Tentmaker Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God's Richest Blessings!

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it the principle of sowing and reaping?

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

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

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

Which goes back to what EW said:

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

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

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

but this is just my opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?.

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

Which is He?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You hit the proverbial nail on the head!

D.

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

Amen brother

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

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

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

Quote from: jugghead on August 04, 2017, 03:22:58 PM
...sowed death for all unless YOU do something..... (ET) and those who sowed life for all because HE did something.....(UR)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: A-MEN!

Quote from: deeplyloved on August 03, 2017, 08:11:55 PM
In a debate recently, a claim made by a proponent of eternal torment, challenging a Christian Universaliist, was what was described as a parallelsm in Genesis 2:16-17

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

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

Greetings deeplyloved,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is not "the knowledge of the difference between good and evil," the very definition of a conscience (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conscience)?

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

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

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

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

You asked of the posters here:

Quote from: deeplyloved on August 03, 2017, 08:11:55 PM
....can someone share some perspective on these scriptures in light of the promises of the unchanging Love of the Father assured us as outlined in the New Covenant? Thanks!

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

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

It's called Creation Hymn (http://tentmaker.org/forum/humor-poems-songs-movies/creation-hymn/).

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 12, 2017, 07:31:24 PM
Edit: Quote removed to attain word limit but quote box retained to preserve the reference to what I'm responding to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marie glen on August 14, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately for this discussion that isn't true:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but this is just my opinion

   :thumbsup:

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

  SON BEING GLORIFIED AS GOD IS LOVE

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

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

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

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

THE WORD IS A FIRE   JER 23
  :HeartThrob:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   the TRUE MANNA FROM HEAVEN

           

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

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

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

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

This point is understood and well received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am deeply curious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be good!

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PM
Greetings deeplyloved!

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

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

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

This point is understood and well received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am deeply curious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be good!

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

Thanks for replying. :)

Jude

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

they have perished in Korah's rebellion.


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


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


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


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

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


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


Letting  the scriptures speak the truth here also


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


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


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


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


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

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



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

I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Why are so many not given  spiritual  discernment  ? 

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


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

Hosea 14:9

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

2 Samuel 14:17

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

Job 6:30

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

Isaiah 7:15

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

Leviticus 10:10

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

Proverbs 28:11

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

1 Samuel 16:7

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

Isaiah 11:3

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



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

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

1 Kings 3:9

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

Jeremiah 23:5

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

1 Corinthians 12:10

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

1 Corinthians 14:29

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

Proverbs 28:7

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

Hebrews 5:14

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

Romans 12:2

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

Psalm 119:66

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

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

Quote from: CST on August 25, 2017, 12:56:38 PM
I agree with you feelings about your thoughts, I have similar sources for my belief myself. I'll read your post more fully and try to respond if necessary later. Although you should know I am not deeplyloved, who you were responding to earlier but a different member CST.

Thanks for replying. :)

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

Quote from: Eleutheros

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

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

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

I am deeply curious.

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

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

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

Be good!

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PM
Greetings deeplyloved!

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

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

This point is understood and well received.

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

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

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PMWell, in response to this, I did locate and examine all the verses where a Hebrew word, not just the word mooth (die), is doubled for emphasis. This can be done by using the KJV and searching for every instance where the word "surely" occurs, then reading those verses in various translations. However, I could not discover if there were any instances were a word was doubled and the KJV did not translate it "surely (fill in the blank)." For instance the repetition of kaw-yaw' "live live" is translated in the KJV as "surely live" and in the CLV as "live, yea live."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PMSo, why do you say that you concluded, "... incorrectly, that the tree was called the tree of conscience?"

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

I am deeply curious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PMThere is a theory in anthropological studies of culture that says if a culture's language has no word for a concept, then the knowledge of that concept does not exist in that culture. For instance, "Telephone pole." If there is no word in a culture that represents that idea, an idea that would involve knowing about telephones, wires, electricity, etc., then "telephone poles" and the knowledge of all the things associated with that word do not exist in that culture, even abstractly. Or, more imaginatively explained, if a human culture existed for which there is no word for "war" then the knowledge of war, even abstractly, does not exist in that culture. Now wouldn't that be a grand thing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Eleutheros on August 24, 2017, 09:34:24 PMGoodness me! This is a most insightful and bold thing you've typed!

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

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

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

Be good!

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marie glen on August 14, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Quote from: CST on August 23, 2017, 12:55:15 PM
Hmm, I think you may be misrepresenting the law of entropy there somewhat. Not your fault I expect, your using it by analogy which an awful lot of people do and forgetting what it actually means, i.e. the tendency for energy to be 'used up' in a closed system (which science-based materialism takes the universe to be, God makes that proposition questionable)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marie glen on September 04, 2017, 11:18:23 PM

Quote from: marie glen on August 14, 2017, 12:15:46 AM
The best translation i've heard of it is "to die, you shall be dying"  :dontknow: it makes sense to me.. as that seems like what happened.. they died but not immediately.. but the process began right then.. It reminds me of the 2nd law of science.. the law of entropy.. yep! the years go by fast and the body slowly entropies.. law of sin and death.. imperfection being the opposite of life because God is life and perfection.

Quote from: CST on August 23, 2017, 12:55:15 PM
Hmm, I think you may be misrepresenting the law of entropy there somewhat. Not your fault I expect, your using it by analogy which an awful lot of people do and forgetting what it actually means, i.e. the tendency for energy to be 'used up' in a closed system (which science-based materialism takes the universe to be, God makes that proposition questionable)

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: marie glen on September 04, 2017, 11:25:07 PM
The second creation account in Genesis 2, I think serves as an insert.. the first account being of the ground as to the whole, the planet, but the second is of the garden.. and He had formed creatures before Adam, but after putting him in the garden, He also formed creatures like already formed, from the ground of the garden specifically, which He brought to Adam to be named before creating Eve, so that Adam exclaimed when seeing her "At last!" (A seed? to help man to appreciate woman? who, as a weaker version, would in the coming imperfection find herself most often dominated by man.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I believe actually happened is this.

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

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

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

It my speculative interpretation clear?

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

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

It my speculative interpretation clear?

  Hi CST ,
 
Good  and clear ..
    I can see that the  first Adam was spiritual , made in Gods image in Gen  1    making them  male and female  [ one   flesh in the spiritual  sense and be fruitful and multiply ]  It was in Genesis 2  that  God formed Adam out of the dust  of the earth  7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I realize that created     is  not the same ,  bring (something) into existence 

as  formed bring together parts or combine to create (something)  and than there is fashioned  somthing to make it a certain shape or form have many different aspects     to examine .


In Gen 2     we have  fashioned    the woman described as to  make into a particular or the required form.

His helper    , I am  curious as to why   Adam was put in a deep sleep or  a trance רָדַם râdam, raw-dam'; a primitive root; to stun, i.e. stupefy (with sleep or death):—(be fast a-, be in a deep, cast into a dead, that) sleep(-er, -eth).


  21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept;

then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

22 The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."  This is Adams quote    still naming  creation  .  and Given that authority  by God .

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

I  also wanted to bring up  your idea , that she  was present   when the warning   come to them both ,     but as I see it  , they were innocent   still , the both of them  as one flesh and One Spirit and yet , they would learn though the experience just what God   meant when  He warned them of the boundaries  God   gave  them to LIVE by   .

This trespass  ,error    to me is what caused sin to  enter in , because the serpent twisted the truth by  telling them  , they  would surly not die   , when God  said,   The  DAY , you eat of it you WILL surly die   .

I see this as   meaning their innocence   died ,   Because Jesus  is the innocent One sent[Lamb of God to take away the sin   or sins plural [of multiplying  evil of the whole world ] in their place to make things right again with Gods requirement of the Spiritual Law [LOVE ]   they had broken  to know good and evil though experience .

  Just a few   simple thoughts    about this subject...  Thanks it sure is stimulating  and thought provoking    posts  , all of you .

Quote from: rosered on September 06, 2017, 07:26:50 PM
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."  This is Adams quote    still naming  creation  .  and Given that authority  by God .

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

I  also wanted to bring up  your idea , that she  was present   when the warning   come to them both ,     but as I see it  , they were innocent   still , the both of them  as one flesh and One Spirit and yet , they would learn though the experience just what God   meant when  He warned them of the boundaries  God   gave  them to LIVE by   .

This trespass  ,error    to me is what caused sin to  enter in , because the serpent twisted the truth by  telling them  , they  would surly not die   , when God  said,   The  DAY , you eat of it you WILL surly die   .

I see this as   meaning their innocence   died ,   Because Jesus  is the innocent One sent[Lamb of God to take away the sin   or sins plural [of multiplying  evil of the whole world ] in their place to make things right again with Gods requirement of the Spiritual Law [LOVE ]   they had broken  to know good and evil though experience .

  Just a few   simple thoughts    about this subject...  Thanks it sure is stimulating  and thought provoking    posts  , all of you .

Yup, although  commentators I've seen tend to fixate more on when he renamed her 'Eve' perhaps because the name 'of Man' while somewhat putting hi s authority on her also reinforces the fact the she shares that authority with him by sharing him as as a root.

Saying that it means their innocence would die is true as a consequence but rather unsatisfactory in terms of what God said. It suggests that when they were made there was nothing more to them than their innocence. Thus 'You' and 'Your innocence' are equal to each other which I don't think is a fair assumption

QuoteYup, although  commentators I've seen tend to fixate more on when he renamed her 'Eve' perhaps because the name 'of Man' while somewhat putting hi s authority on her also reinforces the fact the she shares that authority with him by sharing him as as a root.

Saying that it means their innocence would die is true as a consequence but rather unsatisfactory in terms of what God said. It suggests that when they were made there was nothing more to them than their innocence. Thus 'You' and 'Your innocence' are equal to each other which I don't think is a fair assumption

Good  day brother CST ,  :dsunny:
  I had   written a reply to your post CST , but it became to long and  here and there   ,so I    decided not to use it .

As far as    being innocent[pure ]      , they were originally  made in Gods Image   in  chapter one of  Genesis  being spiritual

in  a bodily form  .  in my opinion as a [clay vessel ]was not fashioned till Gen 2   , I do not know by the scriptures how  long that lasted  before the Genesis  2 account  is . 

We can  tell by  the book of Job, being the oldest  book of the Bible even before the  books of law come though  the  Moses accounts   that the  serpent was in heaven   as the   singing  with the sons of God and Satan came along with them  , 


and other scriptures    , He was cast out of heaven and  ''  calling this power/spirit  of the prince of the air    [wisdom of the world ]   maybe ?

     I do believe however this is how the serpent    was able to tempt them  with a lie  causing their murder [death]

and death reigned [In Adam all die ]   till Moses   because the curses of God  come to all three of them  ,  being Adams curse was [for his sake ]

   the ground  would  be cursed   and  not produce    godly fruit  but briers and thorns and   would eat bread by the sweat of his brow  ,


and the   two  types of seed  from the  tree of knowledge of good and evil  ,

  would be the enemy  of each other      in the womb of Eve and  her desire would be for her husband .


and the serpent would be cursed of God more than any  beast of the field or  [world  Jesus called it  in His testimony ] on his belly eating the dust all the days of his life .

  sounds here like   even death would come to that serpent  in the end  doesn't it ?

and that one is turned over to satan for the destruction of the flesh  so in the Day of the Lord   their spirit shall be saved .




  And  then Adam and   Eve  were made   out  of the dust of the earth as in Gen 2   , as serpents food ?

There are more scriptures  about  this , but    I do not think it is fair to say it was   just innocence lost   either .

  There are  repercussions to disobedience  /rebellion     and  learning  them we will .  Gods judgments are in the earth

  Isaiah 26 ...8Indeed, while following the way of Your judgments, O LORD,

We have waited for You eagerly; Your name, even Your memory,

is the desire of our souls.

9At night my soul longs for You,

Indeed, my spirit within me seeks You diligently;

For when the earth experiences Your judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.


10Though the wicked is shown favor, He does not learn righteousness;

He deals unjustly in the land of uprightness, And does not perceive the majesty of the LORD....

Quote from: rosered on September 08, 2017, 09:18:51 PM

QuoteYup, although  commentators I've seen tend to fixate more on when he renamed her 'Eve' perhaps because the name 'of Man' while somewhat putting hi s authority on her also reinforces the fact the she shares that authority with him by sharing him as as a root.

Saying that it means their innocence would die is true as a consequence but rather unsatisfactory in terms of what God said. It suggests that when they were made there was nothing more to them than their innocence. Thus 'You' and 'Your innocence' are equal to each other which I don't think is a fair assumption

Good  day brother CST ,  :dsunny:
  I had   written a reply to your post CST , but it became to long and  here and there   ,so I    decided not to use it .

As far as    being innocent[pure ]      , they were originally  made in Gods Image   in  chapter one of  Genesis  being spiritual

in  a bodily form  .  in my opinion as a [clay vessel ]was not fashioned till Gen 2   , I do not know by the scriptures how  long that lasted  before the Genesis  2 account  is . 

We can  tell by  the book of Job, being the oldest  book of the Bible even before the  books of law come though  the  Moses accounts   that the  serpent was in heaven   as the   singing  with the sons of God and Satan came along with them  , 


and other scriptures    , He was cast out of heaven and  "  calling this power/spirit  of the prince of the air    [wisdom of the world ]   maybe ?

     I do believe however this is how the serpent    was able to tempt them  with a lie  causing their murder [death]

and death reigned [In Adam all die ]   till Moses   because the curses of God  come to all three of them  ,  being Adams curse was [for his sake ]

   the ground  would  be cursed   and  not produce    godly fruit  but briers and thorns and   would eat bread by the sweat of his brow  ,


and the   two  types of seed  from the  tree of knowledge of good and evil  ,

  would be the enemy  of each other      in the womb of Eve and  her desire would be for her husband .


and the serpent would be cursed of God more than any  beast of the field or  [world  Jesus called it  in His testimony ] on his belly eating the dust all the days of his life .

  sounds here like   even death would come to that serpent  in the end  doesn't it ?

and that one is turned over to satan for the destruction of the flesh  so in the Day of the Lord   their spirit shall be saved .




  And  then Adam and   Eve  were made   out  of the dust of the earth as in Gen 2   , as serpents food ?

There are more scriptures  about  this , but    I do not think it is fair to say it was   just innocence lost   either .

  There are  repercussions to disobedience  /rebellion     and  learning  them we will .  Gods judgments are in the earth

  Isaiah 26 ...8Indeed, while following the way of Your judgments, O LORD,

We have waited for You eagerly; Your name, even Your memory,

is the desire of our souls.

9At night my soul longs for You,

Indeed, my spirit within me seeks You diligently;

For when the earth experiences Your judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.


10Though the wicked is shown favor, He does not learn righteousness;

He deals unjustly in the land of uprightness, And does not perceive the majesty of the LORD....

Thank you, Rose.

I'm not convinced that being made in the image and likeness of God is a reference to their innocence or purity. God is indeed innocent but's that a very specific form of innocence which is connected to God's nature and I doubt can be reproduced or transferred. Also remember all the animals would be innocent to although they obviously aren't described as being made in the image and likeness of God.

I still hold that Genesis 1 and 2 tell they same story in slightly different ways. I'm not convinced Adam and Woman existed much before they were made vessels, although I allow that it's possible. But it doesn't seem to be what the Bible suggests when God breaths the 'breath of life' into everything, there isn't an individual breath of life for every spiritual being indeed when is says that God inspired the breath of life into Adam (the vessel) and he because a living soul (the man) it suggests that he didn't exist before then.

Be careful about recalling that Job is the oldest book in the Bible. That could just mean it's the book of the Bible we have the oldest extant text for.

Also be careful about taking it literally especially the Satan bits at the beginning given how he just vanishes from the text before the end.

Obviously the ground doesn't literally produce only briars and thorns or we'd all have starved by now. But it does produce an inconvenient lot of them that overrun the land, make it a challenge to cultivate and take a fair lot of the nutrients out of the soil.

I don't really have the time right now to go over how I interpret Genesis 2 and 3 beyond what I already have done, I do agree that what God says suggests the serpent will die, although there's nothing in Genesis to suggest there was every a time he wouldn't, Adam and Woman were the ones it seems needn't have died. I also agree the the text doesn't strongly suggest the serpent eats the dead, which makes it a good sounding candidate for the Devil.

But essentially you say you also agree that innocence was not all that was lost, so it appears we may actually be in agreement on that.

Quote from: Eleutheros on September 04, 2017, 05:14:28 PM
Mea culpa, CST. :doh: I shall endeavor to be more careful about whom I assign a quote!

And, if you are willing to invest the time, I would also like to hear your thoughts on my story Creation Hymn.
(http://tentmaker.org/forum/humor-poems-songs-movies/creation-hymn/)
Given what you've typed already, I think you would find it provocative.

Be good!

I have looked a bit at Creation Hymn now, although it's long so I've only really read the forward of which I am really fond of the essence of. :) However, I was less sure about the fragment of the Hymn I read. I find it provocative but perhaps not in the way you meant. You swiftly invoke the spiritual world order which the opening chapters of Genesis. And indeed much of the Bible is silent on. You suggest the were made prior to creation as described here which I think goes against what certainly Jews tend to believe. Certainly you can't draw such conclusions from the text of Genesis. But you state it with such certainty it doesn't really invite discussion beyond disagreement which I'm bothered about. Generally, I try to accept any interpretations of the Bible that don't contradict, the Bible itself or other more 'favourable' interpretation which they are both or all mutually exclusive. This is because, I value imagination as you reference in the forward and think that the greatest imagination in the Cosmos must belong to God.So if different interpretations can teach different things i have no trouble believing God might use them.

 

  Hi CST ,
   
  I was going by  a few   writings  about Job ,I had studied a bit  , long ago  ,   so your right , take everything with a grain of salt ..  it is an ongoing question   of proof .

  Is the book of Job the oldest book in the Bible?

The Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses) would have been written after the time of the Patriarchs,

so Job would be, by default, the oldest book in the Bible. ...

You'll be hard pressed to find another Old Testament book that does that and doesn't mention Jews or Hebrews at all."

I do believe the Bible speaks at times in a metaphorical language  , that we only have literal things to compare them to

  If you look at Adams "curse "  of briers and thorns  you can see  there is meaning  to this   in Hebrews 6 and throughout the bible   message

A Call to Maturity
...7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is tended receives the blessing of God.

8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless, and its curse is imminent.

In the end it will be burned.

9Even though we speak like this, beloved, we are convinced of better things in your case—of things that accompany salvation....
So I will leave this  for you to explain     and wait on your reply .
 
There is no true Wisdom but Gods   , everything else is a cut rate , for sure  and makes so many "give up "  searching for 
 
Truth   , some times the best we can do is wait in the Lord  for instruction .  I do believe it has been addressed  by some with good answers   already .

  I thank them for that  and yours as well.
    Be Blessed

As I understand, and I am aware my understanding may be limited, we have two ways we date texts of the Bible critically. One we carbon date the parchment and ink it's made from if we can, which will only give the date of the current copy, and two we try to date the text its self from speculative clues from the content like the writing and style involved which requires on correct assumptions being made.

If we assume the text is describing true history and is contemporary to what it describes than that helps to but I don't really think there's much detail in the Job text of who Job was, what race and society he came from and what time he lived in. I think he's generally taken to be Antediluvian but I'm not convinced there's hard and fast evidence for that. It is certainly probably the one story in the Bible that least needs to have any representation in historical reality.

Well, at least the Book of Job mentions God, as I recall the Book of Esther manages to avoid mention Him entirely.

Thanks, though I believe we have been supplied with some good answers too, I just wish I knew how to tell them apart from the bad ones.

 :2c:  re OP I think it has to do with..always learning butnever coming unto an accurate knowledge  of the truth[as it pertains to

  TOKOGAE]=death.[think wandering in the  wilderness 40 yrs]

an angel with the flaming sword guards the way unto the TOL..which has no condemnation or death in it....

   just life..with no accompanying 'curse'. you will not ever KNOW God fully from the TOKOGAE..a little evil spoils much good[only God

is good]   Tol in the midst of the garden=wisdom from above...flaming sword guarding it...is sword that comes from Jesus mouth...

      I have revealed your name unto the congregation.No one knows the Father but the son.

  death andlife was inthe midst of the garden..as we have allbornthe imageof the corrupt,so,too shall we all bear the imageof the

  incorrupt.  ALL THINGS ARE YOURS...DEATH AND LIFE...O'Death Ishall be thy plagues!

Quote from: CST on September 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PM

some good answers too, I just wish I knew how to tell them apart from the bad ones.

Wouldn't that be great!? I tend (because I'm a simple gal) to think along with the writer of Ecclesiastes "God made life simple, but man has many inventions" (paraphrased from memory, gulp :sigh: .. but to me goes along with the idea that truth is actually rather simple.. and we are the ones who tend to make it ever so complicated..
             :dontknow: :gsmile:

Quote from: marie glen on September 15, 2017, 05:57:52 AM

Quote from: CST on September 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PM

some good answers too, I just wish I knew how to tell them apart from the bad ones.

Wouldn't that be great!? I tend (because I'm a simple gal) to think along with the writer of Ecclesiastes "God made life simple, but man has many inventions" (paraphrased from memory, gulp :sigh: .. but to me goes along with the idea that truth is actually rather simple.. and we are the ones who tend to make it ever so complicated..
             :dontknow: :gsmile:

  Hi Sister Marie ,

  Yes   it   is ,when we try   to understand the things of GOD with our own minds  , it is  complicated and confusing even , but we know it is not God doing this  , but our own thoughts doing so  :HeartThrob:

But   we Thank God  for HIS  Holy Spirit to teach and comfort us and learn from Him .

1Cornt2


...9Rather, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him."


10But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit.


The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.


11For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him?


So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God....

There are a lot of powerful lessons to be learned , when  we step back and watch the  Holy  Spirit   move those mountains , shake  those foundations , waiting on the Lord to come ,

after the smoke clears when things have stopped happening and the results can be clearly seen .

If God is for us   , who can be against us ? [Romans 8 ] says  a lot  about that .

Trusting God  is an easy thing to say , but can be a difficult thing ''to   learn  ''  all things,  though those many  experiences  of life and death and   building and tearing down the  powers and principalities  in the high places   and the   strongholds  of our minds .


  :friendstu:

Quote from: sheila on September 15, 2017, 02:38:11 AM
[only God is good]

That, of course, is true but in shouldn't be taken out of context. Jesus was making a point, or several, when He said it. He knew full well that fact isn't much use in normal day-to-day conversation when people still need to able to make value judgments about things. I struggle to believe the knowledge of Good and Evil reduces to, Good: God, Evil: everything else, that doesn't seem very constructive.

Quote from: marie glen on September 15, 2017, 05:57:52 AM

Quote from: CST on September 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PM

some good answers too, I just wish I knew how to tell them apart from the bad ones.

Wouldn't that be great!? I tend (because I'm a simple gal) to think along with the writer of Ecclesiastes "God made life simple, but man has many inventions" (paraphrased from memory, gulp :sigh: .. but to me goes along with the idea that truth is actually rather simple.. and we are the ones who tend to make it ever so complicated..
             :dontknow: :gsmile:

Yeah, very simple. So simple that the Bible consists of X books, Y chapters and Z verses all dedicated to telling us that very simple Truth.

I tend towards the belief that everything is good except when Man uses it for Evil. That seems pretty 'simple' to me. After all God made everything and made it all Good, for He saw it was so and His word has revealed as much.

That said I'm not sure about Ecclesiastes, I hold it to be among the most complicated books in he Bible. It essentially opens by saying everything is worthless. If this were literally and absolutely true it would call into questions God's judgement in saving anything and the effort He went to to do so. Ecclesiastes has a special meaning speaking to a particular situation. It's not 'true' for every situation for all time. If I were I doubt there would be any resurrection and our faith would be as worthless as everything else.

I agree. Evil is often clothed in the guise of good, even within the mind of the perpetrator of evil.... evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. As God speaks light into the chaos of man's imperfection, bound by futility according to His design, all is vanity until the Day dawns and the morning star arises in our hearts.

I think of Eccleciasties as a OT reflection of the same sendiment as this verse by Paul:

7But whatever was an asset to me, I count as loss for the sake of Christ. 8More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith....

Phillippians 3:7 - 9

To cling to only that which is given to us by God and to be willing to let go of all else. A continuing reflection is needed, to cleanse our lives from the 'rubbish' and to recognize, rejoice in, and identify with only that which is sent to us by God.

Though we are nothing, if you look at it from what we are actually made of, physically, we are given our worth, because we were created and conceived in God's mind, and we are loved, yes, even cherished by Him, and made Holy by His grace, so only God truly gives us our worth. We can do nothing good without Him.

I think the key is what is God's will. When we use things in His will, they are used for good. The same thing can be used for evil, if it is not used in His will.

I think best to focus on doing good, instead of avoiding evil. And, doing good is simply being in God's will.

There is a song called "God and God alone" which I believe reflects what I am saying.

Here it is, sung by Daniel Rodriquez: https://youtu.be/L8SLFU7gtgc

D.

Quote from: CST on September 14, 2017, 05:34:54 PM
As I understand, and I am aware my understanding may be limited, we have two ways we date texts of the Bible critically. One we carbon date the parchment and ink it's made from if we can, which will only give the date of the current copy, and two we try to date the text its self from speculative clues from the content like the writing and style involved which requires on correct assumptions being made.

If we assume the text is describing true history and is contemporary to what it describes than that helps to but I don't really think there's much detail in the Job text of who Job was, what race and society he came from and what time he lived in. I think he's generally taken to be Antediluvian but I'm not convinced there's hard and fast evidence for that. It is certainly probably the one story in the Bible that least needs to have any representation in historical reality.

Well, at least the Book of Job mentions God, as I recall the Book of Esther manages to avoid mention Him entirely.

Thanks, though I believe we have been supplied with some good answers too, I just wish I knew how to tell them apart from the bad ones.

Hi CST ,

  I do think  you might be trying to hard to prove GODS WORD is true   so you can trust  in it  fully .

  This is only my opinion , but when you say things like , You  wish you knew how  to tell the good answers from the bad ones .


The perfect   and complete  interpretation by the action of explaining the meaning of   the scriptures  written   is a heart matter that Only God has the right to judge  in my opinion .

I do believe your struggle is real    , I do not doubt this at all   and a lot of people have  twisted the Truth to fit their own agenda  over the course of time and place  since the beginning  when the serpent   perverted the Truth  into a lie and shared it with Eve ,  the mother of all the living   and   she took a hold of it  by eating of  it  , to see if the serpent was lying or not  , because she did not believe God  did she ?
I say this ,because Adam and Eve are one flesh , how could  one not know without the other knowing also?

  But to me  you are just spinning your own wheels  in the  cog , so to speak in trying to  understand something only the Holy Spirit can teach you Himself   
  God promised us His Son and listen to Him in these last days   , He is the WORD made flesh  and it is by His Own Spirit will any of us learn  just what  the Truth  really is    by  staying connected   though  prayer to Him  , unless our motives are not  right  before Him  .

Than will we still hunger and  thirst     after God and never be  really filled or satisfied   with any answers  given .


 

For me, it is as simple as understanding "motive" (the reason something is done)

If our motive is for our own personal gain then it is of the flesh
If our motive is for the benefit of another then it is of the Spirit

It is understanding "it is better to give than to receive"

Giving with the motive to receive something in return is of the flesh
Giving with the motive of receiving nothing in return is of the Spirit

We give because that IS who we are "a giver" but if we give in order to receive something in return then who we are IS "a receiver" and being "a receiver", the truth of "I love receiving" is hidden inside the person while the words "I love giving" is said to the world

It is understanding that the words "I love giving" by someone who loves receiving becomes a shadow to his true self, they appear as light but to Him who knows the motives of the heart, those words are but a shadow of the Truth

Light can appear out of the darkness but until we actually become the word(s) that we speak (a giver) we remain in the darkness as "a receiver" not knowing who we are (we know not what we do) and not knowing who we are called to be (we do not know Christ), the veil has to be torn and only God can do that and only He knows the proper time.

God can wait to be loved because He knows He first has to make us into His image (that image being "Love"), only then can we love Him (and others) the way He loves us and others.

This body of flesh is not the image of God, it is just a shadow; it is what is inside the body, the spirit, that is what is to be made in the image of God for "God is Spirit"

my  :2c:

Quote from: jugghead on October 09, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
For me, it is as simple as understanding "motive" (the reason something is done)

If our motive is for our own personal gain then it is of the flesh
If our motive is for the benefit of another then it is of the Spirit

It is understanding "it is better to give than to receive"

Giving with the motive to receive something in return is of the flesh
Giving with the motive of receiving nothing in return is of the Spirit

We give because that IS who we are "a giver" but if we give in order to receive something in return then who we are IS "a receiver" and being "a receiver", the truth of "I love receiving" is hidden inside the person while the words "I love giving" is said to the world

It is understanding that the words "I love giving" by someone who loves receiving becomes a shadow to his true self, they appear as light but to Him who knows the motives of the heart, those words are but a shadow of the Truth

Light can appear out of the darkness but until we actually become the word(s) that we speak (a giver) we remain in the darkness as "a receiver" not knowing who we are (we know not what we do) and not knowing who we are called to be (we do not know Christ), the veil has to be torn and only God can do that and only He knows the proper time.

God can wait to be loved because He knows He first has to make us into His image (that image being "Love"), only then can we love Him (and others) the way He loves us and others.

This body of flesh is not the image of God, it is just a shadow; it is what is inside the body, the spirit, that is what is to be made in the image of God for "God is Spirit"

my  :2c:

   I believe the things of flesh count for nothing   Jugg   but a vessel for activity .

  just me trying to  understand   this all by what you have shared and thanks for that!!  ,  but it is the spirit in a man that  is   ruling   in rebellion against  GODS Holy   Spirit   as I can see it .

  many spirits in power now that are not of God at all    in my opinion causing   many  bound to sin as prisoners.

  They might appear as weak flesh  , but  are the powers and principalities   at war within every   human born of woman .[daughters of men ]

Whom has yet to ever know the   Power of the Lord Jesus Christ his reigning   in their hearts   fully and completely yet , but are still under His feet [being subjected and taught  discipline ]   these are spirits of men  , not perfected /completed  in love yet .

Gen 6 ;2   has always made me question the depth   of understanding  why  God shortened the days of mankind   because of the sinful nature   , from 930 years to   120 years    when the law was given  though Moses .
This sinful nature  causing death  would have a shorter sentence to ''reign''  in any mans heart  being spiritual in nature  , would have a cutting it short or cutting it off   by the righteousness in Jesus Christ   work being made known  .

Because of Gods mercy   he would shorten the days of the sinful nature in mankind ,  being  also  the sons of God   though Adam   and also changing the name from  old  Adam to ''Christ''  making them  a  new   nature and creature  though the anointing  of the new name the Lord Jesus Christ    a lamb of God is one example  and nature  given in the Word as to the destroying   sin and error  ....  In heaven  this new name is    the WORD OF GOD  that is making war  against the ''spiritual '' rebellion  . 

  Revelation 19   revealing the   Lord Jesus Christ though out  all  the  ages and generations   since the beginning .

Gen 6  explains  this in some ways to consider  , there are many ways to look at things .  His Holy Spirit  leaves one and another is  ruling in its place , a good example is  King Saul   , with  a vexing spirit   given by the Lord to teach him a lesson  in obedience  as the Holy One is removed     for a time .

The Wickedness of Man
1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,

2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves,

whomever they chose.

3Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."...


We have the proof also    in  the Psalms 90   that in Gods mercy  He shorted the days of the sinful spiritual  rebellion   to seventy years      or the days of our ''flesh''    would be as the same burning of Sodom and Gomorrah  We have the mercy of God    giving us also    the seed   of Christ ,  ''  this anointing of the Holy seed ''   promised from the beginning  against the serpents seed  of rebellion  ,  a spirit that  lies against the TRUTH  .

14The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

15And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed;

He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

16To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."...

  Eve, mother of all ther living [  the seed is Christ ]       that the seed in her   womb to grow  Rev 12  , would  be an enemy  against the rebellion , but would come with great suffering and sorrow  just for this warring to come forth    and even   to this day on earth
  Gods judgments are in the earth and so  does His anger still remain  in the earth to destroy the works of the  devil / serpent.
  by bruising the heads of those   still  ruling    in rebellion  against    GODS   will / desire   as those enemies will be conquered under Jesus Feet   teaching of the TRUTH  .
  The days of our flesh are death , because of sin and its suffering , still  in Adam   because of the rebellious  seed [prince of this world  being judged , natures of beasts   such as the  serpents and lions and bulls   goats etc . ]  that still comes to  thwart  the work of Christ   , but is given an end of reigning a mans heart [In the day  you eat of this tree you shall surly die ]  Adam was dead spiritually  while he  walked out his sentence  only to be made ALIVE IN CHRIST     .Hebrews 2    is a helpful answer

  It all starts from the beginning  and has an ending , that is ,''GODS  GLORY ''  will remain an eternal truth .


   I am not saying you are wrong  at all  bro ,   but am only explaining this  out more   by what you have shared   as we can see GODS WORD  happening before our very eyes  !! and the heights and depths of Gods Wisdom is endless to even begin to understand it all ..      :HeartThrob:

Quote from: Dandelion on October 09, 2017, 10:53:05 AM
I think of Eccleciasties as a OT reflection of the same sendiment as this verse by Paul:

7But whatever was an asset to me, I count as loss for the sake of Christ. 8More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God on the basis of faith....

Phillippians 3:7 - 9

To cling to only that which is given to us by God and to be willing to let go of all else. A continuing reflection is needed, to cleanse our lives from the 'rubbish' and to recognize, rejoice in, and identify with only that which is sent to us by God.

Though we are nothing, if you look at it from what we are actually made of, physically, we are given our worth, because we were created and conceived in God's mind, and we are loved, yes, even cherished by Him, and made Holy by His grace, so only God truly gives us our worth. We can do nothing good without Him.

I think the key is what is God's will. When we use things in His will, they are used for good. The same thing can be used for evil, if it is not used in His will.

I think best to focus on doing good, instead of avoiding evil. And, doing good is simply being in God's will.

There is a song called "God and God alone" which I believe reflects what I am saying.

Here it is, sung by Daniel Rodriquez: https://youtu.be/L8SLFU7gtgc

D.

Oh dear, your quoting the Bible and yet I feel some how, some way your reading, or the translators reading, must be wrong; what is this 'rubbish' God has foistered on us?

The comparison to Christ should not be understated.

Quote from: rosered on October 09, 2017, 12:28:05 PM
Hi CST ,

  I do think  you might be trying to hard to prove GODS WORD is true   so you can trust  in it  fully .

  This is only my opinion , but when you say things like , You  wish you knew how  to tell the good answers from the bad ones .


The perfect   and complete  interpretation by the action of explaining the meaning of   the scriptures  written   is a heart matter that Only God has the right to judge  in my opinion .

I do believe your struggle is real    , I do not doubt this at all   and a lot of people have  twisted the Truth to fit their own agenda  over the course of time and place  since the beginning  when the serpent   perverted the Truth  into a lie and shared it with Eve ,  the mother of all the living   and   she took a hold of it  by eating of  it  , to see if the serpent was lying or not  , because she did not believe God  did she ?
I say this ,because Adam and Eve are one flesh , how could  one not know without the other knowing also?

  But to me  you are just spinning your own wheels  in the  cog , so to speak in trying to  understand something only the Holy Spirit can teach you Himself   
  God promised us His Son and listen to Him in these last days   , He is the WORD made flesh  and it is by His Own Spirit will any of us learn  just what  the Truth  really is    by  staying connected   though  prayer to Him  , unless our motives are not  right  before Him  .

Than will we still hunger and  thirst     after God and never be  really filled or satisfied   with any answers  given .

I doubt I'm trying to prove God's Word true, I'm not sure how you got that. Understand it correctly, but I accept it as true so far as I know. 

Here's is the thing I see God's roles this way (although to be honest I expect they're pretty equal):

1. Creator
2. Father
3. Sovereign

The is a general belief these days, due to philosophical materialism, that faith is accepting the existence of God without any evidence to support this belief. It's not, faith is the belief that God is dependable and trustworthy and He will keep His promises which He has made. It is also, therefore, the recognition that God is worthy of worship. If you don't believe that God is worthy of worship the idea He exists will hold no appeal to you. At best it will be irrelevant and at worst a threat to how you choose to live and you are likely to reject the concept.

I believe that God is worthy of worship. I also believe what He is made is a creative expression of God, which is unrepeatable and has an innate value. Nothing God has made is 'rubbish' or 'vain'.

We are taught that God so loved the word that He sent His only begotten Son to save it. St. John wrote this. So God loves and accepts the world. But St. John also tells us that we are to hate and reject the world. What, excuse me, Jesus teaches that you shall not call unclean what God has called clean so I'm not sure I'm down with rejecting what God loves.

I still haven't got round to reading Creation Hymn but one of the responses suggest a concern that the Tree in the Garden was a trap and that is unbecoming to God.

Now obviously even though 'world' has the same Greek word behind it in both cases in this case it can't mean the same thing both times in this case. Obviously the second is reference to all the things, including wicked people, that might tempt us to sin. But this still sounds like a trap. But this is still unbecoming to God.

Quote from: jugghead on October 09, 2017, 06:47:53 PM
For me, it is as simple as understanding "motive" (the reason something is done)

If our motive is for our own personal gain then it is of the flesh
If our motive is for the benefit of another then it is of the Spirit

It is understanding "it is better to give than to receive"

Giving with the motive to receive something in return is of the flesh
Giving with the motive of receiving nothing in return is of the Spirit

We give because that IS who we are "a giver" but if we give in order to receive something in return then who we are IS "a receiver" and being "a receiver", the truth of "I love receiving" is hidden inside the person while the words "I love giving" is said to the world

It is understanding that the words "I love giving" by someone who loves receiving becomes a shadow to his true self, they appear as light but to Him who knows the motives of the heart, those words are but a shadow of the Truth

Light can appear out of the darkness but until we actually become the word(s) that we speak (a giver) we remain in the darkness as "a receiver" not knowing who we are (we know not what we do) and not knowing who we are called to be (we do not know Christ), the veil has to be torn and only God can do that and only He knows the proper time.

God can wait to be loved because He knows He first has to make us into His image (that image being "Love"), only then can we love Him (and others) the way He loves us and others.

This body of flesh is not the image of God, it is just a shadow; it is what is inside the body, the spirit, that is what is to be made in the image of God for "God is Spirit"

my  :2c:

"It is better to give than receive." I don't say I know a lot but I know this is wrong. The Bible, talks about all the things God gives us, and the more things He will give us if we ask. All we have is from God and it is only in receiving His first gift: life, that we are here to give or receive at all.

There are virtues in both giving and receiving actually, though receiving in ingratitude is rather more lacking in goodness. But I am very against the idea of all that God has given us is 'rubbish'. We are expected to receive in gratitude, but if it's just 'rubbish' or worse a trap, what have we to be grateful for?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with receiving, I just agree that it is "better" to give than to receive.

For me it is understanding the difference between what is "good" and what is "righteous"

Yes, it is "good" to receive but what God considers "righteous" is giving

And no, I am not saying that the things that God gives us are not righteous, I am only using this example to try and explain the concept of "increase"

All things in us are to increase, not just that they may increase in the context of "amount" but to increase in the context of "strength", when God gives us love (the giving of Himself) through His Son who is IN us, it increases in strength so that through the Son in us, the love of the Father can be manifested in this world towards others.

In short, what is "good" increases in us to become what is "righteous", it becomes BETTER

I would also like to add that even when I fully believed in the ET concept, I do not consider that to be rubbish of any kind because if it wasn't for that I would not know how much I have increased (grown) in HIS understanding of UR

for all things work together for good to those who believe

CST   wrote

Quote
I doubt I'm trying to prove God's Word true, I'm not sure how you got that. Understand it correctly, but I accept it as true so far as I know. 

Here's is the thing I see God's roles this way (although to be honest I expect they're pretty equal):

1. Creator
2. Father
3. Sovereign

The is a general belief these days, due to philosophical materialism, that faith is accepting the existence of God without any evidence to support this belief. It's not, faith is the belief that God is dependable and trustworthy and He will keep His promises which He has made. It is also, therefore, the recognition that God is worthy of worship. If you don't believe that God is worthy of worship the idea He exists will hold no appeal to you. At best it will be irrelevant and at worst a threat to how you choose to live and you are likely to reject the concept.

I believe that God is worthy of worship. I also believe what He is made is a creative expression of God, which is unrepeatable and has an innate value. Nothing God has made is 'rubbish' or 'vain'.

We are taught that God so loved the word that He sent His only begotten Son to save it. St. John wrote this. So God loves and accepts the world. But St. John also tells us that we are to hate and reject the world. What, excuse me, Jesus teaches that you shall not call unclean what God has called clean so I'm not sure I'm down with rejecting what God loves.

I still haven't got round to reading Creation Hymn but one of the responses suggest a concern that the Tree in the Garden was a trap and that is unbecoming to God.

Now obviously even though 'world' has the same Greek word behind it in both cases in this case it can't mean the same thing both times in this case. Obviously the second is reference to all the things, including wicked people, that might tempt us to sin. But this still sounds like a trap. But this is still unbecoming to God.

So sorry if I was sounding  offensive to you  bro C .

  Not at all what  I meant  , it is always misunderstandings that cause  more problems  .

  I was only trying to explain  ,    We all struggle with,  What is truth ?

I am not so sure that this world is the fruit  of doing of the tree of knowledge of good and evil   that all are subject to   first and many cannot get past this  first part  .

I find at a lot of futility in it my own self .  If we are ever Blessed of God enough to ever rise above it   and remain  , that would be the greatest    gift of Jesus Christ we could ever receive , His rewards are with Him .

God help us to  remain in His good graces and be blessed enough to eat of the tree of Life  , being the true Resurrection and raised to Life   IN CHRIST fully  from experiencing so much death of this world   with  so much sadness and sickness and sorrow  , and  hate , the vanities of futile  attempts to  just  live in   His peace .

The gifts of the Holy Spirit is the  seal of our fate , and our hope of seeing  Gods glory , Love will always remain .

Eph 1 Spiritual Blessings
...12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory.

13And in Him you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, having heard and believed the word of truth,

the gospel of your salvation.

14The Spirit is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession, to the praise of His glory....

John 3:33
Whoever accepts His testimony has certified that God is truthful.

Acts 2:33
Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Galatians 3:14
He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Ephesians 4:21
Surely you heard of Him and were taught in Him in keeping with the truth that is in Jesus.

Ephesians 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Colossians 1:5
springing from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

2 Timothy 2:15
Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.

James 1:21
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and every expression of evil, and humbly receive the word planted in you, which can save your souls.

God bless  :HeartThrob:
   

...the problem with the world..is the 'prince of this world"s works is wicked" remove the wicked works of this power and principality in such

   high places.....and how beautiful and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell with brothers in unity.

Quote from: jugghead on October 13, 2017, 05:40:30 PM
I didn't say there was anything wrong with receiving, I just agree that it is "better" to give than to receive.

For me it is understanding the difference between what is "good" and what is "righteous"

Yes, it is "good" to receive but what God considers "righteous" is giving

And no, I am not saying that the things that God gives us are not righteous, I am only using this example to try and explain the concept of "increase"

All things in us are to increase, not just that they may increase in the context of "amount" but to increase in the context of "strength", when God gives us love (the giving of Himself) through His Son who is IN us, it increases in strength so that through the Son in us, the love of the Father can be manifested in this world towards others.

In short, what is "good" increases in us to become what is "righteous", it becomes BETTER

I would also like to add that even when I fully believed in the ET concept, I do not consider that to be rubbish of any kind because if it wasn't for that I would not know how much I have increased (grown) in HIS understanding of UR

for all things work together for good to those who believe

It's not a matter of there being anything wrong with receiving, although I sometimes get the unjustified feeling that whoever coined  that phrase thought people who thought otherwise were selfish. I certain senses this is correct. But I just think it's unbiblical to suggest that's always true. When we give anything, we give love but the Bible teaches: "We love him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19) so even with 'love' we must first receive before we can give.

What about worship, what about praise and gratitude? Certainly all tangible things we must receive from another (ultimately God) before we can give it to others which is why I doubt that it is always better to give than receive but what about the worship we give to God? Can that be held as original to us. Obviously our faith isn't but if our worship is that would be something we can actually give.

I can understand you not understanding my position here, I'm not sure I understand it and I certainly didn't explain it clearly, my time was short.

My belief is that as God is a creator God, the greatest gifts are created gifts and the greatest works are the arts. This is believe, all art is precious and irreplaceable (though sometimes replaceable copies are made) these things have value they are not 'rubbish', although they can be held so in light of the free gift offered through Christ Jesus, which is the best gift going and can only be received, none of us can give that gift, because with that gift we can retain none of the other gifts and thus they have no value. When I was in the thrall of ET I genuinely believe a lot of things were traps, they existed to tempt us a way from God and to Perdition and it seemed really unfair. I like that I don't have to believe that.

That said, despite the fact that I believe all this God seems determined to test me by setting as the greatest challenge to my faith: me.

A human being who has poor capacity for worship and praise of God: here being held not as praying and singing hymns in churches which alone is stale but as using your creative talents to the utmost of your ability. I have no expressive creative capacity and am utterly rubbish, my garden is untilled and unwatered and I lack the capacity to change that. And I also lack the capacity to receive whatever help God sends when I asks nor hear whatever answers He gives. :( How I feel, trying not to complain.

Quote from: rosered on October 13, 2017, 09:40:58 PM
CST   wrote

Quote
I doubt I'm trying to prove God's Word true, I'm not sure how you got that. Understand it correctly, but I accept it as true so far as I know. 

Here's is the thing I see God's roles this way (although to be honest I expect they're pretty equal):

1. Creator
2. Father
3. Sovereign

The is a general belief these days, due to philosophical materialism, that faith is accepting the existence of God without any evidence to support this belief. It's not, faith is the belief that God is dependable and trustworthy and He will keep His promises which He has made. It is also, therefore, the recognition that God is worthy of worship. If you don't believe that God is worthy of worship the idea He exists will hold no appeal to you. At best it will be irrelevant and at worst a threat to how you choose to live and you are likely to reject the concept.

I believe that God is worthy of worship. I also believe what He is made is a creative expression of God, which is unrepeatable and has an innate value. Nothing God has made is 'rubbish' or 'vain'.

We are taught that God so loved the word that He sent His only begotten Son to save it. St. John wrote this. So God loves and accepts the world. But St. John also tells us that we are to hate and reject the world. What, excuse me, Jesus teaches that you shall not call unclean what God has called clean so I'm not sure I'm down with rejecting what God loves.

I still haven't got round to reading Creation Hymn but one of the responses suggest a concern that the Tree in the Garden was a trap and that is unbecoming to God.

Now obviously even though 'world' has the same Greek word behind it in both cases in this case it can't mean the same thing both times in this case. Obviously the second is reference to all the things, including wicked people, that might tempt us to sin. But this still sounds like a trap. But this is still unbecoming to God.

So sorry if I was sounding  offensive to you  bro C .

  Not at all what  I meant  , it is always misunderstandings that cause  more problems  .

  I was only trying to explain  ,    We all struggle with,  What is truth ?

I am not so sure that this world is the fruit  of doing of the tree of knowledge of good and evil   that all are subject to   first and many cannot get past this  first part  .

I find at a lot of futility in it my own self .  If we are ever Blessed of God enough to ever rise above it   and remain  , that would be the greatest    gift of Jesus Christ we could ever receive , His rewards are with Him .

God help us to  remain in His good graces and be blessed enough to eat of the tree of Life  , being the true Resurrection and raised to Life   IN CHRIST fully  from experiencing so much death of this world   with  so much sadness and sickness and sorrow  , and  hate , the vanities of futile  attempts to  just  live in   His peace .

The gifts of the Holy Spirit is the  seal of our fate , and our hope of seeing  Gods glory , Love will always remain .

Eph 1 Spiritual Blessings
...12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, would be for the praise of His glory.

13And in Him you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, having heard and believed the word of truth,

the gospel of your salvation.

14The Spirit is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession, to the praise of His glory....

John 3:33
Whoever accepts His testimony has certified that God is truthful.

Acts 2:33
Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Galatians 3:14
He redeemed us so that the blessing promised to Abraham would come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Ephesians 4:21
Surely you heard of Him and were taught in Him in keeping with the truth that is in Jesus.

Ephesians 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Colossians 1:5
springing from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

2 Timothy 2:15
Make every effort to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman who accurately handles the word of truth.

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation.

James 1:21
Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and every expression of evil, and humbly receive the word planted in you, which can save your souls.

God bless  :HeartThrob:

Not offensive, it just means I have to explain myself again, it's possible you're right after all I just don't think that's what I was saying on that occasion.

Quote from: sheila on October 13, 2017, 10:50:46 PM
...the problem with the world..is the 'prince of this world"s works is wicked" remove the wicked works of this power and principality in such

   high places.....and how beautiful and pleasant it is for brothers to dwell with brothers in unity.

And yet "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) So the love of God loves the world (kosmos), and yet "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15) But the love of God (the Father) loves (agapao) the world (kosmos)? I really struggle to reconcile this.

Tell me, given that claim about Satan, what do you make of, the questionable, Mark 16:14a - "And they excused themselves, saying, This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits. Therefore, reveal your righteousness now. — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, The limit of the years of Satan's power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness."

You'll usually only find that in footnotes, it's an additional part of what is called the longer ending of Mark which made the KJV but is now considered questionable by scholars (but why should we believe them?). I'm asking what you think of it in light of, John 12:31 - "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." which speaks similarly and is in the text of just about any Bible you can find?

Quote from: CST on September 04, 2017, 06:01:23 PM
I assure you it is mere time constraints that has prevented me from posting this reply sooner.

Well, looks like I got one up on you for late replies!

For me, the lateness was a lack of notification (Notifications are "on" and my e-mail is correct - I don't know why I'm not getting notifications), and that I failed to remember to check in on this posting from time to time. You see, CST, my memory matches the color and quality of my hair, gray and thin!

But, I did finally remember! And, much to my delight, when I peeked in on this thread I found your good reply (and those of many others)!

I can only hope, now, that with an apology for my thin grayness you're still interested in reading and replying to this topic.

However, if you are no longer interested in replying, please know that I understand.

The loss is mine.

Here is my reply.

Quote from: CST

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

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

You are right, historical is what the stories in the Bible are, which means they should be treated as accounts of events that have been passed down through a medium, with the veracity being determined by internal consistency and by the testimony they make of truthfulness in one's soul.

Historic implies that an event introduces a paradigm that changes the flow of history on a scale commiserate with the magnitude of the event.

So, Jesus is a historical figure Who said and did some very historic things!

Thanks for pointing out that differentiation.

Quote from: Eleutheros

Quote from: CSTWell, in response to this, I did locate and examine all the verses where a Hebrew word, not just the word mooth (die), is doubled for emphasis...

CST: Actually it's a little trickier than that. The word for duplication in the previous passage is 'freely' not 'surely'. To know for definite we'd found all the emphasizers by your method we'd have to be sure we knew what all the words that are duplicated are and what the corresponding emphasizers are, which we don't....

Yes, I read where Eaglesway also mentioned the double use of "eat" (akal) in Gen 2:16, where it is translated "freely eat," and he kindly added other modifiers to search for. I did not take those words into account when I did my initial research. So, having done that, I perceive no reason to change the conclusion from my first research that the doubling of certain words in Hebrew is for emphasis, to introduce the idea of certainty, or assurance, when the word is repeated.

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

I understand your contemplation on this. Wouldn't it be great to have had, say, J.R.R. Tolkien writing the Genesis account: He would provide detailed backstories that explained everything!

Now, as I contemplated these very things you mentioned, I employed both logic and imagination to envision the scenes being described to me through the simple form of this first of writings. This led me to conclude that the only way the events described could happen in the sequence they did was for Ish and Ishsha to be side by side as the temptation to turn was presented. Therefore, the writer is strongly implying that Ish was standing by, doing nothing, as The Nacash spoke to Ishsha.

Also, the idea of "immediately" is not either specifically stated nor implied in the Genesis text. It says simply that "their eyes were opened." Commentators introduced the concept of "immediately."

To that point, there is no Hebrew word translated "immediately" in the Old Testament. However, "straightway" is used to translate a few different Hebrew words that hold the ideas conveyed when we say in English, "immediately." And none of those words appear in the Hebrew account of creation.

So, was the allegorical understanding you mentioned dependent on the idea that their eyes were opened only after Ish ate?

The envisioning I undertook and wrote out in Creation Hymn allows me to account for the process of digestion; for it would take a few minutes for the composition of the fruit to enter their system and do what it was created to do, that is, impart to them a conscience.

Quote from: Eleutheros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given what you've written, You might be interested in a popular commentary by Rabbi J.H. Hertz in which he states of the phrase "Good and Evil" that it is to be understood as, "A Hebrew idiom for 'all things.'"
His comment on the "ordinary," "literal sense" of that phrase in Gen 3:5 is that the ordinary and literal sense, "...assumes that God would for any reason withhold from man the ability to discern between what is morally right and wrong." The rest of the commentary reveals that He doesn't like the idea that God might have withheld moral understanding at the beginning.

Indeed, he says that the literal understanding is a, "view which contradicts the spirit of Scripture." A phrase of such ambiguity that he can safely hang his understanding on it and not expect contradiction. After all, he was a Chief Rabbi.

So, given the hurtles he throws down against a literal understanding of 3:5, I guess he really doesn't like where his thoughts logically take him if he accepts that ordinary and literal view of this scripture!

Then, concerning 3:7, I unsurprisingly read him resorting to a "metaphysical interpretation" for what is meant when the ordinary and literal sense of the phrase, "their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked," is taken up in his commentary because that phrase, when taken literally, certainly implies that they were previously innocent – even though he states of the moment of their turning that, "They forfeited their innocence."

And what is innocence if it is not the absence of something needed, like knowledge?

In other words, by Hertz commenting that the phrase "Good and Evil" is not to be taken literally, but idiomatically, he foreknows he is setting himself up to falter when it comes to explaining how it was that Ish and Ishsha lived nude and unashamed; innocent, it would seem, right up to the point when the fruit changed them; for Ish and Ishsha were changed after ingesting the fruit.

Therefore, Hertz must resort to a metaphysical interpretation of 3:7 because to take this phrase in the historical account literally would require him to concede that he either doesn't personally like where a literal understanding takes his thoughts (for whatever reason), and that he is thus forcing onto the text his bias, or he doesn't have sufficient understanding, or faith even, to trust that a literal interpretation will lead his thoughts into a truthful understanding, even if it is initially perceived as offensive. So, rather than allowing his understanding of the "spirit of Scripture" to be changed to fit the facts of a literal interpretation, he opts for a metaphysical interpretation of 3:7 because he knows before that a literal one will undermine his claim that the phrase "Good and Evil" should be understood idiomatically.

I hold to a literal interpretation of this historical account, in its entirety. So, I hold to the reality of cause and effect and thus conclude, even as you said, that it was a conscience they acquired when they ingested the fruit. And that is, apparently, the very conclusion that J.H. Hertz disapproves, despite his foreknowledge that a literal understanding of both these scriptures will lead to internally consistent conclusions. Specifically, that Ish and Ishsha acquired moral knowledge after their creation and that the acquisition of this conscience, illegally, created an intense sense of shame associated with their nudity, implying a previous existence in a state of innocence.

Thus, I don't perceive that it really matters which synonyms are chosen for "good" and "evil," in any language, if the idea of antithesis is conveyed in the joining of those synonyms with a conjunction.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to call the "Tree of The Knowledge of (the difference between) Good and Evil," the "Tree of Conscience," if one chooses to believe that the ordinary and literal view is capable of leading one into deeper understanding, despite that fact that one may not, initially, like the logical conclusions that follow that view.

So it was that from my literal and ordinary reading of scripture, I made a beginning of my understanding.

And what I discovered is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is more fantastic than most are willing to accept because many don't like the conclusions such a reading leads one to (for whatever reason). Therefore many opt in for allegorizing the text. The problem for them is they must determine a logical point where the Genesis account ceases to be allegorical and begins to be historical. It's a bit like trying to determine when a baby in the womb ceases to be a mass of tissue and begins being a human being. The only answer, for trying to discover that elusive point, is that it is a human being from the moment of conception. Likewise, the only answer is that the writer of Genesis was always writing literally of historical events, and so Genesis was intended to be read ordinarily.

Quote from: Eleutheros

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

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

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

Us, yes. But what about them, Ish and Ishsha? They were not like Us, initially, because they existed in a state of innocence of which We cannot have any knowledge gained from experience. That world is lost to Us because it is one of which We would have no knowledge whatsoever apart from this historical account. Indeed, without the Genesis account, all We have is speculation for how We got here and came to be who We are. Thus, I concluded that the narrative was intended to invoke imagination as We read the story and are led into understanding the motivation behind our creation and why Jehovah did what he did.

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

From the moment he was created, The Awdam understood language because Jehovah spoke to Him.

Therefore, The Awdam had understanding because he had sentience, which is spirit, and which was the very thing God gave Him that distinguished The Awdam from everything else when Jehovah breathed neshawmah into Him.

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

That she did. The why of which is left to imagination.

I imagine that Ishsha had been contemplating this tree and why it was forbidden to them for quite some time, thus setting herself up and Ish too, for the tempter to find a way to tempt; for I don't think Ish was not wondering himself about why they couldn't eat the fruit of the tree that was in the midst of the garden.

Therefore, her reply began to reveal to The Nacash that she had been contemplating the forbidding of this tree, which she apparently no longer thought of in her heart as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, just as you concluded, her reply was pertinent to how The Nacash presents its argument.

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

So, how long were Ish and Ishsha in the garden before they were turned?

Augustine of Hippo believed that they were there for only about thirty minutes.

Given his late-coming, fatalistic theology - you know, his "God knew as a fact that Adam and Eve were going to fall before He created them" theology - this logical conclusion makes sense. Just like God said it in Monty Python and The Holy Grail: "Get on with it!"

(By the way, what was the "theology" of the first through third century Christians? It wasn't Augustinianism/Calvinism, or even Arminianisim, for those theologies didn't come into existence till after the fourth century when the men they are named after postulated them and then popularized them through the availability of the scandalous Latin Vulgate.)

I perceive that Ish and Ishsha were in the garden for many, many, many more days after the seventh day.

My support for this comes from perceiving that Ish understood that he would have to get his bread from hard work, now, after the turning.

It takes time to learn how to make and to bake bread, including building an oven; for bread is not something that grows on trees.

That is why I imagine they were there for many, many days after the seventh; it takes time to make bread, certainly a lot more than the thirty minutes Augustine allotted for them to, 'get on with it and fall, already!'

So, given a little imagination and logic, it makes sense that there were days after the seventh, certainly enough for Jehovah to impart understanding to Ish concerning language; and for him to name all the animals, and for God to create Ishsha.

By the way, let me ask you: "Do you think Ish and Ishsha had sex before the fall?" Why or why not? It is a most pertinent question and one which will likely reveal your heart to you as you contemplate it. I know it revealed mine to me. There's lots of logical conclusions to wrestle with in that contemplation!

Of course, if they did have sex within Augustine's time frame, well... I could easily make a "quickie" joke here.

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

Well the only surprise in this would be if an atheist didn't see contradiction in scripture!

I actually appreciate the atheist view because they know how to ask questions. And, boy howdy! Can those questions make an Augustinian hyperventilate! Fortunately, though, I understand that it is possible to understand another's point of view without agreement.

I perceive Genesis 1-3 as two different narratives, with the second one written sometime after the deluge, but before Pangea split apart in the "days of Peleg," and the first written before the deluge, maybe even before the turning, given the sense of satisfaction and completion conveyed in the narrative at its ending. So, any perceived contradictions begin by assuming that there should be a matching linearity of events between the two accounts, which is really nothing more than an imposed requirement.

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

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

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

And in this you have let your imagination be guided by the text, thus rejecting a scenario that lacks the power to unite and explain the variations in the two accounts.

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

These "contradictions" disappear when I consider that the second narrative was not intended to be an orderly retelling, like the first narrative. Rather, the second narrative is written to supplement the first with more detail, like what happened after the seventh day. After all, the first narrative was available and it already established the order of creation.

Keep in mind that writing was a difficult and time-consuming process way back then, and so the necessity for succinctness was dominant; just enough words to convey meaning, with imagination a necessary thing for comprehension.

For instance, why spend all that time writing on the four rivers and their locations and the lands they flowed through if there was not a "contemporary" audience that would have needed that information? And why would they need that information if not for the sake of veracity? Veracity, then is the key to understanding why so much writing effort was spent on describing what seems to us to be superfluous information.

So, I'm wondering, CST, what do you believe? Do you believe that before the eighth day everything was done, including the naming of all those animals and the subsequent creation of Ishsha, the knowledge of, and the baking of bread, and, of course, the fall?

Quote from: Eleutheros

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

Goodness me! This is a most insightful and bold thing you've typed!
Without meaning to insinuate an attitude of disapproval toward anyone's thoughts, I must say that I've met only a precious few on Universalist boards who would dare to type what you typed here!
Concerning the other things you wrote, those things were taken into consideration in my thinking and satisfactory conclusions reached, with "satisfactory" meaning conclusions that meshed in a non-contradictory manner. All of which were incorporated into my story Creation Hymn a retelling of Genesis 1-3 in an imaginative way. Perhaps you might be interested in reading it?

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

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

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

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

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

I was referring to the fact that you noticed that Eve (Chava,"The mother of all living") did not receive a name until after the turning. Ishsha was not her name, Ishsha was what she was, "the one taken from Ish," a woman. I found that the point in the narrative when she was named was very important as I contemplated how they spent all the time they had after their creation and before their turning.

But, more importantly, I was also referring to your statement that they could still choose to do good and "weed away" the evil, despite the consequences of their turning. And that to have a conscience is to bear the responsibility to do what is right, that is to be good.

Many do not hold that to be a truth because they perceive the fall as a necessary, even essential, part of God's plan for man. Adam and Eve had to fall so We could learn of good by first experiencing the pain and suffering of being evil and inflicting pain and suffering. There was no other way for God to accomplish his purpose in creating us because God foreknew their fall as a fact. And so everything happens according to His Divine Plan, including all the evil We do, so that we can learn to do good.

I've seen that a lot of evil things can be justified in the human heart with this way of thinking, with, too often, no change in behavior observed, except what might be necessary to get out of the pain and suffering of being caught doing wrong.

By the way, why did God create us?

May I ask you another question? Do you believe that Jehovah knew as a fact that The Awdam were going to turn before he created them?

I do not.

And that is why I can say, with assurance, be good! Because I know that it is possible to be good, consistently, and thus be well-pleasing to God. In fact this is what Jesus came to do, complete us all, one by one, to become good human beings, good at being human!

I thank you much for your reply. Please know that I've enjoyed reading your replies to other posters, as well.

Quote from: Eleutheros on September 04, 2017, 05:14:28 PM
Mea culpa, CST. :doh: I shall endeavor to be more careful about whom I assign a quote!

And, if you are willing to invest the time, I would also like to hear your thoughts on my story Creation Hymn.
(http://tentmaker.org/forum/humor-poems-songs-movies/creation-hymn/)
Given what you've typed already, I think you would find it provocative.

Be good!

Quote from: CSTI have looked a bit at Creation Hymn now, although it's long so I've only really read the forward of which I am really fond of the essence of. :) However, I was less sure about the fragment of the Hymn I read. I find it provocative but perhaps not in the way you meant. You swiftly invoke the spiritual world order which the opening chapters of Genesis. And indeed much of the Bible is silent on. You suggest the were made prior to creation as described here which I think goes against what certainly Jews tend to believe. Certainly you can't draw such conclusions from the text of Genesis. But you state it with such certainty it doesn't really invite discussion beyond disagreement which I'm bothered about. Generally, I try to accept any interpretations of the Bible that don't contradict, the Bible itself or other more 'favourable' interpretation which they are both or all mutually exclusive. This is because, I value imagination as you reference in the forward and think that the greatest imagination in the Cosmos must belong to God.So if different interpretations can teach different things i have no trouble believing God might use them.

Actually, the Bible, in it's original language, is not silent on this subject.

For instance the command to "replenish the earth" is an accurate translation that implies a previous creation exsisted.

Also, the words tohu and bohu used to describe the condition of the earth prior to God's Spirit moving over the waters also implies that there was a creation prior to the one now in existence.

Many scholars hold to the idea that there was a creation before this one.

References that I consulted to gain that assurance you mentioned were The Doorway Papers by Arthur C. Custance and the writings of Michael S. Heiser, a professor of Ancient Hebrew. His commentary on Psalm 82 should be made required reading for any and every Universalist, if Universalisim were an organised religion.

These men are scientists and scholars who provided a lot of information, information that supported the things I was concluding as I researched Genesis.

Heiser is mentioned in my thanks at the end of my story. I should append it to mention Custance as well.

Custance's writings have been a part of me for so long that I failed to consider that other's might not be familiar with his conclusion that there was a creation prior to this one. Thanks for helping me to realize that omission.

Be good!

 :2c: personallyI believethe creation texts show the spiritual/celestial realm was made first before the physical terrestial. star nurseries

as infant spirit seed sown into this terrestial realm..for this first part lexercize in evil/vanity[manchild birth dragon set

todevour/encompassing all our spirits to be raised up immortal/incorruptible in Christs image..]bymy spirit/God sowed good seedetc.

notonlythatbutIalsobelieve 12 elder sons...first faced the dragoninheaven..but he couldnotovercome them and ws thrown tothe earth..

where they provide ourfirstnegativeexercize  for GOD'S SPIRIT SEEDchildren sownin clay vessels[weakcorruptible terrestialflesh]

   Jesus spoke ofthe harvest,wheat/tares the good seed God sowed.

believing Jesus's word..youwillnever die..orif you do die you will live..andthe same spirit that was in Christ Jesus dwelling in

you..knowing the immortal incorruptible life inthat spirit will raise up /and is victorious over death..for it is in unionwith and onespirit of

God.Law of kinds..if you will.

    taste not touch not...God stated...you may freeley eat ofevery tree of the garden....however eating ofthe tree of the knowledge

of goodand evil...allows unlawful mixing of negative contrast spirit impulses toenter  our weak corruptible flesh..bringing the breakdown

andcorruption to our clay vessels and the flesh will return unto the dust[terrestial] andthe spirit unto God. whats fleshis fleshand

whats spiritis spirit. Jesus redeemed our spirits...that they notbecondemned with the evil spirits of satansimage.

   imo...notoneofthemislost butthe 'sonof perdition" whichJudas portrayed....of satan/evil spirit entering and controlling man's weak flesh

vessel..puttingtodeath the spirit seed of God sown in man.sown inweakness and corruption..raised in power and incorruption.


Col 2;20- since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world[lawmade forthe lawlss/sin in flesh condemned] why,asthough

you still belonged to it,do you submit to it's rules.DO NOT HANDLE,donot taste,do not touch! these are all destined to perish with use.

   because they are basedon human commands andteachings.......set your heart on the things above! our identity should move from

flesh to realizing our spiritual inheritance/immortality and incorruption as SONS OF THE LIVING GOD..OUR TRUE IDENTITY


Our earthly terrestialnature willbe dissolved[flesh returns untoearth] the endof allflesh is come!!!  THE FORMER THINGS SHALL BE

FORGOTTEN....as our perfecting in eternal spiritualrealm is the goal of allthis....nomore tears,death,hunger etc......perfectedthrough

suffering[evil] in the flesh.     :2c:

 :2c: replenish the earth....God'sspirit seed sown in clay..terrestialman/womanprovide little clay vesselsfor God to sow His spirit seedin.

   Sarah,Mary etc...show Godhaspower tosowseed[spirit ] in clay vessels[clothe with flesh garment]..as He deems.

    fleshneedstobe replenished..becauseit breaks down and returns tothe earth...Hisspirit seed is inHisimage..eternal...andreturnsunto

  GodinHeaven.

prodigals returnhome naked[spirit unclothed with flesh vessel..asit dissolves intodust] and is givenTHE BEST ROBE[an incorruptible

immortalvessel]  GOD CLOTHES THE NAKED. the shame ofour nakedness..hastotodowith sin getting the dominionoverusresultingin

death.MY PEOPLE SHALLNOT BE ASHAMED.the wicked onesgives the wine of fornication[babylonswine/harlotry with this world] to

look upon our nakedness[just as inthe garden..to make us ashamed..through lies/deciet] In Rev 3;18 Jesus counsels the Laodecian

church as to how they are unaware to their own spiritual blindness/nakedness.  Most of us have beenthere..at best down here our own

righteousnessis asfilthy rags.so filthy rags or naked we all return home...and He must clothe us.

     Just as God made man's vessel as a biological vehicle for His spirit to dwell in[spirit in measure/token] so,too He continues to clothe us.  :2c:

   the whole creationhas been groaning[our spirits groaning with words we can not utter from within] for the revealing of the SONS

OF GOD.  man's spirit is the son of GOD....man's flesh is the son of man.  WHAT IS MAN THAT THOU ART MINDFUL OF HIM?


  when they makeofthe role of the people..they shallsay...this oneandthat one wasborn in Zion.

THE LAST ADAM IS A QUICKENING SPIRIT.....[spirit  without measure].

God clothes all with love, the covering.

Eaglesway wrote ~

Quote
God clothes all with love, the covering.

Amen.. I always think of 1 Corinthians 15:35 - But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"

..it was sown a physical body.. but will be raised different (and incorruptible!).. like animals differ.. from fish, and birds.. and from stars or sun or moon.. yet all will be clothed with Love! "His salvation to the ends of the Earth.." (Is 49:6) "To restore the earth, to cause them to inherit the desolate heritages.." (vs 8) "the lion will eat straw like the ox, the bear will graze with the cow" (11:7)

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" :Chinscratch: like ripples? all comes from Him.. allows it to choose and go "the" wRong way..? And salvation built in and also sent in ripples.. Israel --> Jesus, the seed (of Abraham) sent to Israel --> sent to gentiles.. At the end two harvests, the tares/grapes of wrath? (imo) and the wheat into His barn/bosom.. "and His feet touch down upon Mount of Olives" (Zechariah 14:4; Acts 1:11) ...And later --> "all things made new" Yhvh is "all in all" - "all clothed with Love"

..."in dying, you shall continually die" - http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-17.htm "surely die" - "to die, to die" #H4191, #H4191

I think it's an unavoidable thing that must be learned by all, that there are two ways - The Way ("this is the decree.. You are My Son..") - it is Life.

And the wroNg way.. the opposite to life.. it can only lead to death - where all would go if not for His intervention.. But what better way to become fully convinced? Of what? Of good from evil, which imo, is life from death/nonlife. Once we know this, we can plainly understand the utter futility (and foolishness) of the wroNg way! "Do not go that way" for to do so can only ever end in a wisp of self destructive smoke.. (Metaphor of course, but, imo, very true nevertheless :gsmile: ) Besides, the potential of the wrong way (imperfection/"missing the mark") is like an abyss... as history has already proven many times.. a bottomless pit of potential 'darkness'/evil - opposite as we learned so early on, opposite of live (spelled backwards.. yes it's really true! An english synchronicity.

"..in dying, shall die.." .."shall surely die" - evil opposite of live  (a truly unavoidable lesson? if we are to have faculties of reasoning and thinking? If we are to be of His family, His children.. If what He is creating is to remain incorruptible? And, have rational creatures/beings?) :2c:

Well, I'm certainly still interested in replying although I had given up on getting a reply to this and may well have forgotten what I way attempting to convey but I will try.

I think it's safe to say Jesus did the most historic things, no more needs saying on that, as John put it 'the world could not hold the books...'

You may not see any reason to change you reasoning a word repetition in Hebrew, I don't either but I believe I was trying to suggest the possibility of a more complex use that can not be proved, but only, at best, not disproved, from the text of the Bible.

First, no my allegorical interpretation does not depend on the fruit being 'immediately' effective, but unlike you I hold the immediacy to be implied to the phrase 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' Not that it necessarily needs to be understood that way, of course, but it looks a lot like an idiom and in the context of the warning it somewhat loses its effect if immediacy isn't somehow 'understood'. That coupled with the repetitions in 'For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.' (which repeats from the first phrase, 'in the day') and in 'And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.' (the repeat of 'eyes were opened') gives a very strong impression. Plus while you seem to be talking about the fruit like it's essentially normal but as it's digested conveys the knowledge of good and evil over time (an unlikely proposition), I have no trouble seeing the fruit as acting immediately given that sewing fig leaves together is a job that actually would take time. That and the fact their eyes aren't literally opened, it's a common metaphor they were always able to see, adds to the implication of a swift and sudden change.

There is no way 'Good and Evil' can mean all things because Adam and Eve clearly don't gain a knowledge of all things. That said, innocence is a bigger concept than just doing something bad, Genesis 2-3 doesn't use that word either but it's hard not to understand it from their reaction to being naked even though (or perhaps because) in a of its self being naked is not rationally anything to be embarrassed about.

That said I see no reason to think that Adam and his Woman didn't have a conscience, it just had never been tested. In principle then, the fruit from the tree is just fruit. The problem is caused by the fact God has instructed them not to eat from it and they do. The reaction they suffer is from the first piece of knowledge they receive which is the knowledge they have disobeyed God and the associated guilt. Which I'm fairly sure is the basic allegorical reading.

However you can't compare Genesis to a growing baby. A baby grows continuously without interruption from conception to birth and indeed (and sometimes sooner) death. The Genesis account is broken the stories do not necessarily connect to each other directly and sometimes time jumps about a bit.

Where would I say Genesis stops being allegorical? I like to say the flood narrative because of what that seems to be trying to do. It really wants us to believe all the nations in the text from this point descend from Noah and I don't know how to allegoricalize that.

Of course, you make think now that I have no trouble doing as much with the creation story which also says that man is descended from two parents. That is true but Genesis 2 can be seen as teaching that man descends from a common ancestor with a common father: God. Once this has been done is doesn't need to be done twice.

Essentially the table of nations have three different common fathers and one common grandfather so the meaning seems a bit different and thus to suggest something more historic.

Unfortunately I also know the archaeological evidence against the literal truth of the flood narrative is also particularly strong. I can conceive suspicions but it's hard to reconcile, if I'm honest.

Ah, right. So we seem to be communicatively suggesting here, that we have a word for the concept 'innocent' even though innocence does not in fact exist in the world any more and as you say we have no experience of and can't comprehend. That means our concept probably can't be entirely correct and undermines the argument. This argument doesn't work since i can't be sure my concept of anything is entirely identical to anyone else's and, indeed, have reason to suspect it probably isn't.

Did He? How God actually communicates to the Patriarchs is something I always wonder about. We always imagine He comes along and whispers in their ear in English - because that's what our Bibles are written in - even when we know the language He might have spoken may even predate Hebrew. But there is always the suspicion the Bible texts are written that way because it's how writing works and the only way the Bible alone can communicate its meaning. I often suspect God communicates with us (including the Patriarchs) rather more subtly unless there's strong testimony to suggest He performed a miraculous intercession.
So while He communicated in some way. Saying He 'spoke' in language as we understand it is hard to take.

This is one of the points I feel I may have lost my thread in the time since i original wrote this. I think the 'left to the imagination' part is probably the wisest part of the argument. I can no longer remember why I thought what she said was pertinent to the serpent's response. All I remember was that I was pretty sure the top of my argument was that it is also left to the imagination how she received the instruction forbidding her from eating from the tree.

But on the matter of 'why?', she seemed to give the 'why?' pretty well when answering the serpent. It's the one bit she definitely got right. I'd have thought that if she understood the word 'death' as you claim she did above she wouldn't need a deeper answer. The only way she couldn't understand the danger of the tree would be that she doesn't really understand what death is and thus what the warning pertains to.

As I said, I think that Adam and Eve rebelled on the Sabbath while God was away 'resting' (ceasing) the reason I think the Bible implied this is because in the first part of the story the bracketing lines are 'there was evening and there was morning the - day'. Except on day 7. On day seven, no evening comes and the day does not end. But then Adam and his Woman eat from the tree and then run off to hide when God comes for a walk in the 'cool of the day' which is the evening which suggest the evening we haven't yet got at the end of day seven. Which is why I think the fall took place on the seventh day and think that's what the Bible suggests. I not exactly rock solid, but it is there.

I don't know why your mentioning bread. I can't see bread mentioned anywhere in the opening chapters of Genesis prior to God passing sentence, Adam and his Wife eat fruit from trees. Which God still suggests they will afterwards as well. But bread is made from cereal crops and I don't see any mention of them in Eden.

I agree bread takes time to learn to make but that is very hard work, grinding flour, and I see no reason to see this as anything other than part of the punishment and something Adam will have to learn to do if he is to survive after the expulsion.

Do I think they had sex before the fall? Goodness knows, I think the general understand is that having reckless sex was the fall, it connects 'knowledge' as in 'fruit from the tree of...' and 'know' as in the standard euphemism for sex through most of the early Bible.

Anyone can see these contradictions once pointed out. And I may have been unfair on atheists. I know Christians have seen their own share of contradictions in the Bible text, some of which may be pertinent to the current discussion.

But I'm struggling to know how to take your belief, you neither seem to believe that the book of Genesis was written by Moses (the traditional opinion) nor that it was written in the Kingdom of Israel (the modern critical view). So I'm not sure what evidence you are getting to make you think the strange things you do about the texts.

Certainly the Bible doesn't say Noah took any texts onto the Ark, certainly not any written by Adam and Eve which I think you are suggesting (who says Adam and Eve were literate?) and unless he did the flood would have destroyed it. Also if the second one was written pre-Babel there's a good chance no-one would be able to understand it. Also when Jacob fled from Esau he wasn't particularly God-fearing so I doubt he'd have taken any texts with him and since the Bible doesn't really record him going back to his old home much before Isaac died it seems unlikely he'd have picked any up which he'd need to take into Egypt with him.  And the Bible doesn't say he did that. Unless you have some other explanation for this I can't see.

Let my imagination be guided be the text? I'm not sure if you're complimenting me or criticising me here. I hope it's the former I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to let my imagination run wild apart from the text that's the surest way to just make up stuff.

Hmm, I kind have answer your question "what do I believe?" As I go. I don't believe that the texts of Genesis 1 and 2-4 existed back in the day. I believe they were written by Moses inspired by and guided by God. I don't believe God necessarily spoke them to Moses verbatim but I believe He was very careful to limit important error on Moses's part.

I believe the second narrative certainly supplements the fourth but it does not pass the seventh day (though I'm open to the possibility it does) but I have thought a lot about how to reconcile the texts to both each other and to modern science. I certainly don't believe how difficult writing might have been limits the text or what God intends to believe in any way.

But you ask what I believe, here is what I answer. I believe that the story of Genesis 2-4 is allegory, I am aware for a Jewish translation I have read that the names of at least two of the rivers make puns, in Hebrew, with words and phrases later in the text. This is a good part of their relevance.

I believe we live in a physical world that is material nature. There is another world or, quite probably, number of worlds that a spiritual in nature that underlie this world. I do not know what happens in these worlds and it is difficult or impossible to describe literally in human language so the Bible describes them in allegory.

I believe science describes the properties of the physical world we live very effectively, remembering it is open to correction, but it cannot describe the transcendent world(s). However, I am aware God make have created the world with the appearance of having a scientific history it does not actually have for His own reasons, perhaps to give us things to discover.

In the same way I believe it is possible that the human animal can sometimes engage with and access at least one of the spiritual realms and what happens there may effect what happens when we return here. I believe a good part of us may even have begun there and the Genesis account may describe something that happened in that realm which spectacularly polluted this one.

I acknowledge that what the Genesis account describes may be historical and because of the unfathomable greatness of God it can be reconciled to what science says in way we cannot comprehend.

But I don't believe God revealed this story to us purely as and exercise in telling us the history of our species. We don't read it purely as history, we read it to learn, to try and gleam whatever lessons God is trying to impart to us. And that doesn't require it to be historical and, indeed, works better if it isn't.

I doubt the Genesis account is historical the way a lot of people want it to be. I have multiple reasons, from the text and from my understanding of God,  for thinking it is an allegory which are to complex to go into here. But here's the most important thing I believe: on this matter God isn't asking me to choose. I think about it and try to choose because thinking about it can make me consider how I understand the texts and because humans are asking me to and the conversation can also further understand.

I believe there are many points of faith the Bible has revealed and thus God is asking me to choose about them, but I don't think this is one of them. I feel the is a danger of diminishing God is we trying to say He wants us to choose or that the text must be understood either historically or allegorically but not both. Certainly being historical doesn't stop the history involved being planned by God for the use of allegory later.

Do I believe on the 8th day everything was done? No, because things are still happening but I believe God ceased creating on the seventh day because it says so and therefore anything that occurs or is created since can only be produced my that process. And again I don't believe there was bread in Eden, it was something Adam and Eve had to learn to do after they were exiled. In a sense man created bread but he could only do so because of what God had previously provided.

Yeah, you say Eve didn't have a name but: "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23) I don'really know how to take the phrase "she shall be called Woman" (while I recognise the capitalisation may not belong') without allowing that Adam named her.

God created us to express His love and so we could express His love as our own to each other. This I believe.

And do I believe He foreknew the fall before it happened? Yes, I most certainly do and I believe that is what the Bible clearly teaches and it is necessary for God to genuinely love us as His children.

The reason for this is that if we are the result of an unintended and unforeseen (by God) 'accident', IE human sin, then if means we are essentially the product of an event God did not wish to happen. Instead God want something else - man not sinning - to happen and wanted the sin free world which whatever being would be produced in that process, which wouldn't be us.

I this picture God doesn't want us, He's simply stuck with us because Adam disobeyed Him and produced a world God did expect or want. How can God love us of we're always second to something He actually wanted, if we're something He has to put up with instead of something He actually desired from the first.

I already find it hard enough to believe God loves me, the evidence of my 'life' and being seems to be against it. But I try, whenever I think like this I try my best (and it's very difficult) to cleave to this motto paraphrased from Coldplay: "Don't ever say we are not loved by God when we are the children He made." God made us and he didn't do it accidentally, there were many other beings that could have existed in our place but we are the ones that exist and we exist because we are the ones God chose to make not just the ones that happened to come into existence because of the sin of Adam. I feel this is what makes each of us special before God in a way us being random beings doesn't.

I know roughly why you think you way you do; I haven't read Creation Hymn but I have read a lot of the thread on it including where you discussed this with Abigail.

As I recall I revolved around the phrase 'foundation of the Earth' in the passage "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) - certainly a difficult passage. Before I adopted UR it looked so like God had chosen everyone who He was going to save from before they were even born, what hope did those He hadn't chosen to save have? I tended to worry particularly against any babies produced by illicit unions. Surely such children won't be in the book of like as that would sanction sin, wouldn't it? I found it hard to see any illegitimate children going to Heaven even when it obviously wasn't there fault they were illegitimate.

Your argument, as I recall, states that 'foundation' is a wilful mistranslation of a word that, according to you, should mean 'disruption'. You reached this conclusion from the fact that the Greek words behind it mean 'throwing' and 'down'. Personally, I think 'disruption' is a somewhat weaker term than 'throwdown' but for now I'll accept the premise.

I feel you may have made two errors here. First, I suspect you have committed the 'root fallacy' I'm not entirely big on objection to the root fallacy, it seems to be a move to shut down argument but the basic premise is that language evolves so that words sometimes grow beyond the words that originally composed them so that looking at them can lead to false conclusions because they may no longer have anything to do with the words that are made of. Abigail seemed to be of the impression that she'd found you were right and literally translations use the word 'disruption'. The don't so far as I can see. all the translations I'm looking at say 'foundation' or a variant, or a phrase that means 'foundation' is they're free-form.

The second mistake, I think you've made is the jump to the conclusion that 'disruption' means the fall of man, which I might. But, as far as I can tell, it might just as easily be the fall of Satan of some other disruption if you believe as I think you do.

You also talked about the word 'foreknowledge', taken from the words for 'know' and 'before', quite unsurprisingly. The play you seemed to make here was the reverse the root fallacy. As if the words should not have been put together to make the word 'foreknew' even though in the majority of uses it refers to God and seems to mean exactly that. Here's a important use which I have amended slightly is keeping with what we discussed:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreknown before the disruption of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," (1 Peter 1:18-20)

I've made a couple of changes to the standard KJV text there to help the discussion, I've added your word disruption' where foundation usually is and I've put the word 'foreknown' where the word  foreordained was.

This would seem difficult for your argument; it says, quite clearly, God foreknew (it doesn't say 'God' but it must mean God because if not, who?) Jesus and the sacrifice He was going to make not at the disruption of the world but very clearly before it. If God knew how He was going to know how He was going to correct the sin before it happened it's hard not to think He knew the sin was going to happen before it happen

It's difficult to accept there's a mistake in the translation of disruption here.  Greek doesn't seem to be that difficult to translate, unlike Hebrew. There are much fewer footnotes in the Greek 'Meaning of Greek uncertain' then there are for the Masoretic Hebrew in The Old Testament. Also the word for foundation appears 11 times in the Greek text. It is translated 'foundation' 10 of those times and 'to conceive' (in conjunction with something else). Given that 'foundation' and 'disruption' are drastically different words it's hard to see why this never causes problems.

The Bible seems to teach exactly what we think it does traditionally. I more normal reasoning, it seems impossible God could not have foreknown the fall. It was clearly possible, because it happened, and God must know all that is possible especially since He did nothing to prevent it. Given enough time it's hard not to see the fall as inevitable which means somehow God must have foreknown it. maybe He didn't now exactly when it would occur (though I expect He did) but He clearly foreknew it would eventually occur)

It doesn't seem very accurate, it seems to be a word that is translated fill 107 times and replenish 7 that hardly looks like an accurate translation. I imagine the translators of the KJV (or earlier) had an idea in their heads but I can't see what it was and the modern ones (especially the literal ones) tend to say 'fill'. I suspect fill is correct but the word is an interesting one as it does seem to  suggest in many of it's translations some sort of goal for man in creation which modern science often seeks to deny. I can't see how this is relevant to what I said at this point though.

Tohu bohu seems to be a term that people can't actually agree on the meaning of, in some translations it might be taken as describing something before the world was made but that implication could easily be incorrect so vague those translations are. You can't describe 'nothing' in any positive terms because it defies description. Translations of tohu bohu often seem to fit this bill.

Sorry that this may have become messy, it's taken a long time to write and I've lost my thread at several points.

Hey CST!

Man o' man do I love your reply!

It's for replies like yours that I put myself, "out there;" for I desire to be challenged in my understanding simply because I can't think of every thing; and, most certainly, I've learned not to believe everything I think!

So, thank you for all that typing. Please know that I appreciate the time you spent sharing your heart with me.

However, it will be a while before I can reply "mano a mano" because you've given me a lot to contemplate.

In the meantime, could I please ask you to read Creation Hymn? It is a story, and so it puts a cohesiveness to this strange understanding I've concluded during the many years I've studied and contemplated the Genesis account; time spent studying, not just the text, but the entire Bible, Logic, Jewish history and theology, the history of world civilizations and church history including the Roman world of the first Christians, the origins of the KJV, including the life of that good ol' king himself, and the lives and theology of the men of religious and political influence during the middle ages, notably Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin and Joseph Arminius.

Also, in my intro to Creation Hymn, I link you to what seems to have become a much viewed thread since I concluded it way back in 2008. If you are interested, it delves deeper into my understanding, especially concerning the words "katabole" and "themilios," as I engage "Doc" in a discussion on the merits of my understanding. It's a very long read, but it is my heart.

Right now I am finishing my fall semester. After that, I will endeavor to provide you with my specific answers to your challenges. However, please know that I am not interested in convincing you to accept my understanding; paradigm shifting utilizing mere words is not possible, apart from Jehovah's intervention.

So, for knowing this, please retain in your heart about me that the two reasons I post are because I wish to be challenged so I may improve my understanding; after all the only person I need to convince of the truth is myself. And I post because my understanding created a huge, new paradigm in me - a paradigm so profound that it changed the entire viewpoint of my heart toward both God and Mankind because it gave my heart something to respect in both of them. Therefore, I post because I am hoping that it might make a difference to the hearts of any who can receive it, which would be anyone who has perceived the ugliness in the personality of the God who knew, as a fact, that The Awdam were going to turn before He created them, yet created them anyway; and, who, for their perceptions of Jehovah, perceptions gleaned logically from what is written in the KJV, have a tenuous and uncomfortable faith.

For that, I note that many Christians seem to have no problem accepting the God Who foreknew the fall as a fact before it happened, and so, I am happy for them for as long as they can continue to walk in fear before Him. After all, the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.

So, CST, until we read again, be good! After all, it is what you were created to be (and what's wrong with thinking that... besides it not being the truth?  :winkgrin:).

Hopefully, I'll have read Creation Hymn by the time you finish what you are doing. I was going to print it out now but ran into several difficulties including the cost of doing it here. I can do it elsewhere for less so I'll try to remember to do it another time.

I honest I am not worried about the implications of God knew of the fall before it happened which you seem to see, if I want to worry about things I'm more inclined to worry about why God didn't let John tell us what the seven thunders said and so far as I can tell John wasn't worried about God's intent in keeping that from us so why should I be.

Is that last sentiment right, it seems to be self-contradictory?

QuoteIn the same way I believe it is possible that the human animal can sometimes engage with and access at least one of the spiritual realms and what happens there may effect what happens when we return here. I believe a good part of us may even have begun there and the Genesis account may describe something that happened in that realm which spectacularly polluted this one.

I acknowledge that what the Genesis account describes may be historical and because of the unfathomable greatness of God it can be reconciled to what science says in way we cannot comprehend.

I believe these two things can both be true.

I especially agree that the story of the fall(whether as metaphor or history or both) took place in the "world" underlying this one, a world from which Adam and Eve, the serpent and all their progeny(literal, metaphorical or both) were prevented from re-entering by a "flaming sword", and Behold, James says the tongue is a flame that sets the whole world on fire when it is fed by the wrong well, and that "this wisdom is earthly, sensual, and demonic".

Then we see that we are seated in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus and have access "through a new and living way" through the veil- having our hearts cleansed from an evil consciousness and our bodies washed with pure water (death of the "old man" who is "earthly, sensual and demonic).

So even earlier in Genesis, whether the creation itself is seen as "history" or "metaphor" the revelation that is most important is what these words communicate....(I will speak to you in parables mysteries hidden from the foundation/formation of the world)

"In the beginning the earth was without form and void(the double minded man is unstable in all His ways)

And darkness covered the face of the deep(to be carnally minded is death)

And the Spirit hovered over the face of the waters(The Spirit is in the world to convince men of the centrality of Jesus Christ to all things/consciousness/worlds/heavens...to exalt Jesus as Messiah, Savior and Lord)

And God spoke  (made manifest, LOGOS-expressed thought/word)


"Let there be light" (God reveals the light into the carnal darkness/death/confusion- without form and voidness "I Am The Light Of The World")

And there was light and God saw that it was good 

("And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren"....And there it is- Romans 8 holds the solution to the creation/fall dilema- the reason/answer to the mystery/question is reformation of all things, God becomes all in all as Christ gathers all things into one.)

And there was evening and morning -the first day

Light separated from darkness, The mind set on the flesh is death(without form and void) the mind set on the spirit is life and peace(creation, restoration, newness of life- in the image of Christ)

Walk as children of the Day

Awake O Sleeper and Rise from amongst the dead and the Light of Christ will shine on you

And God created man and woman, in His own image He created them. That seed of creation through chaos(Spirit breathed into dust) is also explained in 2 Cor 4....

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God(Earthly, sensual, demonic; without form and void of the image of Christ; carnally minded in death) but by the manifestation of truth(LOGOS, expressed thought in the image/spirit of Christ) commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God(Let there be LIGHT!). 3And even if our gospel is veiled(darkness), it is veiled to those who are perishing (appolumi/death), 4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord(the first thought expressed out of the darkness of mystery, the "depths of God" is a Lamb slain, become Lord the throne of all existence being His love-"THE ONE SITTING ON THE THRONE SAYS, 'BEHOLD I AM MAKING ALL THINGS NEW'") and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake(The First fruits IN HIS IMAGE). 6For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ(Lanterns/lamps in a dark generation-"Be saved from this perverse generation!"-out of Adam/death/voidness into Messiah/life/fulness in His image/spirit))
      7But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested() in our body(Light shines out of Darkness! Overcoming the darkness/chaos/void). 11For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12So death works in us, but life in you.

So Jesus says through John

Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent. 6'Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans(earthly, sensual, demonic) which I also hate. 7'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes(wisdom from "above"), I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.'

Full circle back to the Garden, fiery sword removed from the entrance and planted in the heart of faith, seated with Christ in the heavenly realms(Eph1&2, Col 3)

"He who overcomes will sit with me on my throne(love)"

In Philippians 2;6-11 Jesus passes through the chaos, subjects Himself to death, in order to show us "The Way". Laying it down. Accepting death. For the joy set before Him- that joy being all creation saved- every soul delivered out of Adam/chaos/death/emptiness into Christ/harmony/life/fulness. From a seed in Mary's womb(without form) to the center of all things, the fountainhead of living water, the wisdom and the power of God.

And, sorry to carry on, but LOL

This pattern is seen also in Eph 3....

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— 2if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; 3that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief(Eph 1:9-11). 4By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit(Romans 16:25-27); 6to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers(Let There Be Light!) of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. 8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery(Eph 1:9-11) which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; 10so that the manifold wisdom of God(LOGOS- LET THERE BE LIGHT) might now be made known through the church(Ecclesia- first fruits) to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places(All worlds are seeing/learning the glory of God through Christ and the first fruit). 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose(Lamb slain from the foundation of the world) which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have boldness and confident access(Hearts sprinkled clean) through faith in Him. 13Therefore I ask you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, for they are your glory(light out of darkness, life out of death, glory out of ignominy, exaltation out of humiliation).

      14For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, 16that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

This the prayer that every one who is of the first fruits prays for the world- the mission and the joy set before the sons and daughters of God. The heart of their endurance is in sharing this with Messiah.

It is the place where we find union.....

"That they may be one, even as you and I are one- that I am in you and you are in me and I am in them" until God is "all in all"

It's all right there in the first few chapters of Genesis LOLOL

      20Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

In every generation, unto the age of the ages, "worlds without end" will find their summation, union and restoration in the glory of God until all the veils are rolled away and the voice of God will be heard as the voices of myriads of angels and the ecclesia and all the full harvest of the ages of the earth..... no more emptiness- all will be filled when God is all in all.... no more chaos, not one drop of confusion, because all will be gathered into one in Christ, and He will return it to the Father..... to whom be the glory forever.

What? if Christ returns all back to His Father.... what part would you keep? Your honor? Your stuff? Some person? Some enmity?

Better give it all up, give all back to God, get low and stay there- because God will find us there together and He will lift us up when he can trust us to stay where we ought to stay....

"Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God and at the proper time He will lift you up...(light out of darkness)

"Let patience have it perfect work that you may be whole and complete, lacking nothing....(light out of darkness)

"I am the potter you are the clay. How shall the clay say to the potter, "Why have you made me thus....(light out of darkness)

Again in Romans 8

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

      18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to usThe Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.(light out of darkness)

       19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God(Light out of darkness).

22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. (Light out of darkness)

Again Acts 17

Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you(In the beginning was the word). 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;(and the Word was God) 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(All things were created through Him); 26 and 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(The earth was without form and void), 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him(and darkness covered the face of the deep), though He is not far from each one of us(and the Spirit hovered over the waters); 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children(For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God).. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature(For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse)is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man(For He is the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact expression of His nature, through whom he created the worlds). 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance (For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God) God is now declaring to men(And God said) that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day(light out of darkness) in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."(Let There Be Light)

Its just too, too much. My mind is blown. See ya later :o)

Indeed, the premise of a large portion of things that seem irreconcilable to us are in fact not irreconcilable at all but only seem so due to our limited perception of a very small part of the universe, namely the part and moment we inhabit we have direct access to no other parts or moments.

In this case though while I believe that 'the fall' occurred in a transcendental realm I do want to make clear that I do believe humans existed in the material world since their creation, the spirits of Adam and Eve weren't forcibly migrated into the apes that then evolved into the first humans. A perception I now fear can be drawn from a lack of clarity in what I said.

You've managed to enter into a very impressive allegorical mindset there, which will certainly be correct provided it actually fits to the terms involved although I'm not convinced early Hebrews could have seen it that way easily, not without the New Testaments texts you're citing.

Still I now have license to 'go there' if I need to later and explain exactly how I currently understand the first three or four chapters of Genesis, noting though that they are continually subject to revision.

My mind is blown too. Hence why I haven't tried to engage with specific details of the rest of your post and, indeed may not have properly understood what I have responded to.

 :HeartThrob:   :dsunny:

  GODS AMAZING GRACE ..  How sweet the sound!!

Just saw Johns Post !!!   all I can say is the Holy Sprint is speaking and teaching right now BIG TIME    :HeartThrob:

LOVE THIS   ,WOWZA   :banana:   !! I do not always read everything  when it comes on here  , Sure should though ...

I am blown away also ... :HeartThrob:

  ps   CST , It is by the Holy Sprint  teaching  us  that we  learn , know and   share everything in common  with one another 

As I was reading these latest posts, the words "keys to the kingdom" was brought to the forefront of my mind, which of course lead me to:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

which then lead me to:

"Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52).

Seeing the words "the key of knowledge" in its original meanings is "a shutting in of knowing", then with what immediately popped into my head was "The sealing of the Holy Spirit" for His Spirit "is" our knowing which is the mind of Christ as a crown in which Rose stated.

In which "a shutting in of knowing" can also be understood as: being taken out of this world: out of its way of thinking. "Our kingdom is not of this world"

What are lawyers but "interpreters of the law" and they take away the key of knowledge, the shutting in of knowing, the seal of the Holy Spirit ...... not only from themselves (ye entered not in yourselves) but from those who are trying to enter in by preaching works ....

You cannot enter in unless .....

In the last paragraph that EW wrote, I saw the locks being opened, and from what I have come to understand is that Genesis Chapter one is the key that is given when understood spiritually ...... I am not trying to take away anything from its interpretation of the creation of the physical, but it is the mysteries hidden within that are revealed to those who believe, for all things are possible with God.

Genesis chapter One is the pattern in which all understandings are patterned after "seed after its kind"

And the earth brought forth grass ...... out of the dust God formed the body of Adam, the corruptible flesh that is compared to grass that will be burned up.

and also in the words of EW ....... Its just too, too much. My mind is blown.

my mind has just been flooded with thought so must take a rest to reflect

Blessings

He is so wonderful.. so infinitely wise.. So much so that every single rational creature will be sealed into His Spirit and Truth.. Like Rose said in another thread.. the mind of Christ as the crown of Life..

And others speaking of the seed of each thing being in itself.. What better way to learn the One Way of Life, than to experience the other way.. Or what better way to love the Light, than to have experienced the chaos and darkness? And chaos and darkness? The wrong way.. It's powerful. I used to wonder, why did the animals become predatory? and so very quickly? Because the way of self.. becomes dog eat dog. (And is basically a bottomless pit of dark choas of possibility.)
- How glorious that He is Love. And that makes love to be life. There's no other way. Because the 'other' way leads to destruction, ruin, loss.. chaos, darkness.. and I believe ultimately, without His rescue, annihilation. Because dark is the opposite of light. And light is the opposite of darkness. And you can't ultimately have both. But "with God all things are possible" and so we "children of men are not consumed..". Because He is faithful.
             :Chinscratch: That's interesting.. that it's all right there in those beginning chapters of Genesis.. And I've always felt the last two chapters of Revelation, somehow parallel them.
  Great insights! Being taught of God, is anything but boring! :cloud9: :dsunny:

Quote from: rosered on January 08, 2018, 04:50:13 PM
:HeartThrob:   :dsunny:

  GODS AMAZING GRACE ..  How sweet the sound!!

Just saw Johns Post !!!   all I can say is the Holy Sprint is speaking and teaching right now BIG TIME    :HeartThrob:

LOVE THIS   ,WOWZA   :banana:   !! I do not always read everything  when it comes on here  , Sure should though ...

I am blown away also ... :HeartThrob:

  ps   CST , It is by the Holy Sprint  teaching  us  that we  learn , know and   share everything in common  with one another

Thank you, Rose, bless you!

Quote from: jugghead on January 08, 2018, 07:57:00 PM
As I was reading these latest posts, the words "keys to the kingdom" was brought to the forefront of my mind, which of course lead me to:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

which then lead me to:

"Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11:52).

Seeing the words "the key of knowledge" in its original meanings is "a shutting in of knowing", then with what immediately popped into my head was "The sealing of the Holy Spirit" for His Spirit "is" our knowing which is the mind of Christ as a crown in which Rose stated.

In which "a shutting in of knowing" can also be understood as: being taken out of this world: out of its way of thinking. "Our kingdom is not of this world"

What are lawyers but "interpreters of the law" and they take away the key of knowledge, the shutting in of knowing, the seal of the Holy Spirit ...... not only from themselves (ye entered not in yourselves) but from those who are trying to enter in by preaching works ....

You cannot enter in unless .....

In the last paragraph that EW wrote, I saw the locks being opened, and from what I have come to understand is that Genesis Chapter one is the key that is given when understood spiritually ...... I am not trying to take away anything from its interpretation of the creation of the physical, but it is the mysteries hidden within that are revealed to those who believe, for all things are possible with God.

Genesis chapter One is the pattern in which all understandings are patterned after "seed after its kind"

And the earth brought forth grass ...... out of the dust God formed the body of Adam, the corruptible flesh that is compared to grass that will be burned up.

and also in the words of EW ....... Its just too, too much. My mind is blown.

my mind has just been flooded with thought so must take a rest to reflect

Blessings

Interesting, as I said above (vaguely) interpretations that take you far away from the original text can often seem difficult for others who disagree to even comprehend how they were reached. But the opening chapters of Genesis are a particularly interesting point, after all it's hard to see how a literal knowledge of how God created the universe can contribute anything to our spiritual growth and knowledge of God. Given how specific Genesis 1 seems very broad reinterpretations seem likely.

Quote from: marie glen on January 09, 2018, 05:32:16 AM
He is so wonderful.. so infinitely wise.. So much so that every single rational creature will be sealed into His Spirit and Truth.. Like Rose said in another thread.. the mind of Christ as the crown of Life..

And others speaking of the seed of each thing being in itself.. What better way to learn the One Way of Life, than to experience the other way.. Or what better way to love the Light, than to have experienced the chaos and darkness? And chaos and darkness? The wrong way.. It's powerful. I used to wonder, why did the animals become predatory? and so very quickly? Because the way of self.. becomes dog eat dog. (And is basically a bottomless pit of dark choas of possibility.)
- How glorious that He is Love. And that makes love to be life. There's no other way. Because the 'other' way leads to destruction, ruin, loss.. chaos, darkness.. and I believe ultimately, without His rescue, annihilation. Because dark is the opposite of light. And light is the opposite of darkness. And you can't ultimately have both. But "with God all things are possible" and so we "children of men are not consumed..". Because He is faithful.
             :Chinscratch: That's interesting.. that it's all right there in those beginning chapters of Genesis.. And I've always felt the last two chapters of Revelation, somehow parallel them.
  Great insights! Being taught of God, is anything but boring! :cloud9: :dsunny:

Indeed but...

Quote from: marie glen on January 09, 2018, 05:32:16 AM
  Great insights! Being taught of God, is anything but boring! :cloud9: :dsunny:

I don't know, even though I've thought increased understanding would result in increased interest I really don't currently know how to change the fact that Numbers 7 is pretty boring.

Quote from: marie glen on January 09, 2018, 05:32:16 AM
Great insights! Being taught of God, is anything but boring! :cloud9: :dsunny:

I don't know Marie Glen, as CST mentioned, Numbers can turn out to be pretty boring at times.  :laughing7:

One interesting thing to note though, is that boredom denotes purpose. If I feel something antithetical at a moment in time, then that antithesis points to something inherent. It is not what the secular existentialists say, where we have no inherent purpose, where we are a puddle of jelly and free to make ourselves into an image that we see fit. When I look into a mirror, I do not see something I will be, I see something that I am, just as He is. God has made purpose in us, and has crafted us in our mother's womb (Psalms 22)

9For thou [art] He bringing me forth from the womb, Causing me to trust, On the breasts of my mother.

He has made purpose in us, before the world began (Ephesians 1)

4according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love

He has determined our destiny, to be in Him, not because of my will, but of His (Romans 8)

20for to vanity was the creation made subject-not of its will, but because of Him who did subject [it] -in hope,

21that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;

22for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.

23And not only [so], but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting-the redemption of our bodies

When we are in a state of learning, we learn to be as God is. God has placed Christ in us(inherent purpose) to become like him, to become perfect and changeless(destiny.) Just as a seed in planted in by the Gardener, so too He plants us in the ground, enriching us with the Water of Life, and nourishing us with the Tree of Life, in order to sprout out like a flower and become anew in glorified bodies. These things of now, they are purposed in Him. These things are a shadow of things to come. An Image. A Reflection. That all fullness should dwell in Him. This purpose is all around us. All you have to do is be still and listen...

Also, beautiful posts, guys. Really appreciate the words of others here.

Blessings  :HeartThrob:

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 11, 2018, 08:15:14 PM
All you have to do is be still and listen...
           ...Really appreciate the words of others here.

Me too! Especially when His kingdom is said to be like a garden.. Which of course is what He created in the beginning! And we bear fruit by abiding in Him.. Jesus being the vine and the Father is the husbandman/farmer.. And He waits patiently for the fruit of the earth.. there being two harvests.. the maturing of truth and some of the children of God, and the maturing of error, called the harvest of grapes of wrath.. fruits of good and evil, an illustration to teach all in heaven and earth.

Flowers which keep their faces turned toward the light that they may grow.. Trees, reaching, reaching toward the heavens.. full of sap of the LORD.. Like trees planted by rivers of water, whose leaves won't wither even in old age.. Heart can not even imagine all that He has created for those who love Him.. The kingdom becoming (like) the tallest tree in the field..
    :Peace2: :cloud9:

Quote from: CST on January 11, 2018, 05:36:28 PM
I don't know, even though I've thought increased understanding would result in increased interest I really don't currently know how to change the fact that Numbers 7 is pretty boring.

    ...it's also one long chapter! :faint: :laugh2: - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+7&version=NKJV

Quote...And we bear fruit by abiding in Him.. Jesus being the vine and the Father is the husbandman/farmer.. And He waits patiently for the fruit of the earth.

Would it be appropriate to say that Christ is a seed in us, and His Spirit nourishes it over time, while the Father is the Gardener who plants that seed and grows it when He desires? That is why when it says that "I must decrease, and He must increase in me" because carnal man is like weeds in soil, and spiritual man is like flowers in soil. At least, that's what I have an idea on...

:cloud9: :declare: :Peace2:

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 12, 2018, 11:26:55 PM
Would it be appropriate to say that Christ is a seed in us, and His Spirit nourishes it over time, while the Father is the Gardener who plants that seed and grows it when He desires? That is why when it says that "I must decrease, and He must increase in me" because carnal man is like weeds in soil, and spiritual man is like flowers in soil. At least, that's what I have an idea on...

:cloud9: :declare: :Peace2:

Amen! :thumbsup: He must increase in us (in me!) and we (me) decrease.

He will shine through all.. And it begins in each one of us! ..."each one in his own order"..

As our understanding of God increases so does our ignorance of Him (of which we were, old man) decrease, for it is the man of ignorance that dies daily as we eat of the daily manna sent from heaven.

Quote from: jugghead on January 15, 2018, 06:20:32 AM
As our understanding of God increases so does our ignorance of Him (of which we were, old man) decrease, for it is the man of ignorance that dies daily as we eat of the daily manna sent from heaven.

Does this manna ever get stale? Is the carnal man allergic, or dislike the taste?

manna over 2 days old bred worms...truebread from heaven/hidden manna/hidden in Christ....does  not see corruption. :2c:

Quote from: sheila on January 15, 2018, 07:18:29 AM
manna over 2 days old bred worms...truebread from heaven/hidden manna/hidden in Christ....does  not see corruption. :2c:

Not really sure why that was my question. Just popped in my head right when I saw Rick's response.

Also, would you say the manna kills off the old nature, or does it give life to it, bringing in the new one?

hmm...wemust LIVE by every wordthat comes from the mouth of God.  the old law covenant was good food in it'stime..served

it'spurpose as atutourtolead to Christ .IKILL..and Imake  alive comes to mind.  God putting to death/condemning sin in the flesh

but quickening the spirit and giving eternal life in the spirit

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 15, 2018, 07:40:25 AM

Quote from: sheila on January 15, 2018, 07:18:29 AM
manna over 2 days old bred worms...truebread from heaven/hidden manna/hidden in Christ....does  not see corruption. :2c:

Not really sure why that was my question. Just popped in my head right when I saw Rick's response.

Also, would you say the manna kills off the old nature, or does it give life to it, bringing in the new one?

For me it the understanding of the difference between "just surviving" (old nature) and "living" (new nature).....

"just surviving" is "instinctual" ... like in the animal nature .... it has to kill in order to remain alive which I understand as "it has 'to do' something in order to remain alive, which is just another way of understanding "it has to work in order to remain alive"

BUT

"living" is "a going against that instinctual nature" .... it is rest ... in the concept of: remaining and He brings the food to us, but also that in our appointed time He leads us into the wedding feast, which again is being seated at a table (rest) while at the same time He is the One that serves the food to us, knowing which food has to be served first (milk) before He gives us meat.

He is the One that causes our growth and He is the One that knows the time in which to serve it ... it is all HIS WORK in us so that no man can boast, boast in his own works.

It is "an eating" of His works in/by/through us (from above) not "an eating" of our works in/by/through us (from below)

Which is a deeper understanding of (a depth of) "focusing on things above and not on the things below"

I can no longer look to the world for understanding, in other words, I can no longer look to the things happening in this world or things that might happen for understanding, I look to Him and see that all the things that are happening or can happen in the world are just other ways of explaining in more detail the things happening or will happen IN us.

I look to the physical world and all that is in it and see "who I was" and by that I see where I am (not in this world) and by seeing where I am, I also see "who I am now", He (He in me) that has been taken out of this world and its mindset.

Blessings to all

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 11, 2018, 08:15:14 PM

Quote from: marie glen on January 09, 2018, 05:32:16 AM
Great insights! Being taught of God, is anything but boring! :cloud9: :dsunny:

I don't know Marie Glen, as CST mentioned, Numbers can turn out to be pretty boring at times.  :laughing7:

One interesting thing to note though, is that boredom denotes purpose. If I feel something antithetical at a moment in time, then that antithesis points to something inherent. It is not what the secular existentialists say, where we have no inherent purpose, where we are a puddle of jelly and free to make ourselves into an image that we see fit. When I look into a mirror, I do not see something I will be, I see something that I am, just as He is. God has made purpose in us, and has crafted us in our mother's womb (Psalms 22)

9For thou [art] He bringing me forth from the womb, Causing me to trust, On the breasts of my mother.

He has made purpose in us, before the world began (Ephesians 1)

4according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love

He has determined our destiny, to be in Him, not because of my will, but of His (Romans 8)

20for to vanity was the creation made subject-not of its will, but because of Him who did subject [it] -in hope,

21that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God;

22for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.

23And not only [so], but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting-the redemption of our bodies

When we are in a state of learning, we learn to be as God is. God has placed Christ in us(inherent purpose) to become like him, to become perfect and changeless(destiny.) Just as a seed in planted in by the Gardener, so too He plants us in the ground, enriching us with the Water of Life, and nourishing us with the Tree of Life, in order to sprout out like a flower and become anew in glorified bodies. These things of now, they are purposed in Him. These things are a shadow of things to come. An Image. A Reflection. That all fullness should dwell in Him. This purpose is all around us. All you have to do is be still and listen...

Also, beautiful posts, guys. Really appreciate the words of others here.

Blessings  :HeartThrob:

Boredom denotes purpose? I'm not sure how that follows, in my experience boredom is produced by a sense of lack of purpose but that doesn't mean that there's any actually purpose to be found even if we feel and believe there is.

"All you have to do is be still and listen..."

Yeah, but if you don't hear anything pretty quickly you're liable to get bored.

Quote from: marie glen on January 12, 2018, 10:07:12 PM

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 11, 2018, 08:15:14 PM
All you have to do is be still and listen...
           ...Really appreciate the words of others here.

Me too! Especially when His kingdom is said to be like a garden..

There's a reason for that which may not be what you think it is.

Quote from: marie glen on January 12, 2018, 10:15:03 PM

Quote from: CST on January 11, 2018, 05:36:28 PM
I don't know, even though I've thought increased understanding would result in increased interest I really don't currently know how to change the fact that Numbers 7 is pretty boring.

    ...it's also one long chapter! :faint: :laugh2: - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+7&version=NKJV

Indeed but that why I used it as an example and it probably more boring than similar things elsewhere, if it was split up it may be less boring because at least you'd have the relief of the end of the chapter as a brief respite.

Hmmm, I'm still trying to understand fully what I wrote there.

Maybe a more correct correct term would be fulfilment or completeness? I'm thinking when you feel boredom, it is a lack of fulfilment within yourself. Even if you brought it upon yourself, Is there really any other thing, other than God, where you can tell me that you are "Completely satisfied, that you desire no other thing?" Even if we do a task, or a train of thought, or something else, we normally would eventually move on to something else, right? Even when we feel something is "finished," we go on to return to that very thing we thought was put away.

Also, sometimes being still/placid is necessary, in order to have more focus on your surroundings...

As much as I love my family and friends, and love conversation about the Lord on the internet with other believers, my favorite times are times of solitude and quietness, which I call quiet time(s) for reading, study, and prayer and quiet pondering/listening. I'm sure everyone knows exactly what I mean.

I have the recurring thought that there will be a day.. a few moments, when all the universe will be gathered around His Throne and all will be in utter silence.. So complete shall be our awe.

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 16, 2018, 07:55:32 PM
Hmmm, I'm still trying to understand fully what I wrote there.

Maybe a more correct correct term would be fulfilment or completeness? I'm thinking when you feel boredom, it is a lack of fulfilment within yourself. Even if you brought it upon yourself, Is there really any other thing, other than God, where you can tell me that you are "Completely satisfied, that you desire no other thing?" Even if we do a task, or a train of thought, or something else, we normally would eventually move on to something else, right? Even when we feel something is "finished," we go on to return to that very thing we thought was put away.

Also, sometimes being still/placid is necessary, in order to have more focus on your surroundings...

This might help—it's been found that creativity actually needs boredom for it to spring forth. Which is why in today's world many people are constantly being entertained by phones, tv, social media, etc that we have forgotten how to sit quietly to let new ideas happen. It's actually huge problem in current childhood development, because gone are the days where kids were sent out to find something to do on their own (and they would come up with new games, elaborate make believe etc) now when kids are faced with free time if they aren't on a device they are often "bored." There's a new recognition happening where we realize kids need unstructured free time without technology or an adult telling them what to do. Somewhat related I think :)

and another perspective is: in the context of plants ..... boredom is the root of impatience

Quote from: jugghead on January 17, 2018, 03:06:38 AM
and another perspective is: in the context of plants ..... boredom is the root of impatience

I'll admit, I do get bored a lot. I don't think it is due to impatience though. More to do with an decreasing satisfaction with most things. Especially even more as of late.

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 17, 2018, 03:15:24 AM

Quote from: jugghead on January 17, 2018, 03:06:38 AM
and another perspective is: in the context of plants ..... boredom is the root of impatience

I'll admit, I do get bored a lot. I don't think it is due to impatience though. More to do with an decreasing satisfaction with most things. Especially even more as of late.

Hate to say it, I didn't say "boredom was due to impatience" I said "impatience was due to boredom"

Boredom is "a wanting to do something" (it's the seed or root) and if you can't find something to do impatience grows like the plant out of that seed or root ..... just like mankind and its heart became bored with waiting for Christ to come, therefore they created in their own minds what He should be like for their benefit (God's chosen people) and that is why they did not recognize Him when He came, they wanted Him to be a conquering Savior over evil men ... rather than a conquering Savior over the evil "IN" men, and that is a missing of the mark.

and what I see in that "decreasing satisfaction" is part of the process of being taken out of this world, out of it's mindset ..... in other words, things in the world are what are becoming boring and that is because He is showing you something that is better ... HIMSELF

Blessings

Quote from: jugghead on January 17, 2018, 04:51:55 AM

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 17, 2018, 03:15:24 AM

Quote from: jugghead on January 17, 2018, 03:06:38 AM
and another perspective is: in the context of plants ..... boredom is the root of impatience

I'll admit, I do get bored a lot. I don't think it is due to impatience though. More to do with an decreasing satisfaction with most things. Especially even more as of late.

Hate to say it, I didn't say "boredom was due to impatience" I said "impatience was due to boredom"

Boredom is "a wanting to do something" (it's the seed or root) and if you can't find something to do impatience grows like the plant out of that seed or root ..... just like mankind and its heart became bored with waiting for Christ to come, therefore they created in their own minds what He should be like for their benefit (God's chosen people) and that is why they did not recognize Him when He came, they wanted Him to be a conquering Savior over evil men ... rather than a conquering Savior over the evil "IN" men, and that is a missing of the mark.

and what I see in that "decreasing satisfaction" is part of the process of being taken out of this world, out of it's mindset ..... in other words, things in the world are what are becoming boring and that is because He is showing you something that is better ... HIMSELF

Blessings

Ok, I gotcha! My bad, should have understood what you meant more. Thanks for the heads up.  :thumbsup:

Oh, and just to add. Thanks for your thoughts GodIsLove, really appreciate it.  :banana:

Blessings  :HeartThrob:

...And so true GodIsLove, about the children! ...very true indeed...

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 16, 2018, 07:55:32 PM
Hmmm, I'm still trying to understand fully what I wrote there.

Maybe a more correct correct term would be fulfilment or completeness? I'm thinking when you feel boredom, it is a lack of fulfilment within yourself. Even if you brought it upon yourself, Is there really any other thing, other than God, where you can tell me that you are "Completely satisfied, that you desire no other thing?" Even if we do a task, or a train of thought, or something else, we normally would eventually move on to something else, right? Even when we feel something is "finished," we go on to return to that very thing we thought was put away.

Also, sometimes being still/placid is necessary, in order to have more focus on your surroundings...

I know how that feels, looking back over what you wrote online and then finding you weren't clear enough to remember what you were trying to say.  I don't think you can bring boredom on yourself though, boredom would seem to be a privation, an absence of something that ideally would be present.

And is there anything other than God people can say they are 'completely satisfied with? Well, the meals they eat usually. When you finish eating your meals you don't immediately go and make another meal to eat, generally. There are lot of things you can be satisfied with, when I get bored it's it's usually because the gap between what I've just satisfactorily finished and what I want to do next is too long to endure without doing anything, but too short to fill with anything else that could actually be finished. Boredom is the result of having time you can't constructively manage.

God makes all things good and nothing is good without God, that doesn't mean you can't describe this that satisfy you that seem to be other than God, it just means that in reality they're not.

Quote from: marie glen on January 16, 2018, 09:56:39 PM
As much as I love my family and friends, and love conversation about the Lord on the internet with other believers, my favorite times are times of solitude and quietness, which I call quiet time(s) for reading, study, and prayer and quiet pondering/listening. I'm sure everyone knows exactly what I mean.

I have the recurring thought that there will be a day.. a few moments, when all the universe will be gathered around His Throne and all will be in utter silence.. So complete shall be our awe.

Oh, God no. Some people spun the idea of eternal life because they believe it could only ultimately be boring and they wouldn't be able to fill it. Others think that all of time in the afterlife is exactly what you just described. I reject both notions.

Not that I think there will be nothing like what you say, but I notice there's not a lot of it in the Bible.

Quote from: GodIsLove on January 17, 2018, 01:49:07 AM

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 16, 2018, 07:55:32 PM
Hmmm, I'm still trying to understand fully what I wrote there.

Maybe a more correct correct term would be fulfilment or completeness? I'm thinking when you feel boredom, it is a lack of fulfilment within yourself. Even if you brought it upon yourself, Is there really any other thing, other than God, where you can tell me that you are "Completely satisfied, that you desire no other thing?" Even if we do a task, or a train of thought, or something else, we normally would eventually move on to something else, right? Even when we feel something is "finished," we go on to return to that very thing we thought was put away.

Also, sometimes being still/placid is necessary, in order to have more focus on your surroundings...

This might help—it's been found that creativity actually needs boredom for it to spring forth. Which is why in today's world many people are constantly being entertained by phones, tv, social media, etc that we have forgotten how to sit quietly to let new ideas happen. It's actually huge problem in current childhood development, because gone are the days where kids were sent out to find something to do on their own (and they would come up with new games, elaborate make believe etc) now when kids are faced with free time if they aren't on a device they are often "bored." There's a new recognition happening where we realize kids need unstructured free time without technology or an adult telling them what to do. Somewhat related I think :)

The source and spring of creativity is God and don't think He requires boredom to bring it forth. People are entertained my the thing you describe because that where people express most of their creativity these days. Don't be fooled; txt speak and emoji's are considered creative applications of language by those that use them even if those that don't think they are an abuse.

Quote from: jugghead on January 17, 2018, 03:06:38 AM
and another perspective is: in the context of plants ..... boredom is the root of impatience

No, frustration is the root of impatience, boredom is the root of lethargy and lethargy and impatience don't mix.

Quote from: CST on January 18, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
No, frustration is the root of impatience, boredom is the root of lethargy and lethargy and impatience don't mix.

All depends on the state of the person at the time of becoming bored

If a person is energetic and becomes bored with what they are doing, they want something else to do and can get frustrated because they can't find something else to do, therefore becoming impatient of wanting something else to do right away

But if a person is not energetic and becomes bored with what they are doing, they will get drowsy

In which I agree with you that lethargy and impatience don't mix

and on a side note,
if we view "being energetic" as "having been given life"
and
if we view "being non energetic" as "not having been given life"

It opens up a whole new world in understanding why people "do" the things they do or "not do" the things they ought to
(or what "we think" they ought to or not)

because do we have a reason to get angry at the idleness of a brother if he has not yet been given life (been given God's Spirit)? Because do we not believe "each in their own time (order)"?

Quote from: jugghead on January 18, 2018, 07:40:55 PM

Quote from: CST on January 18, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
No, frustration is the root of impatience, boredom is the root of lethargy and lethargy and impatience don't mix.

All depends on the state of the person at the time of becoming bored

If a person is energetic and becomes bored with what they are doing, they want something else to do and can get frustrated because they can't find something else to do, therefore becoming impatient of wanting something else to do right away

But if a person is not energetic and becomes bored with what they are doing, they will get drowsy

In which I agree with you that lethargy and impatience don't mix

and on a side note,
if we view "being energetic" as "having been given life"
and
if we view "being non energetic" as "not having been given life"

It opens up a whole new world in understanding why people "do" the things they do or "not do" the things they ought to
(or what "we think" they ought to or not)

because do we have a reason to get angry at the idleness of a brother if he has not yet been given life (been given God's Spirit)? Because do we not believe "each in their own time (order)"?

If people are being energetic in the sense you seem to be using in the top part of your post there they'll be likely producing adrenaline which will stave off both boredom and lethargy (and when I say 'lethargy' I don't mean drowsy so may be using the wrong term, but I see the connection).

I  was saying boredom doesn't lead frustration (and thus impatience) because once your bored you can't find the interest even to get frustrated.

As for the rest of your post. I'd say your preaching to the converted here although I'd expect there to be some around who don't join the dots that way.

The main reason I see boredom leading to frustration and then to impatience is because I see it happen all the time with my grand kids, and also saw it with my own children when they were younger.

Oh, yes! Actual children, yeah I see they're harder to exhaust. Although I also suspect the reason for their impatience may be that they haven't learned the concept or quality of patience. For children of that age I imagine just about anything they don't like is the root of impatience.

Sorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

QuoteSorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

Is that because you're bored?

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 20, 2018, 06:26:13 PM

QuoteSorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

Is that because you're bored?

     :laughing7: those two comments are both funny.. :Peace2:

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 20, 2018, 06:26:13 PM

QuoteSorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

Is that because you're bored?

No, not because I'm bored. Lonely, maybe. In my head I've simply taken the Biblical injunction to truth to heart and and, believing that truth is always better than error will oppose error wherever I feel I see it no matter how trivial. Of course, I'm probably in error in doing this.

personally,I remember being so bored as a teen-ager...desiringtogo'hang-out'with my friends...and becoming very frustrated..because

my Mom wouldn't let me.also,as an adult..Ihad a desire/need to accomplish a task/chore and would become frustrated at

being hindered/thwarted.while trying.to accomplish it.


thwarted desire/needfor action.....=frustration

lethargy..no desire formed

boredom=desire  unmet and forming..leading to restlessness..to setinmotion tomeet desire

frustration=being hindered of the motion tomeet the desire.

  towill..andtodesire..andtoaccomplish. :2c:

Quote from: CST on January 23, 2018, 01:19:05 PM

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 20, 2018, 06:26:13 PM

QuoteSorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

Is that because you're bored?

No, not because I'm bored. Lonely, maybe. In my head I've simply taken the Biblical injunction to truth to heart and and, believing that truth is always better than error will oppose error wherever I feel I see it no matter how trivial. Of course, I'm probably in error in doing this.

Ok, forgive me then. I was being a bit sarcastic there; Thought you had my sense of humor. I struggle with loneliness myself, honestly! Especially throughout my School years. I do feel your concern as well. I remember at times, when attempting to state truth to people, had ostracized me as a result. Though, I probably was unkind in my judgement, as no kindness in judgement, no love in my outputs, had resulted in unkindness.

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 23, 2018, 09:35:15 PM

Quote from: CST on January 23, 2018, 01:19:05 PM

Quote from: MusicLover123 on January 20, 2018, 06:26:13 PM

QuoteSorry, for pushing this discussion though, I have a strange tenancy to get passionately defensive about ideas I probably don't know as much about as the passion would suggest and may well not be worth defending.

Is that because you're bored?

No, not because I'm bored. Lonely, maybe. In my head I've simply taken the Biblical injunction to truth to heart and and, believing that truth is always better than error will oppose error wherever I feel I see it no matter how trivial. Of course, I'm probably in error in doing this.

Ok, forgive me then. I was being a bit sarcastic there; Thought you had my sense of humor. I struggle with loneliness myself, honestly! Especially throughout my School years. I do feel your concern as well. I remember at times, when attempting to state truth to people, had ostracized me as a result. Though, I probably was unkind in my judgement, as no kindness in judgement, no love in my outputs, had resulted in unkindness.

Don't worry, I saw the joke, but wasn't sure the was no real question behind it.

Judgement/not judgement is hard. We're also tld that if we fail to warn others of danger we're culpabable but no-one want to be told the truth when it says that they're wrong. I don't the think the scibes/Pharisees/lawyers thought Jesus was being particularly kind how He talked about them, but that's not a reason not to say it in its self. We're just not as tactful as Jesus, or as certain.

Then become blameless by just stating how you see/understand something rather than becoming a judge how another sees/understands something and telling them they are wrong

That is how I understand "being perfected in love" rather than being perfected as a judge, if we are to judge, judge ourselves in how we are being perfected ..... as "a judge" (in law/under the old covenant of law) or as "love" (in grace/under the new covenant of grace)

my  :2c:

Quote from: jugghead on January 24, 2018, 09:09:22 PM
Then become blameless by just stating how you see/understand something rather than becoming a judge how another sees/understands something and telling them they are wrong

That is how I understand "being perfected in love" rather than being perfected as a judge, if we are to judge, judge ourselves in how we are being perfected ..... as "a judge" (in law/under the old covenant of law) or as "love" (in grace/under the new covenant of grace)

my  :2c:

Good thoughts, Jugghead. Reminded me of this verse, as it was my app's Verse of the Day... Galatians 5:14

14for all the law in one word is fulfilled-in this:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"

Quote from: jugghead on January 24, 2018, 09:09:22 PM
Then become blameless by just stating how you see/understand something rather than becoming a judge how another sees/understands something and telling them they are wrong

That is how I understand "being perfected in love" rather than being perfected as a judge, if we are to judge, judge ourselves in how we are being perfected ..... as "a judge" (in law/under the old covenant of law) or as "love" (in grace/under the new covenant of grace)

my  :2c:

I think you're making a false distinction there, the people we call judges in their profession state how they see things, themselves it doesn't make things any better. You don't have to say you think someone is wrong, if you state what you think with any sort of conviction the law of mutual exclusivity demands that anyone who understands something in a way that conflicts their own you necessarily imply that you believe they're wrong.

I don't need to personally tell a Muslim I think their views about Jesus are wrong for them to understand I must think their views about Jesus are wrong.

Quote from: CST on January 25, 2018, 01:25:13 PM

Quote from: jugghead on January 24, 2018, 09:09:22 PM
Then become blameless by just stating how you see/understand something rather than becoming a judge how another sees/understands something and telling them they are wrong

That is how I understand "being perfected in love" rather than being perfected as a judge, if we are to judge, judge ourselves in how we are being perfected ..... as "a judge" (in law/under the old covenant of law) or as "love" (in grace/under the new covenant of grace)

my  :2c:

I think you're making a false distinction there, the people we call judges in their profession state how they see things, themselves it doesn't make things any better. You don't have to say you think someone is wrong, if you state what you think with any sort of conviction the law of mutual exclusivity demands that anyone who understands something in a way that conflicts their own you necessarily imply that you believe they're wrong.

I don't need to personally tell a Muslim I think their views about Jesus are wrong for them to understand I must think their views about Jesus are wrong.

You just proved my point

I think it is a matter of spirit.

What Spirit are we of?

Jesus clearly disputed the Sanhedrin with much specificity declaring exactly where they were wrong, as well as explaining what the right "way" (Teach me Thy ways, The way of the Lord) is.

So, it doesnt matter how we express differences or address error if we are not in the right spirit. There is no specific method, and we ought not judge the servant of another Master, but we can discern spirits- if we are spiritual. If not, we will argue on ad infinitum being unconscious of the will of the Lord and whether or not we are selves are in the right spirit, no matter how kindly or "spiritual" we represent ourselves to be.

Paul reasoned in the synagogues even to the point of anger at the obtuseness of the Jews and shook off his garment against them as he left as a testimony of their wilful ignorance and arrogance.

"Concepts" of spiritual conduct are to easily influenced by the world around us. Some people love conflict and portray themselves as Pauline when they are simply contentious and sectarian.

Some people portray themselves as gentle as a dove when they are simply living "above the fray" - but for them it is really just a safe place to be out of the line of fire.

Discernment is harder, and IMO requires the wider aperture of the union between spiritual believers seeking renewed minds "in the spirit".

"If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship together and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sins."

Quote from: eaglesway on January 31, 2018, 01:32:37 AM
I think it is a matter of spirit.

What Spirit are we of?

Jesus clearly disputed the Sanhedrin with much specificity declaring exactly where they were wrong, as well as explaining what the right "way" (Teach me Thy ways, The way of the Lord) is.

So, it doesnt matter how we express differences or address error if we are not in the right spirit. There is no specific method, and we ought not judge the servant of another Master, but we can discern spirits- if we are spiritual. If not, we will argue on ad infinitum being unconscious of the will of the Lord and whether or not we are selves are in the right spirit, no matter how kindly or "spiritual" we represent ourselves to be.

Paul reasoned in the synagogues even to the point of anger at the obtuseness of the Jews and shook off his garment against them as he left as a testimony of their wilful ignorance and arrogance.

"Concepts" of spiritual conduct are to easily influenced by the world around us. Some people love conflict and portray themselves as Pauline when they are simply contentious and sectarian.

Some people portray themselves as gentle as a dove when they are simply living "above the fray" - but for them it is really just a safe place to be out of the line of fire.

Discernment is harder, and IMO requires the wider aperture of the union between spiritual believers seeking renewed minds "in the spirit".

"If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship together and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sins."

I'd say that's a perfect answer to the issue except that I know that only God is perfect in anything.

Quote from: CST on January 31, 2018, 12:16:13 PM

Quote from: eaglesway on January 31, 2018, 01:32:37 AM
I think it is a matter of spirit.

What Spirit are we of?

Jesus clearly disputed the Sanhedrin with much specificity declaring exactly where they were wrong, as well as explaining what the right "way" (Teach me Thy ways, The way of the Lord) is.

So, it doesnt matter how we express differences or address error if we are not in the right spirit. There is no specific method, and we ought not judge the servant of another Master, but we can discern spirits- if we are spiritual. If not, we will argue on ad infinitum being unconscious of the will of the Lord and whether or not we are selves are in the right spirit, no matter how kindly or "spiritual" we represent ourselves to be.

Paul reasoned in the synagogues even to the point of anger at the obtuseness of the Jews and shook off his garment against them as he left as a testimony of their wilful ignorance and arrogance.

"Concepts" of spiritual conduct are to easily influenced by the world around us. Some people love conflict and portray themselves as Pauline when they are simply contentious and sectarian.

Some people portray themselves as gentle as a dove when they are simply living "above the fray" - but for them it is really just a safe place to be out of the line of fire.

Discernment is harder, and IMO requires the wider aperture of the union between spiritual believers seeking renewed minds "in the spirit".

"If we walk in the light as He is in the light we have fellowship together and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sins."

I'd say that's a perfect answer to the issue except that I know that only God is perfect in anything.

:iagree: