Christian Universalist challenged by passage in Genesis

[rosered]

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?

  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 .

[CST]

"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

[rosered]

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

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....

[CST]

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

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.

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.

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.

[rosered]

 

  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

[CST]

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.

[sheila]

 :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!

[marie glen]

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:

[rosered]

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:

[CST]

[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.

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.

[eaglesway]

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.

[Dandelion]

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.

[rosered]

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 .


 

[jugghead]

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:

[rosered]

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:

[CST]

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.

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.

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?

[jugghead]

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

[rosered]

CST   wrote

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:
   

[sheila]

...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.

[CST]

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.

[CST]

CST   wrote

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.

...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?

[Eleutheros]

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.

...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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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'.

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.

END OF PART ONE

[Eleutheros]

PART TWO

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

[Eleutheros]

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.

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.

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!

[sheila]

 :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: