forward. I am aghast! [I hope I spelled aghast properly]
No, He was not finished. You're not getting the point. The Eden of Genesis never made it to the place He had intended for us to be. Adam and Eve never made it to immortality, they were never glorified in physical bodies. That process was interrupted. He is finishing what He started undeterred and back on track. When The Lord has spoken His Word on a matter nothing will stop it. This temporary detour has allowed Him to express His attribute as Savior, but all things work according to His good pleasure.
"No, He was not finished. You're not getting the point. The Eden of Genesis never made it to the place He had intended for us to be.
Are you kidding? I mean really.
" Adam and Eve never made it to immortality, they were never glorified in physical bodies." Now you are amazing me!
"That process was interrupted." You are saying that the Lord Almighty was INTERRUPTED, I just have to ask WHO OR WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE INTERRUPTED THE CREATOR?????
Please don't tell me it was a "fallen angel" a once bright and shinning angel who was REAL close and decided to usurp the ALL MIGHTY LORD GOD AND CREATOR.
What you are saying is that I AM screwed up or that His plan malfunctioned. You may not admit that, but that is what you are saying
" This temporary detour...." THIS TEMPOARY DETOUR are you kidding me!!!!!!
I am sorry if I have upset you. There is no reason to shout. We can read the small print too. No, I never meant we are going back to the same garden in Eden. This time His kingdom is to be set over all the earth. He said He went away to prepare for us a place. That we might have bodies like unto His glorious body. Adam stopped short of eating from the tree of life. Of obtaining immortality. Surely you don't deny this. The millennial reign with Christ and His Bride ruling the nations of the earth with a rod of iron. Surely you've heard of this too have you not. I never said Satan pulled anything over on The Lord. Of course not. I said clearly this was all part of his plan. Nothing has happened He did not allow. Why would you see a necessity to twist my words into something I did not say. I have painted here such a glorious picture of the promises set before us, and you seem to be bent on spray painting your graffiti on every frame. What makes you so angry?
"Adam shopped short of eating from the tree of life. Of obtaining immortality. Surely you don't deny this."
Adam NEVER stopped short of nothing......PERIOD!
"The Eden of Genesis never made it to the place He had intended for us to be."
This statement is yours and by saying that you are saying the Creator fell short of His goal. I take offence...surely.
"Adam and Eve never made it to immortality, they were never glorified in physical bodies. That process was interrupted."
This one as well. Just HOW was the process INTERRUPTED? Did you ever hear of Jesus Christ? Rev 13:8 And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.
And here is the one that really bothered me, "This temporary detour..."
WHAT detour do you speak of? The Creator NEEDED a detour? Please! Yeah you are cause me to be upset.
I am questioning my maturity by continuing to reply to your posts. At one time I sought argument and debate, but should I get a hold of myself, as I am now, I find any further conversation with this subject would put me jeaprody. He Is Risen :HeartThrob:
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 07, 2014, 08:08:33 AM
I am questioning my maturity by continuing to reply to your posts. At one time I sought argument and debate, but should I get a hold of myself, as I am now, I find any further conversation with this subject would put me jeopardy. He Is Risen :HeartThrob:
I certainly wouldn't want to be the cause of that. I don't claim everything I am saying is right. I believe there are parallels between Eden and the millennium to come. I don't deny they are just that. Parallels, types and shadows and metaphors. Even so, I think there may be something important to be gleaned from this. I hope you will continue to bear with me and join in on this topic as long as it is active.
IMO, it shouldn't be all that hard for mature believers to keep their differences on a level of conversation. No personal fault ought to be implied in the discussion of interpretive ideas and symbols. Even more substantial disagreements can be discussed without offense, if we are sharing rather than seeking to coerce or convince or justify ourselves.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 07, 2014, 06:20:03 AM
Quote from: eaglesway on December 07, 2014, 04:03:31 AM
Isaiah 61:3 To grant those who mourn in Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.
Trees of righteousness. Thank you eaglesway. I think this got a little sidetracked for a while but this returns me back to the reason for my opening this topic. The point here was not meant to prove the bible speaks of people as trees. That part is irrefutable. My original message was "why" are we being planted as theses trees of righteousness. In the kingdom on earth that is now being set up in the hearts of His people, Jesus the second Adam is restoring everything back that the first Adam lost. That first Eden was a seventh day. A rest. And this seventh day that's upon us now is also His day of rest. The first Eden had its trees with their good fruits teaching the world of His righteousness. He is restoring us back to all that was lost. He repaired the breach of sin that has since Adam separated man from God. We will never forget where He drew us from, how He saved us and redeemed us. After a thousand years of that new heaven on earth, the adversary will be turned loose again to roam the garden. I don't believe Eve will listen his time to the lies, because she will be fortified by His Word having her senses exercised in the discernment of good and evil. This time she'll be waiting and ready for the assault to come...
Depending who the second Eve(methaphoricly) is, I guess- since it is written that when he is released he will gather the nations once again to surround the saints, Gog and Magog, so somebody gets deceived.
Quote from: TheVisitor on December 07, 2014, 07:42:32 AM
I am sorry if I have upset you. There is no reason to shout. We can read the small print too. No, I never meant we are going back to the same garden in Eden. This time His kingdom is to be set over all the earth. He said He went away to prepare for us a place. That we might have bodies like unto His glorious body. Adam stopped short of eating from the tree of life. Of obtaining immortality. Surely you don't deny this. The millennial reign with Christ and His Bride ruling the nations of the earth with a rod of iron. Surely you've heard of this too have you not. I never said Satan pulled anything over on The Lord. Of course not. I said clearly this was all part of his plan. Nothing has happened He did not allow. Why would you see a necessity to twist my words into something I did not say. I have painted here such a glorious picture of the promises set before us, and you seem to be bent on spray painting your graffiti on every frame. What makes you so angry?
I apologize for my over sized print in my post, I understand how that comes across as shouting my mistake. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 07, 2014, 08:31:14 PM
I apologize for my over sized print in my post, I understand how that comes across as shouting my mistake. :HeartThrob:
That's OK. I regret I did not explain what I was trying to say clearly to avoid causing any confusion.
QuoteDepending on who the second Eve(metaphorically) is, I guess- since it is written that when he is released he will gather the nations once again to surround the saints, Gog and Magog, so somebody gets deceived.
I guess I am implying it would be the resurrected saints.
After looking back over my posts I feel a need to apologize. If some events were recorded only in metaphors, it was probably done that way for a reason. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone here. Thanks for all your input.