Defend a literal or non literal Adam here

[A Beautiful Truth]

Early Genesis to me seems apocalyptic in nature. Please see http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/ba/BA_index.htm.

I have been so curious to have input by people who know something of ANE culture. Is it fair to demand a literal interpretation of Genesis? Would the hearers demanded it or seen the symbolic nature of it? The woman created at man's side (being equal with the man), the talking snake, the Tree of Life, (which is also mentioned in the apocalyptic book of Revelation) among other symbolic aspects, leads me to believe that the book is to be taken symbolically.

But if it is to be taken symbolically, then what of certain teachings like the Fall? I believe these can be answered.

I would like those who believe in a non-literal Adam to defend their position here.

How do you address:

1) The Fall

2) The Geneologies

3) When do you take up non-symbolic history?

[geochron]

If you believe in an all powerful God, and you believe he is on your side, and attribute good things that happen to his intervention, then you need an explanation for bad things that happen. Just as you need an explanation for other natural phenomena, like lightning. Hence the story of the fall and the doctrine of original sin. It was a nice try at an explanation.

My view is that God does not intervene in the physical world. The gifts he gives us are spiritual, not physical.

[grmorton]

My view is that God does not intervene in the physical world. The gifts he gives us are spiritual, not physical.

Geochron, I don't know your theological views. Wouldn't such a view rule out a resurrection? In what way does your view of God differ from that of Plato's Demiurge?

[Constantine]

Where does the symbolism end and the historicity begin?

Genesis 4:1

This is the first verse describing Adam and Eve outside of the Garden of Eden. I think that once you get here it is undoubtedly historical narative. I know it may seem arbitrary and all too convenient but let me explain.

Everything before Genesis 4:1 describes things we can't possibly understand in a physical sense in our Fallen state. That verse is the first verse of our current Fallen reality. The Garden of Eden story need not be historical for Adam and Eve or the Fall to be historical. Paradise may have been a place on earth or it may not have been an actual location. Perhaps Paradise is not a place, but rather the state of being of communion with God. Wherever or however Adam and Eve lived before the fall we can't ever understand because they lived in a reality with no sin and had unclouded intellects. How can we as Fallen creatures comprehend complete communion with God? We are so limited now, but Adam and Eve were not (originally). Instead of uselessly trying to explain this unexplainable state of being I think that God used the Author of Genesis to instead use a symbolic account of creation and Fall so that the spiritual and theological truth of creation and the Fall weren't lost in the abounding details.

Then when we reach Genesis 4:1 Adam and Eve are in our Fallen state and are struggling to survive having been kicked out of Paradise (what/wherever that may have been). They are in our present reality now so symbolism ends and humanity's history begins.

The Fall itself was historical even if the details of it in Genesis 2-3 are not. Some time after our biological ancestors, Adam and Eve, were given a souls they disobeyed God and committed the first sin. They then must fend for themselves in a harsh world and start the long journey to Redemption.

As far as the Geneologies go I will leave it up to the Hewbrew experts.

Being a Catholic means that I am committed to a historical Adam and Fall. All other details are up for debate.

[geochron]

Geochron, I don't know your theological views. Wouldn't such a view rule out a resurrection? In what way does your view of God differ from that of Plato's Demiurge?

For the latter, I don't know anything about Plato's demiurge. It wouldn't worry me if my Christianity was no different.

I believe Christ is resurrected in the sense that he is with us in the world today. I don't have a commitment to the precise truth of the story in the Gospels.

[Lion]

Charleen, I’m a firm believer in the inspiration of the Bible. There are some things in scripture that have to be taken on faith that it is the word of God. For instance, God must have told Adam and Eve how He created the earth. Adam and Eve were not created until the sixth day when all the creation was done in the previous five days.

The fall was instigated by Satan. I don’t know how Satan was able to control a snake, but he did. Talking was simply making the snake appear to talk. There are many instances even in modern times where demon possession has been documented where the person spoke in an a non normal voice. There are witch doctors in heathen lands who do things that are impossible for ordinary humans.

There are certain clues to the origin of the writing. for instance, Gen. 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

This means the history of the descendants of Adam.

A bit further on we find something about Noah.
Gen. 6:9 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

God made a covenant with Noah.; Gen. 9:11 “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” Gen. 9:12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations Gen. 9:13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.

This was not symbolic, it was real. The problem is that those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible think it is folklore, a mytholgical tale. There is too much detail to be a myth. This is in contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, where all sorts of gods weave fanciful tales.

The Gilgamesh tale comes under the heading of myth, a story based on fact, but embellished with many gods.

The flood story is a story of a sort of ship’s log of events that happened during the year of the flood.

Geochron says
If you believe in an all powerful God, and you believe he is on your side, and attribute good things that happen to his intervention, then you need an explanation for bad things that happen.

My view is that God does not intervene in the physical world. The gifts he gives us are spiritual, not physical.
-----------
Geochron evidently does not believe in a personal being called Satan or angels. He doesn’t appear to believe a miracle can happen. He is so convinced of the long ages theory he won’t allow for a short age of the earth.

Constantine
Where does the symbolism end and the historicity begin?
Everything before Genesis 4:1 describes things we can't possibly understand in a physical sense in our Fallen state. That verse is the first verse of our current Fallen reality. The Garden of Eden story need not be historical for Adam and Eve or the Fall to be historical. Paradise may have been a place on earth or it may not have been an actual location. Perhaps Paradise is not a place, but rather the state of being of communion with God. Wherever or however Adam and Eve lived before the fall we can't ever understand because they lived in a reality with no sin and had unclouded intellects. How can we as Fallen creatures comprehend complete communion with God? We are so limited now, but Adam and Eve were not (originally).
--------------------
Constantine can’t you understand plain English? There is nothing symbolic or esoteric in Genesis 3 that is hard to understand about the conversation with God. I believe God did not appear to them because they had sinned and He knew it beforehand. But he could still talk to them by voice.

So that is my view of the first 8 chapters of Genesis. The earth was completely destroyed and rearranged in the flood.

The long ages and no God teaching of evolution has opened the door to the occult, which leads to spirit worship, Satanism, and moral decay. When man says the law of God is not binding on men he is left without a moral compass and like a ship without a rudder, he cannot hope to steer a steady course.

[geochron]

Geochron says
If you believe in an all powerful God, and you believe he is on your side, and attribute good things that happen to his intervention, then you need an explanation for bad things that happen.

My view is that God does not intervene in the physical world. The gifts he gives us are spiritual, not physical.
-----------
Geochron evidently does not believe in a personal being called Satan or angels. He doesn’t appear to believe a miracle can happen. He is so convinced of the long ages theory he won’t allow for a short age of the earth.



I'm taking time off from correcting your errors about the age of the Earth. :smile:

Not sure what your point is about Satan. Satan doesn't solve the problem of evil since either he is allowed to work evil by God or he is as, or more, powerful than God. Which do you believe?

[maudman]

Charleen, I’m a firm believer in the inspiration of the Bible. There are some things in scripture that have to be taken on faith that it is the word of God. For instance, God must have told Adam and Eve how He created the earth. Adam and Eve were not created until the sixth day when all the creation was done in the previous five days.

The fall was instigated by Satan. I don’t know how Satan was able to control a snake, but he did. Talking was simply making the snake appear to talk. There are many instances even in modern times where demon possession has been documented where the person spoke in an a non normal voice. There are witch doctors in heathen lands who do things that are impossible for ordinary humans.

There are certain clues to the origin of the writing. for instance, Gen. 5:1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

This means the history of the descendants of Adam.

A bit further on we find something about Noah.
Gen. 6:9 ¶ These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

God made a covenant with Noah.; Gen. 9:11 “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” Gen. 9:12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations Gen. 9:13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.

This was not symbolic, it was real. The problem is that those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible think it is folklore, a mytholgical tale. There is too much detail to be a myth. This is in contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, where all sorts of gods weave fanciful tales.

The Gilgamesh tale comes under the heading of myth, a story based on fact, but embellished with many gods.

The flood story is a story of a sort of ship’s log of events that happened during the year of the flood.

Geochron says
If you believe in an all powerful God, and you believe he is on your side, and attribute good things that happen to his intervention, then you need an explanation for bad things that happen.

My view is that God does not intervene in the physical world. The gifts he gives us are spiritual, not physical.
-----------
Geochron evidently does not believe in a personal being called Satan or angels. He doesn’t appear to believe a miracle can happen. He is so convinced of the long ages theory he won’t allow for a short age of the earth.

Constantine
Where does the symbolism end and the historicity begin?
Everything before Genesis 4:1 describes things we can't possibly understand in a physical sense in our Fallen state. That verse is the first verse of our current Fallen reality. The Garden of Eden story need not be historical for Adam and Eve or the Fall to be historical. Paradise may have been a place on earth or it may not have been an actual location. Perhaps Paradise is not a place, but rather the state of being of communion with God. Wherever or however Adam and Eve lived before the fall we can't ever understand because they lived in a reality with no sin and had unclouded intellects. How can we as Fallen creatures comprehend complete communion with God? We are so limited now, but Adam and Eve were not (originally).
--------------------
Constantine can’t you understand plain English? There is nothing symbolic or esoteric in Genesis 3 that is hard to understand about the conversation with God. I believe God did not appear to them because they had sinned and He knew it beforehand. But he could still talk to them by voice.

So that is my view of the first 8 chapters of Genesis. The earth was completely destroyed and rearranged in the flood.

The long ages and no God teaching of evolution has opened the door to the occult, which leads to spirit worship, Satanism, and moral decay. When man says the law of God is not binding on men he is left without a moral compass and like a ship without a rudder, he cannot hope to steer a steady course.
Charleen, I’m a firm believer in the inspiration of the Bible. There are some things in scripture that have to be taken on faith that it is the word of God. For instance, God must have told Adam and Eve how He created the earth. Adam and Eve were not created until the sixth day when all the creation was done in the previous five days.

Where does it say Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. I find in the story it is after the seventh day and this man is created by "Yahweh Elohim" after he rest. not the et ha adam created by "Elohim" on the sixth day. the et ha Adam in the Garden is the first Covenant man. The first to have a relationship with the Lord God.

[Lion]

geochron
I'm taking time off from correcting your errors about the age of the Earth.

Not sure what your point is about Satan. Satan doesn't solve the problem of evil since either he is allowed to work evil by God or he is as, or more, powerful than God. Which do you believe?
----------------
The point about Satan was that God allowed Satan free acccess to any of God’s creation to test their loyalty to God. They were free to choose whether to obey God or not. There was a simple test. God had said, “That tree is mine, don’t touch it.” by eating of that tree, Adam and Eve surrendered to Satan. It was a matter of choice. It was not a matter of God allowing Satan to take charge. The power of choice belonged to man. God never forces anyone.

Since then, Satan has control of anyone who allows him to control him. That is the matter of free choice. People can choose to obey Satan or God, depending on personal choice. Which is more powerful depends on you. God has a vote and Satan has a vote You cast the decidng vote.

God is allowing Satan to rule for a limited time until it becomes evident to all the Satan’s rule is only evil,then God will destroy Satan and sinners and the universe will be free of sin.
------------------
maudman
Where does it say Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day?
------------------
Gen. 1:23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Gen. 1:24 ¶ Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
Gen. 1:25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:26 ¶ Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen. 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Gen. 1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
Gen. 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
Gen. 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

[geochron]

Perhaps you should understand it metaphorically. By God "allowing" Satan free run in the world, we might understand God not intervening in the world to prevent evil. People have a choice to be ruled by the world or to listen to God.

The story you present reeks of an ad hoc, after-the-fact explanation for the existence of both evil and an all powerful God. I think it is and has been incredibly damaging to faith.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, I’m a firm believer in the inspiration of the Bible.

Me, too, I just need to know in what way we should take Genesis before Abraham. My question is, do we demand too much literalness of it considering the ANE culture?

This was not symbolic, it was real. The problem is that those who do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible think it is folklore, a mytholgical tale. There is too much detail to be a myth. This is in contrast to the Gilgamesh epic, where all sorts of gods weave fanciful tales.

How about an apocalyptic story inspired by God given to convey spiritual truth? Nothing false there, just not literal. Something does not have to be literal to be "true".

Geochron evidently does not believe in a personal being called Satan or angels. He doesn’t appear to believe a miracle can happen. He is so convinced of the long ages theory he won’t allow for a short age of the earth.

I don't know Geochron's beliefs, but I do know that being convinced of long ages has no bearing on belief in Satan, angels, or miracles.

Constantine can’t you understand plain English? There is nothing symbolic or esoteric in Genesis 3 that is hard to understand about the conversation with God. I believe God did not appear to them because they had sinned and He knew it beforehand. But he could still talk to them by voice.

Perhaps you missed my point. I need to know how the original audience would have accepted this, ANE culture is differerent, I believe this is key to understanding early Genesis. I need to know more about it.

The long ages and no God teaching of evolution has opened the door to the occult, which leads to spirit worship, Satanism, and moral decay. When man says the law of God is not binding on men he is left without a moral compass and like a ship without a rudder, he cannot hope to steer a steady course.

Were you interested in the arguement or are you zealous to rather be heard? You have missed the point and gone on about moral compasses, something of which our argument here does not address.

Do you know anything of Ancient Near East culture? I am trying to find out more about it because I believe it will help me to understand Genesis. Understanding it in the way they would, the original audience, I believe, will help us in our understanding of it today.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Where does it say Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. I find in the story it is after the seventh day and this man is created by "Yahweh Elohim" after he rest. not the et ha adam created by "Elohim" on the sixth day. the et ha Adam in the Garden is the first Covenant man. The first to have a relationship with the Lord God.

So do you believe that the Adam in the Garden and the Eve in the Garden are the parents of all physical humanity?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Perhaps you should understand it metaphorically. By God "allowing" Satan free run in the world, we might understand God not intervening in the world to prevent evil. People have a choice to be ruled by the world or to listen to God.

The story you present reeks of an ad hoc, after-the-fact explanation for the existence of both evil and an all powerful God. I think it is and has been incredibly damaging to faith.

This is a good topic, I'd like to continue with the topic of theodicy if we do take a symbolic Adam. Without a literal Fall, from where does sin and evil come? I think the challenges can be met even with a symbolic Adam and a non-literal Fall, but I need to work it out and open it up to challenge. I just don't get too many takers on this topic and have not yet found enough holes to abandon the idea. Still is up in the air for me, though.

[maudman]

So do you believe that the Adam in the Garden and the Eve in the Garden are the parents of all physical humanity?

No! I don’t think He is the first man he is an Immortal Being of sorts that shall not see death until his fall. "Adam isn't his name" It is as some may know one of the Hebrew words for the English word man. There are Four. But particle & article denotes a particular. Differentiates from the Broad meaning of the word in relation to the verb “formed” the action of Yahweh. This word “formed” use in the 2ND chapter is different from the word “created” in the first chapter.

This Man is formed by Yahweh Himself. He is Different. His Job is to tend the Garden. The Garden isn't a literal garden it is a Metaphor for the different Peoples. The metaphors of natural phenomena symbolized by trees, Beast of the field, fowl of the air. Rivers aren't rivers but trade route between the nations and tribes that cause them to grow and flourish. It is a flow of commerce. This allows the peoples in the garden to grow.

"Adam is a type of Christ". Adam wasn’t to see death. He was an immortal tender of the Garden. "But he fails" and this failure will bring death to his seed. That is why Christ is referred too in the NT as the second Adam, “the Adam that didn’t fail”. That is also why he carried the title Son of Man he is the Son of the ET ha Adam in the Garden east in Eden. That is who the Christ is descended from.
Christ is the seed that is going to crush the head of the serpent and his seed.

The confusion is in the translation. Cause "et ha Adam" on the sixth day is in relation to Elohim and is translated Man. But in the Garden translators use the Hebrew word "(Adam (Article, particle)" for Yahweh Elohim. It means "self same man" in relation to text the one creating in the sentence it occurs in, Elohim creating (et ha Adam) in the first chapter, Yahweh Elohim creating (et ha Adam) in the 2nd chapter.

Hebrews peoples were in some respects polytheistic, the term (Elohim) can be plural a reference to a Divine Counsel and this is what some don't understand. Yahweh is at the top of the divine pantheon or the divine counsel. He is the ultimate creator the Highest of the High in the divine counsel.

The translation in English from Hebrew without some knowledge of Hebrew can confuse the issue. Many think the 2nd chapter is a narrowing or focus of the first renewal week but it's actually a separate issue or creation involving Yahweh Elohim (The Lord himself), and a garden east in Eden, and this ET ha Adam in the Garden is a covenant man, and the book say’s he will not see death unless he eats from the tree of Good and Evil. Eve is formed later. He was not told to be fruitful and multiply. He had a specific purpose that was to serve Yahweh. His nature was truly different from the other tress in the Garden.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I had asked: So do you believe that the Adam in the Garden and the Eve in the Garden are the parents of all physical humanity?
To which you repied:
No! I don’t think He is the first man he is an Immortal Being of sorts that shall not see death until his fall.

So mankind could have evolved and then God made this Adam special and made him immortal?

The Garden isn't a literal garden it is a Metaphor for the different Peoples.

Literal Adam in a metaphorical Garden? How do you know Adam is literal? Could be metaphorical as well? Why or why not, and how do you know?

[maudman]

We can't help but defend the literal View of Adam in the Garden cause if you don't Christ could not be the Son of Man(et ha adam). We are only challenged in the literal view if our Adam in the current one is false.
If your paradigm of adam and the Garden are challenged by the Sciences then your View of Genesis just may be incorrect for the most part incomplete.

Me thinks people need to really read the text one verse at a time and then stop and think for a long time and you will see that what most of us where taught from our youth is word of mouth and isn't doctrinal at all. To add another problem that comes from the translations of the inspired word of God and what it can do to our understanding because people translate to what they believe as an over all sceme and not the truth of the text itself.

If you want to believe that Adam is the first Man. There is a bible translated to say just what you want to believe. As people began to challenge previous translations because they left dought to what is meant then translators rewrote to either to further cement previously held beliefs or to challenge previously held views.

Peace to all.

[A Beautiful Truth]

We can't help but defend the literal View of Adam in the Garden cause if you don't Christ could not be the Son of Man(et ha adam).

Please explain. I believe the evidence for Christ--His life, His deity, His resurrection, is all very strong historically and prophetically. How would a metaphorical Adam change this?

[Lion]

Either the Bible was inspired by God and is a true record of creation and th3e fall, or it is just a fable. If it is true, we ought to believe its message. Christ spoke of the days of Noah

Luke 17:26 “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:
Luke 17:27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28 “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building;
Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 “It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

1Cor. 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

If Christ the son of God believed the story of the flood, and He was the creator, the God who was there, we ought to believe the story. The Bible is true, otherwise it's not worth the paper it is printed on. It is not just a bunch of folk tales. Writing has been known since very early in human history.

[Jack777]

If Adam is a made-up pretend story or a metaphor, then the whole thing is silly.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Either the Bible was inspired by God and is a true record of creation and th3e fall, or it is just a fable.

If Adam is a made-up pretend story or a metaphor, then the whole thing is silly.

Does something need to be literal in order to be true?

[Abigail]

Does something need to be literal in order to be true?
Well if Adam and eve didnt actually live in the garden and fall then that is something that is not really true to be sure.

[Jack777]

There would actually have to be a person Adam for the person Adam to be the person Adam.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Do you drink Christ's blood?

[Jack777]

No, of course not, but I understand what you are saying. There is a huge difference in those two conceptual models to compare and contrast without dissembling.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Please explain.

[Lion]

Carleen, we drink wine as a SYMBOL of Christ's blood, not the actual blood. Christ was the creator. He came in the flesh as a man and died for our sins.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

If Jesus, the creator who made all things, spoke of Noah, who built the ark saying,
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

God came to Abraham and talked with him.

Gen. 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen. 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Gen. 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
Gen. 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Gen. 18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
Gen. 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Gen. 18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
Gen. 18:27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
Gen. 18:28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
Gen. 18:29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty’s sake.
Gen. 18:30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
Gen. 18:31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.
Gen. 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.
Gen. 18:33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

God Himself was talking with Abraham, in person. Jesus was God. He mentioned Sodom.

Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

God is real, He created a real Adam. Noah was real. Jesus, God in the flesh testified of his reality. If you refuse to believe Jesus there is no hope.

[rogero]

Carleen, we drink wine as a SYMBOL of Christ's blood, not the actual blood. Christ was the creator. He came in the flesh as a man and died for our sins.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

If Jesus, the creator who made all things, spoke of Noah, who built the ark saying,
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

God came to Abraham and talked with him.

Gen. 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen. 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Gen. 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
Gen. 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Gen. 18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
Gen. 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Gen. 18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
Gen. 18:27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
Gen. 18:28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
Gen. 18:29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty’s sake.
Gen. 18:30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
Gen. 18:31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake.
Gen. 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.
Gen. 18:33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

God Himself was talking with Abraham, in person. Jesus was God. He mentioned Sodom.

Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luke 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

God is real, He created a real Adam. Noah was real. Jesus, God in the flesh testified of his reality. If you refuse to believe Jesus there is no hope.

yea but though, yea but though... Do ya think that KJV16111 makes the whole thing sound more profound?

That you would conflate an historical Jesus with a Bronze Age story related and redacted to a nomadic band of Mesopotamian foragers is beyond my comprehension. It's all on one level for you, and that's fine for you, but embarassing for me. Here's some facts for you to chew on:

1) Earth is billions of years old -- not several tens of thousands. This is from verifiable empiriical evidence.

2) There is no empirical geological evidence of a global Flood as per the Noahic account. Can you understand that metaphor can be just as "true" as historical narrative? Check out the current debate between oil geophysicist Glennn Morton and textile expert Dave Tyler to see the most current views on this issue.

3) None of this empirical evidence for an old Earth and Cosmos has the slightest wit of influence on the historical Christ and His ministry. That you insist on conflating your fundamentalist origins view with the historicity and propitation of the Christ as the "second Adam" does more of a disservice to the Gospel message than you could ever hope to achieve by preaching to a dimunitive group of fideistic Christians who have no training in science and can't separate spiritual truth from the mischaracterizations of both nature and scripture from a small group of misinformed rhetoricians who can't tell evidence from assumption.

God bless you in your search for Truth. My Dad, who passed away in 1986 and would be 91 years old now, held on to a 6Ka/6/24hr day view, but at least accepted that perhaps there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that would allow for the billions of years that we observe in the Cosmos. Could you at least accept this much?

In God's Peace,

Roger

[maudman]

I had asked:
To which you repied:


So mankind could have evolved and then God made this Adam special and made him immortal?



Literal Adam in a metaphorical Garden? How do you know Adam is literal? Could be metaphorical as well? Why or why not, and how do you know?
Yes mankind evolved! and then Yahweh take this man who is an Incarnated being, a Son of God, a Beney Elohim, the literal Offspring of Yahweh. Who had shouted for Joy at the creation in the Book of Job and made him a superintendent of the Garden.

Your approach to metaphors needs some tweaking, Metaphors are not Imaginary descriptives that relate to some spiritual concept. A Metaphor simply is the borrowing of an object and using the attributes to create perspective, appending that object and its attributes to another object that is literal.

Adam is an Incarnated being who posseses the Holy Spirit. None of the other peoples in the garden have the holy spirit and the metaphors are used to convey that they are on a lower plain the man Et ha adam and Adam is the tender or the mediator of Yahweh to the other peoples he's not a dirt farmer But a keeper of souls, the plants are the peoples who are baring fruit in the Garden. NOw this is a theme through out the scriptures I don't think I should have to Give any examples but if I need to I will. Adam is a literal Being To which you might append a Metaphor like trees,beast of the field, and such were appended to mankind in general in genesis. He is not a metaphor for something else.

And another thing I don't say something is metaphorical cause it suites me. I say it cause I can prove it with the bible. I just haven't shown you those things or verses. The bible tells us what is a a metaphor if you have to work to make one then your reaching.

[Jack777]

I have to add my 2 cents worth here.

Becuz the earth is 1.5 billion years old or whatever does not remove the fact that the Bible is true. I am convinced there are at least three flood epochs of "Biblical" proportions based on actual scientific research, the last the Flood of Noah, none of which account for the rock record, only the alluvial record. I am well aware of Geology but science does not preclude the truth of Scripture. I am not a YEC. I happen to know within a few hundred millions of years how old the earth is for instance. Evolution is simply not fact and will increasingly prove to be faulty. I am a palyno-paleontologist and the evidence is not there for evolution as it is touted. Evolution is a shill in some ways. Having said all of that the Bible is literally true. I just do not happen to see Creation from the YEC perspective as it is not there to see.

[Lion]

The evolutionary geologists would like us to THINK the earth is billions of years old but they can't PROVE IT. So we are left with an eye witness report of what happened, and an inspired record. If people choose not to believe it, that's their funeral, not mine. There are much later versions that say essentially the same words. People can sneer at the word but it will stand to condemn you if you don't heed its word.

Charleen asked in her first post
I have been so curious to have input by people who know something of ANE culture. Is it fair to demand a literal interpretation of Genesis? Would the hearers demanded it or seen the symbolic nature of it? The woman created at man's side (being equal with the man), the talking snake, the Tree of Life, (which is also mentioned in the apocalyptic book of Revelation) among other symbolic aspects, leads me to believe that the book is to be taken symbolically.

But if it is to be taken symbolically, then what of certain teachings like the Fall? I believe these can be answered.

I would like those who believe in a non-literal Adam to defend their position here.

How do you address:

1) The Fall

2) The Geneologies

3) When do you take up non-symbolic history?
-------------------
It is NOT SYMOLICAL. IT IS LITERAL.
THE FALL REALLY HAPPENED. SATAN USED THE SNAKE AS A MEDIUM TO DECIEVE EVE.
'
I was reading today an article that explains why some of the ancient worship practices and laws were so similar. Aside from the obvious differences of multiple gods that were warring against each other there are many simlarities in the treatment of slaves. One big difference is in the fertility cult and the worship of phallic symbols. Male sex organ worship. We read in the bible of a grove. That was the reference to phallic symbols. India has that kind of worship today.

The author was able to point out certain simlarities beteen Hebrew and pagan worship that point to a common heritage. When Noah left the ark he offered animal sacrifices. No doubt his sons carried on the ceremonies of their father.

So there you have the common heritage. I hope that answers some of your questions.

[Constantine]

It is NOT SYMOLICAL. IT IS LITERAL.
THE FALL REALLY HAPPENED. SATAN USED THE SNAKE AS A MEDIUM TO DECIEVE EVE

If it is literal why are there two creation accounts that contradict each other?

If it is literal why are there so many clues of symbolism like God walking around the Garden of Eden? It is not as if God has legs. Genesis says that mankind is made in the image of God, certainly you agree that God has no physical image thus this is a symbolic way of saying we are spiritually made in the image of God and not literally.

There are many other examples but I think you should start to atleast think about these.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yes mankind evolved! and then Yahweh take this man who is an Incarnated being, a Son of God, a Beney Elohim, the literal Offspring of Yahweh. Who had shouted for Joy at the creation in the Book of Job and made him a superintendent of the Garden.

So, literal Adam. How do you account for His sin spreading to all mankind if he is one of many who evolved? When do you put him back? Have you considered the arguments that say you need to put him back quite far if you want him not only the spiritual head of all humanity but the physical head as well?

Your approach to metaphors needs some tweaking, Metaphors are not Imaginary descriptives that relate to some spiritual concept. A Metaphor simply is the borrowing of an object and using the attributes to create perspective, appending that object and its attributes to another object that is literal.

Somehow these things in Genesis are true. I believe they are represenative of something true, I just don't know what. And do I have to know what they represent? No, I can see them as they are told and get the truth I need from them.

Because Jesus referred back to this time does not nessesarily mean that He thought they were true in a literal sense, either. Jesus spoke truth in non literal ways. Parables, the "temple" being destroyed, being "born again", drinking His blood and eating His flesh--these truths represent some other concept. They are still lost to some, even to this day.

And think of the Book of Revleation. It is true, but not literal. It seems fitting that the beginning and the ending should both be apocalyptic.

[A Beautiful Truth]

If it is literal why are there two creation accounts that contradict each other?

If it is literal why are there so many clues of symbolism like God walking around the Garden of Eden? It is not as if God has legs. Genesis says that mankind is made in the image of God, certainly you agree that God has no physical image thus this is a symbolic way of saying we are spiritually made in the image of God and not literally.

There are many other examples but I think you should start to atleast think about these.

Constantine, I started a thread a while back about this ver topic. It is the main reason I believe the account is symbolic. Here is my OP from that thread:

"As we all know, the order of some events differs from Gen. one and Gen. two. This is because, as most have learned, that the point of Gen. two is just narrowing in on day six, especially on man.

Here is the rub--I accept this answer for Gen. 2, but where do we know where to draw the line? How is pulling in of the reigns to "literal" justified for the instant creation of Adam and Eve from the dust, but the letting out of the reigns when it comes to the instant creation of animals, from the dust after man. It seems if we allow the order to be contrary to the stated order in Genesis two (because of the comparison to the order presented in Gen. one), then where does the "theological" allowance end and where does the literalness begin again? We know the order is wrong in chapter two, we chalk this up to it being a "theological" focus. So how are we justified in pulling in the reigns back to "literal" after we conveintly answered with "theological" the problem of the order of creation of the animals in relation to man?

If we say it is literal for all parts except the animals, I ask what justification for picking one over the other. The order is clearly amiss in comparison to chapter one, if it is because it is only a theological focus, then why is the entire chapter not just theological, how do we justify any literalness to it?"

[maudman]

Hello all

All life was and is a deterministic evolution; Evolution is just a term that many use to sum up a flow of progression without having to say a whole lot. The fact is YHWH is a hands on God and is intricately involved in the development of all life it say’s he is the creator. Evolution can tell us sometimes how and sometimes when. The bible addresses the issues of who and why. The term Evolution can be used by both Atheist and Believers. Both views are a religion, One religion with a God and One without.

Constantine

The reason it seems to be More than one Creation is because the first chapters are about the renewing of the Earth and the second chapter is another event and Metaphors are used to distinguishing between the Man formed by YHWH and mankind. Adam is a spiritual Man on a Higher Plain than the Mankind created on the sixth day. That is why you have the metaphors, it conveys perspective. Just like the metaphors in the New Testament. There is a carnal man and what he does and there is a spiritual man and what he does and sometimes carnal metaphors are used for the spiritual man.

But Take the natural man he has task that he performs in the world. Now in the natural world these task Set him apart from all living creatures. The natural man is a god in this world. He has Dominion. These task are often applied to the spiritual man in the form of a metaphor and his task ( the spiritual man) which is liken to but different. This creates a perspective, the spiritual man applies metaphors to the natural man and he uses metaphors of the natural world. Trees, beast of the fields, fowl of the Air. Those task that the natural man perform that put him on a god of this world plane are used for the spiritual man and the animal kingdom lower than the natural man are used as metaphors for the natural man.

What God is saying in Genesis is that if I were a living breathing Biological Organism (nesphesh) this is the form I would choose to be my form and in the way the natural man thinks creates, and reasons he is a god of this world.

Jack777


I think those statements about more than one flood is Biblical and the first verses of Genesis prove it. The earth is covered with water and God makes dry land appear.

The confusion is in the translations cause the first chapter is about a renewing of the earth and not the creation itself for the most part. Noah’s flood is territorial and is about destruction of those in the Garden that had become corrupt and the Hebrew text say’s God was destroying all man flesh not all animal flesh. But translations once again skewed to fit what some believed at the time. Those going on the Ark weren’t literal animals but the metaphors of the Garden. It was peoples going on the Ark; God was saving a remnant of those peoples in the Garden. Noah and his family was a remnant of the seed, of the seed YHWH had created east in Eden. This is also why God is making a covenant with Noah and his seed and that is why it is written that way. But your right there is more than one flood.

Peace to all

[Jack777]

"If it is literal why are there two creation accounts that contradict each other?"

The creation accounts do not contradict one another. You have to know what they are referring to according to the Bible.


maudman,

You are correct.

[maudman]

So, literal Adam. How do you account for His sin spreading to all mankind if he is one of many who evolved? When do you put him back? Have you considered the arguments that say you need to put him back quite far if you want him not only the spiritual head of all humanity but the physical head as well?



Somehow these things in Genesis are true. I believe they are represenative of something true, I just don't know what. And do I have to know what they represent? No, I can see them as they are told and get the truth I need from them.

Because Jesus referred back to this time does not nessesarily mean that He thought they were true in a literal sense, either. Jesus spoke truth in non literal ways. Parables, the "temple" being destroyed, being "born again", drinking His blood and eating His flesh--these truths represent some other concept. They are still lost to some, even to this day.

And think of the Book of Revleation. It is true, but not literal. It seems fitting that the beginning and the ending should both be apocalyptic.

You’re trying to take the current perception of the general population and what it believes and use it for the arguments it won't work but that’s ok Charlene. And I will demonstrate how far off Course Most are concerning the Fall of the Man. Oh! how I love your Arguments. Here’s the answer.

“ Sin was already in the world.” You see the man in the Garden that YHWH had created Et ha Adam was the only man who hadn’t sinned.!!!!!!!!! He was pure in the day he was Formed, YHWH couldn’t create a corrupt Adam. He was formed and created to help a mankind toward God. And then he falls becomes corrupted and now you know why the Christ must be birthed. Why the Messiah is born and why Christ is the Second Adam. A man born of God and the Literal Seed of the offspring of Adam formed By YHWH.

I'm casting you some pearls here Be carful that you don't trample them.

Adam became corrupted by the other peoples in the Garden through the woman Eve and the Serpent was a Beast of the Field which is a metaphor One of those other peoples in the Garden “It wasn’t satin.”
The serpent is just a metaphor for how the beast of the field Beguiled Eve. His method, He was a Man Probably a “Good looking Joe!” Though Maybe!


Concerning The Book of Revelations, The metaphors are dor very real things. It used to be a Mystery to me But isn’t so much anymore. But let me tell you something that is true concerning it and the rest of the Bible. If you ever in this life time get to the truth of the scriptures you may be left with One thing to understand and it is this:

8. The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Who from the beginning was written Down in the "Lambs book of Life." And every bit as important, and is the Key to the Whole thing is "why are they written down to begin with" and these things aren't a mystery to the Elect of God. Because we won't be the ones decieved. We know the truth and it is what makes us Free.

Peace to all

[Constantine]

“ Sin was already in the world.” You see the man in the Garden that YHWH had created Et ha Adam was the only man who hadn’t sinned.!!!!!!!!! He was pure in the day he was Formed, YHWH couldn’t create a corrupt Adam. He was formed and created to help a mankind toward God. And then he falls becomes corrupted and now you know why the Christ must be birthed. Why the Messiah is born and why Christ is the Second Adam. A man born of God and the Literal Seed of the offspring of Adam formed By YHWH.


Three questions on this idea:

What parts of Srcipture do you use as evidence for this view?

Why is Eve there and if she is not physically the mother of all mankind then why does the Bible say she is? How do you explain this in your framework for interpretation?

Do the Early Church Fathers give support for your view?

The creation accounts do not contradict one another. You have to know what they are referring to according to the Bible.

According to Genesis 1 the order of Creation is Earth, vegetation, animals, mankind. In Genesis 2 the order of Creation is earth, vegetation, Man, animals, and then women.

It is quite clear that the order is inconsistent.

Charlene: I very much agree with your post regarding where theological license ends and begins. That is why I kind of have an all or nothing view of Genesis 1-3. It is either all literal or all symbolic. .

[Lion]

I just today received an email from William Shea who was in Armenia last July. I had heard about his trip and asked him for ore information about the possibility of his finding the burial place of Noah. Here is his response.

Yes, I was in Armenia in July. It was a little early for the snow was still
thick on Mt. Aragatz, which is the site of the tomb. Through a combination of
circumstances we
went aroudn Lake Qare the wrong way. The lake is at 9,000 feet on a mountain
that has the highest peak at 13,000 feet. It turns out that the wrong way
was the right way. because at the end of the lake opposite the parking lot for
the Physics Institute there (they are studying cosmic rays) I found seven
carved stones, most of them re-
latively badly weathered, some better than others. Some of them have
depictions of the members of Noah's family. The most important one is a triangular
stone about 4 and 1/2 feet high that has the head of Noahon the peak of the
stone, then a flat space carved around it and then the depictions of the three
sons down below. Another stone
shows on its end the three sons taking Noah up for burial. I did not put all
of this together until I got back to the US and was studying the pictures a
couple of months later and then it dawned on me that the triangular stone was
depicting the burial
mound and the sons were shown taking Noah up to the burial mount for his
place ment in the grave. On the opposite side of Lake Qare, the inside as opposed
to the outside where the Physics Institute is located, there is a high mound
that is obviously artificial in contrast to the natural slopes of the mountain
on each side of it. This then is the burial mound of Noah according to the
indication of the rock cut depictions that we found. Later on we found the
tomb of Shem a 3 hour drive south of Yerevan
and the tomb of Japheth a 6 hour drive south of Yerevan. We had a good lead
on the
place where the tomb of Ham was located but we did not get there in the time
that
we had in Armenia (10 days). The CDs are half made and the book is about two
thirds made. I hope to have them both done by the spring, say March. I will
be happy to send you a copy of the book whenever I get it done. A lot of
other things have diverted me from working on the project but I will get back to
it and finish it up. I am coming to Florida in March to make a presentation
of this at the church of a Pastor Dunn. Off-
hand I dont remember where his church is located but when the time gets
nearer I
will give you more information about the meetings. He is especially
interested because he worked in Armenia for ADRA and loves the country. Hope this
helps for now, my best for the blessings of the holidays, Bill
-----------
Is there any more doubt about the fact that Noah and his three sons existed, or about the inspired record? You may doubt the creation story but the face remains the he and his family existed. We have found his grave amd the grave of two of his sons.

[maudman]

Three questions on this idea:

What parts of Srcipture do you use as evidence for this view?

Why is Eve there and if she is not physically the mother of all mankind then why does the Bible say she is? How do you explain this in your framework for interpretation?

Do the Early Church Fathers give support for your view?



According to Genesis 1 the order of Creation is Earth, vegetation, animals, mankind. In Genesis 2 the order of Creation is earth, vegetation, Man, animals, and then women.

It is quite clear that the order is inconsistent.

Charlene: I very much agree with your post regarding where theological license ends and begins. That is why I kind of have an all or nothing view of Genesis 1-3. It is either all literal or all symbolic. .
Hello Constantine

Those are valid Questions and yes I do have very good answers for all of them. But I am hesitant about giving the Answers. People say they search for truth. But what many search for is justification. I look at the different Christians sects and I ask what their real motives behind it are. I ask myself why do so many ask where does it say that in the Bible? I ask myself why so many worry what the early church fathers believed about this or that. Would it really make any difference what the early church fathers believed?

As a Christian I ask myself a question once that is important about the bible and those who read it and say they study. Studying the bible is important. Understanding what the early apostles believed is important. But why is it that the only people on the face of the planet that had the scriptures and where to supposedly understand them and be a light? Why couldn’t they see the fulfillment of their prophecies some 2000 years ago, “there are reasons” how do you think what is written and what I say and what the early church fathers believed is going to help you. What makes you think you could even relate to what I could say or have said? I’m just asking questions. Do you really believe that those who lived long ago new anymore than many do today? They may have known some things but Most of what they new was only on a need to know basis for the task at hand.

The reason those who are last will be the first to enter the Kingdom of God is because they who come later are going to know more than those that preceded them. They have built on the foundation that is laid. Why did Christ say who do you say that I am?
But what do you get from a literal or non literal interpretation of Adam either way. Why is it important to you? What would you do with the things that I could tell you and scriptures that I could produce and the perspective that I could give.

Here is something to postulate.

REV 10
7. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Why is this verse in the last book of the Bible? If anybody born before this Point really new anything at all concerning the Mystery of God and his plans for Man except for the Elect of God. Those chosen before the creation was and who are the ones who’s’ names are written before the foundation of the World.
And why is it the prophets who have the truth and it mentions nothing of the church fathers. They might could be church fathers but in a different light. I do believe the apostles had truth and some understanding that most don’t today. I don’t think they new everything but new enough for the Task our lord had commissioned them to do. If they new everything and it all made sense we wouldn’t be here in this discussion. To say they new all things concerning God would contradict scripture.
But the crux of it all is that most proof text and I’m not looking to give anybody any ammo for that and I am cautious about Scripture banding.

Mathew 9

16. No man putteth a piece of new cloth to an old garment: for that which is put in to fill it up, taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
17. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Point here is that I’m not interested in many making a patch work of truths about what I say and Most don’t understand the import ants of Genesis in Relation to Revelations.
I understand our predicament and our so called debating the issues. The answers to most of your questions are right there in the chapter. I’m not sure why you can’t see them. But it helps to understand some of the Hebrew and the reason you may be having problems is your reading a translated versions of the inspired word of God.
Truth is many don’t have a clue as to the real truth for it is stranger than fiction or what any YEC miracle working can dream up.

Peace to all

[A Beautiful Truth]

I know, Maudman, let's try to respect one another opionions about the matter and have a reasoned discussion? No need for insults or the like. I am really trying to figure this stuff out. And if I could understand your writing better, I would pay more attention to it.

Let me ask again because I don't believe you answered my previous questions before you went on about me being an evil pig.

(A sure way to get people to ignore you btw--)

How do you believe Adam's sin spread to all mankind?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charlene: I very much agree with your post regarding where theological license ends and begins. That is why I kind of have an all or nothing view of Genesis 1-3. It is either all literal or all symbolic. .

Constantine,

My question now goes beyond Genesis 1-3. I wonder if all the accounts before Abraham are to be taken historically. I wish I could find someone who knows about these things so I could talk with them. I have to keep my guard up around here. It seems not many people are willing to have a reasoned discussion without getting defensive. I wish people did not have such an emotional attachment to these non-essentials of the faith, it makes discussion and learning difficult. I just want to listen and learn and not get beat up for doing so.

[Jack777]

Hi,

Interesting that someone would call you an evil pig or anyone else for that matter. Good grief.

Anyway, I think they are literal stories, but what is it that you are looking to find out exactly?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi,

Interesting that someone would call you an evil pig or anyone else for that matter. Good grief.

Anyway, I think they are literal stories, but what is it that you are looking to find out exactly?

I'd like to find out how those who believe that biblical history does not start until Abraham defend that view.

And if I could continue on a wish list of answers to find out...

I'd like to know how those in ancient near east cultures would have understood Genesis 1-11. Would they have demanded it to be literal in order to be true as fundemental Christians demand?

And to continue...

If Genesis 1-11 is not historical, how do we understand the Fall and the geneologies. I have ideas about these things, I just need to find out more.

[maudman]

I know, Maudman, let's try to respect one another opionions about the matter and have a reasoned discussion? No need for insults or the like. I am really trying to figure this stuff out. And if I could understand your writing better, I would pay more attention to it.

Let me ask again because I don't believe you answered my previous questions before you went on about me being an evil pig.

(A sure way to get people to ignore you btw--)

How do you believe Adam's sin spread to all mankind?
Would you please show me where I called you an evil pig or have criticized you or Constantine In any way. I think you looked at another post and are confused Charlene. I haven't criticized anyone. Show me one place where I criticized anyone. I have given answers to most questions and haven’t criticized anyone. I responded to the questions. I didn’t give a direct answer to the question. I know that’s what you may want But tell me where did I call anyone a pig. I wouldn’t do that.
Before I give a direct answer I like to know what people are using them for. If you are offended at My response may I ask why? For reasons other than being a little indirect. I was actually challenging his questions on what seemed to be a premises some want to know what early Christians believed and I don’t think that is fair to the argument because they may not have known everything there was to know. People say they are trying to get to the bottom of things. What bottom? You are interested in the lit or non lit of Adam are you working to resolve an Issue of T.E. Scriptures I quoted address mixing different views and I was asking is that what your doing.

Peace to all

[maudman]

I know, Maudman, let's try to respect one another opionions about the matter and have a reasoned discussion? No need for insults or the like. I am really trying to figure this stuff out. And if I could understand your writing better, I would pay more attention to it.

Let me ask again because I don't believe you answered my previous questions before you went on about me being an evil pig.

(A sure way to get people to ignore you btw--)

How do you believe Adam's sin spread to all mankind?
As for the Question how did Adams sin spread to mankind I think I answered it. Adams sin didn't spread to mankind. Adams fall represents his sin against Gods command and has nothing to do with mankind. Sin is a transgression against the law or commands of God. YHWY was working with Adam directly not mankind. This is the theme throughout the Bible. Those God chooses to represent him. His Fall ment that he would see death and that he was now going to take up the cares of this world.

[Jack777]

Hi,

They would have taken it literally true.

[maudman]

Hi,

They would have taken it literally true.
I think so myself Jack777.
I think they would have looked at it literally. I think that is why these aren't issues that are written by the apostles and NT text. I don't think it was even an Issue, All these things brought up are issuse that come from Modern precepts. That's why if you start asking what the early church fathers believed most will say literal. But there are verses that have been used by some peoples that challenge some of those things concerning Floods. That maybe the apostles believed in more than one flood. But there is a whole other story that's behind Genesis and you can't even begin to understand it until you throw most of what you believe out the window. And start from scratch.
I used to think it was preposterous but now I believe it is closer to the truth. But if your just taking things other say and make a patch work its just the same as all the rest and in the end it makes no sense. I mean if straight and narrow is the path and few there be that find it. The majority of the crap pot beliefs have got to be Wrong.

[rogero]

...
I used to think it was preposterous but now I believe it is closer to the truth. But if your just taking things other say and make a patch work its just the same as all the rest and in the end it makes no sense. I mean if straight and narrow is the path and few there be that find it. The majority of the crap pot beliefs have got to be Wrong.
"Crap" pot??? :lol: :teeth: :tongue: :blush:

[Lion]

Adam was a literal human being, and so was Eve. BTW, the question about the first two chapters of Gen 1 and 2 being contradictrory is a bunch of nonesense. The Hebrew had no divisions between words and chapters were nonexistent. Further, Hebrew has no vowel letters. Chapters and verses were invented by the translators as an aid to people so thy could follow the preacher.

The question about Adam's falling on all men is easily answered. Satan tempted Eve and she took of the forbidden fruit, thereby being disloyal to God. By being disloyal to God sin fell on the human race.

Most people don't realize that there is war going on between God and Satan.

This war is mentioned in Rev 12. It began in heaven and when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their sin was not just a piece of fruit. It was loyalty to Satan. By this means Satan took control of the world. But Christ made a way of escape from the penalty of death.

There is a lot of conroversy over Genesis, People don't think there was a flood and Noah was just a made up story. That was why I included the story of finding Noah's grave.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Would you please show me where I called you an evil pig ...Show me one place where I criticized anyone....But tell me where did I call anyone a pig. I wouldn’t do that...

You wrote previously:

I'm casting you some pearls here Be carful that you don't trample them.

In case you did not know, that was a reference to Matthew 7:6. "Do not give dogs what is sacred, do not throw your pearls to pigs..." Did you forget the reference and mean something else? If you meant the kind of pearls given here on Tweb, I did not receive any from you, but the key words "trample them" give it away that you were referring to the scripture.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As for the Question how did Adams sin spread to mankind I think I answered it. Adams sin didn't spread to mankind. Adams fall represents his sin against Gods command and has nothing to do with mankind. Sin is a transgression against the law or commands of God. YHWY was working with Adam directly not mankind. This is the theme throughout the Bible. Those God chooses to represent him. His Fall ment that he would see death and that he was now going to take up the cares of this world.

So from where does our sin nature come? What was significant about Adam's fall, then? Why do we see death if not for Adam's sin?

[A Beautiful Truth]

the question about the first two chapters of Gen 1 and 2 being contradictrory is a bunch of nonesense. The Hebrew had no divisions between words and chapters were nonexistent. Further, Hebrew has no vowel letters. Chapters and verses were invented by the translators as an aid to people so thy could follow the preacher.

Chapters and verses have nothing to do with it, Lion. It is the order presented in both accounts. In the first account, animals are created, then man. In the second account, man is created alone with no animals, and theb God created animals. The order is deliberate, there is meaning behind it. It is the theology that concerned the writer, not the literal sequential order in harmony with the first creation account. Please look it over, the chapter break issue has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about.

[maudman]

You wrote previously:



In case you did not know, that was a reference to Matthew 7:6. "Do not give dogs what is sacred, do not throw your pearls to pigs..." Did you forget the reference and mean something else? If you meant the kind of pearls given here on Tweb, I did not receive any from you, but the key words "trample them" give it away that you were referring to the scripture.
Well I guess I can see how you would take that to mean I was calling you a swine. But that isn't what was meant. I was giving you some truth. God says we are to cast our pearls to those in CHrist. I was just saying don't be a swine and trample them in a round about way. I wasn't calling you a swine. but was saying don't be one. I think your intentions are good and I do apologies if it was a little out of charactor. If I considered you swine I wouldn't be talking to you. enough said on that.

[maudman]

So from where does our sin nature come? What was significant about Adam's fall, then? Why do we see death if not for Adam's sin?
The truth of the matter is that the trees spoken of in the Garden of Eden were people! not trees such as the Pear, Apple, Orange, Pecan and etc. They were people.
Right about now you are thinking; "All right smart aliec prove it." So we will attempt to do so. Although we do so with the full knowledge that no one can be convinced of anything if they do not wish to accept facts when they are given. For example, there was a man in Dallas who said he would give anyone $1-million dollars if they could prove to him that the moon was not made out of green cheese. Well many tried, they took him books, papers, pictures and even some rocks that came from the surface of the moon; but no one could ever convince him that the moon was not made of green cheese because he would not accept anything they presented. So he never had to pay the $1-million to anyone.

The book of Ezekiel; to chapter 31 where we read: "And it came to pass...that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar (a tree) in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees (people) of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees (people) of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow (the Assyrians) dwelt all great nations (countries). Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches; for his foot was by great waters. (Now we change and go to the Garden of Eden) The cedars (people) in the Garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees (people) were not like his boughs (See the comparison, thus we know that there were other people there to compare with him), and the chestnut trees (their children - or people) were not like his branches (his children - or people); Nor any tree in the Garden of God was like unto him in his beauty (See we know the trees in the Garden were people because they were not like the Assyrian in beauty . I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees (people) of Eden; that were in the Garden of God, envied him (trees cannot envy each other, only people can do that). Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart (trees do not have hearts) lifted up in his height; I have therefore delivered him (“”Now God is speaking of Adam“”) into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen: he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out (Driven Adam out of the Garden of Eden, because of his disobedience to Amighty God) for his wickedness. And strangers (people of other races), the terrible of the nations, have cut him off and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches (See he is again comparing him with a tree) are fallen by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him (Here is were the departing of the various races left the Garden of God - The Garden of Eden and were scattered all across the earth, away from Adam and his people.
Thus God segregated the races from each other, so they could not mix; which is against God's Law of Kind after Kind). Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches. To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death (All mankind will be denied a mediator because of Adam's sin), to the nether parts of the earth (In other words all people everywhere, no matter what race would remain spiritually dead and literal death in their time), in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit (Adam is going to go down to the grave as mankind). Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when he (Adam) went down to the grave (pit) I caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees (people) of the field fainted (Here again trees do not faint, only people do that) for him. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall (When Adam fell all the various races and nations on earth knew of his fall and shook with fear and sadness), when I cast him down to hell (the grave) with them that descend into the pit; and all the trees of Eden (people), the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted (Here
again tree cannot be comforted) in the neither parts of the earth. They also went down into hell (the grave) with him unto them that be slain with the sword (In other words everyone will die and go to the grave, and trees are not slain with a sword); and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen (Here we are told that the trees of the Garden were people of other races, other than Adam ,(“” like it or not, love it or not“”). To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees (people) of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees (people) of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth; thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised (Adam was circumcised in spirit) with them that be slain by the sword. (Now God goes back to Pharaoh whom He is comparing Adam and the Assyrians with) This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord God." (Ezekiel 31)
We know that the Pharaoh did not go into the Garden of Eden, because there were no such thing as Pharaoh until about a thousand years later.
Other places in Scriptures where men are described as trees are as follows: Leviticus 26:4, 20; Deuteronomy 28:40, 42; Judges 9:8-15; 1 Kings 4:33; 2 King 3:25; 1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalm 96:2; Isaiah 7:2; 10:18; 14:8; 55:12; 61:3; Ezekiel 17:24; 31; Hosea 2:12; Joel 1:12; Zechariah 1:8; 4:4-12; Matthew 3:10; 8:24; Luke 3:9; 21:29; Jude 11:12; Revelation 7:3; 11:4. There are others but they are hard to dig out and takes much study to see that the trees, vines and etc., are indeed
people.

Adam wasn't like anthing ever created he was a Son of God, and his fall ment that mankind would now be cursed for what he did. They were aready heathen according to the text. They were now denied the man or mediator of YHWY. But there is much more to all of this but this should help you in understanding about the medaphors and the Garden. "These are pearls". "The real pearls not the kind the web gives".

[maudman]

These verses show that some YEC beliefs are incorrect. These verses answere several questions.

1. That all men sprang from Adam. They did not! That each race was created after their Kind. Not a man and woman that gives birth to all different types of races of peoples. Which is in contradiction to the truth or reallity of the world as we Know it.
2. It explains to a certain degree who Cain married. After he was driven out from among the Adamites
3. That metaphors are for literal real things and requires scripture to show the truth not spceulation.
4. That Adam was a man like no other and can't be compared before his fall to any of the other metaphors which were other peoples.

It also shows many other things but enough for now, I hope this helps you Charlene. And I have yet to show how traditional Judea-christian theology is upside down which is the real Kicker. And doesn't represent what our for fathers believed. The sad thing is there is a CHrist that prevails which doesn't reflect the truth. A Christ the early church knew not and it prevails. And its theology saturate most traditional theology.

But I have opened a door who will Shut it.

peace to all

[A Beautiful Truth]

...And strangers (people of other races),

You mean like non middle eastern races...


Thus God segregated the races from each other, so they could not mix; which is against God's Law of Kind after Kind).

And Solomon's beautiful bride? I have to stop you right there. The "kinds" do not refer to people, but to ANIMALS in Genesis.

Your view requires a lot of concentration and I am not willing to give it that until I think it is a worthy endeavor. Your comments here alarm me and make me think it is not such a worthy endeavor, that your views are tainted by the sinfulness of prejudice against "strangers" and other "kinds".

I am willing to be corrected if I have it wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[maudman]

You mean like non middle eastern races...




And Solomon's beautiful bride? I have to stop you right there. The "kinds" do not refer to people, but to ANIMALS in Genesis.

Your view requires a lot of concentration and I am not willing to give it that until I think it is a worthy endeavor. Your comments here alarm me and make me think it is not such a worthy endeavor, that your views are tainted by the sinfulness of prejudice against "strangers" and other "kinds".

I am willing to be corrected if I have it wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is only in context to the view (YEC) that all men came from one man adam and eve. And that that man and woman are different and not the same as the other trees. if Adam was immortal then Eve also. They would be a different kind than mankind and God never tells them to be fruitful and multiply and its not till after the fall that they actually multiply. It has nothing to do with pedjucies it simply what the text is saying. Many of the animals refered to in Gensis aren't animals but peoples.

A kind after kind is how it is refered to when God made all peoples of different Races and cultures and he thought they were Good. It just demonstrates God created all and this man Adam is different. Different in that he is a man who God visits and this is criticle in understanding many of the things said in the Bible. The bible often uses metaphors for those peoples who aren't of the Hebrew clan and there are probably reasons why this is done this way. Which is another topic.
I understand it was a poor choice of words there are many who use verses like that to justify predjudice. There are many verses where God is forbidding his people to marry outside of israel. There are reasons for this but its not cause God hates other peoples. But many times peoples religious beliefs were associated with ethinic background and it was often easier for them to refrain from cultures who God was not YHWY.
But these things are important to understand because it is one Group of peoples and their God. You see many of the different peoples already had their own gods at the time of Adam and that is why it is criticle and God didn't hate them even then.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Many of the animals refered to in Gensis aren't animals but peoples.

So some people are fish, some birds, some creep and crawl on the earth.

Your interpretation is alarming, really. It sounds cultish.

I understand it was a poor choice of words there are many who use verses like that to justify predjudice.

I actually never knew anyone, you are the first to expose me to this. Again, it sounds cultish.

There are many verses where God is forbidding his people to marry outside of israel. There are reasons for this but its not cause God hates other peoples. But many times peoples religious beliefs were associated with ethinic background and it was often easier for them to refrain from cultures who God was not YHWY.

As long as you realize it was because of religious differences and not ethnic differences. You must realize that many Egyptians converted at the Exodus. They would have been allowed to intermarry. Also consider Rahab from Jericho and Ruth from Moab. Consider who Abraham met and paid tithes to--one who even called the Lord by a non-Hebrew form for God.

Consider the Lord's kindness to the Samaritan woman's daughter and consider His praise of the Roman centurian. Consider Paul's teaching about God being found by Gentiles. And that there is neither "Jew nor Greek". Christ is all and in all. There is no spiritual division between the races, Maudman. If you really object to appear as a racist, then you MUST change the way you write things. I think you must have come into contact with some racist teaching and even though you may not adopt it fully, you must see how it is tainted. Sometimes, Maudman, it is the case of believing the first thing you hear. It may be that you cannot salavage or cut out the parts you want because the whole theology you learned is tainted by racism. Please consider it.

[maudman]

So some people are fish, some birds, some creep and crawl on the earth.

Your interpretation is alarming, really. It sounds cultish.



I actually never knew anyone, you are the first to expose me to this. Again, it sounds cultish.



As long as you realize it was because of religious differences and not ethnic differences. You must realize that many Egyptians converted at the Exodus. They would have been allowed to intermarry. Also consider Rahab from Jericho and Ruth from Moab. Consider who Abraham met and paid tithes to--one who even called the Lord by a non-Hebrew form for God.

Consider the Lord's kindness to the Samaritan woman's daughter and consider His praise of the Roman centurian. Consider Paul's teaching about God being found by Gentiles. And that there is neither "Jew nor Greek". Christ is all and in all. There is no spiritual division between the races, Maudman. If you really object to appear as a racist, then you MUST change the way you write things. I think you must have come into contact with some racist teaching and even though you may not adopt it fully, you must see how it is tainted. Sometimes, Maudman, it is the case of believing the first thing you hear. It may be that you cannot salavage or cut out the parts you want because the whole theology you learned is tainted by racism. Please consider it.
Charlene it has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with understanding the things that seem to be hard to understand in the bible. People back in those times had a lot of predjudices and their way of resolving thing was very brash, cut and dry.
If you don't account for some of the ugly human charactoristic of things in studing the Bible then you can miss some things. The Bible pulls no punches about revealing the good and the Ugly in it. You can just take some new covenant perspective and think you understand everything in the old covenant. Israel didn't believe like a the new covenant. This was a problem early in the church as jewish christians struggled with Gentile conversions. They just had centries of the Idea of being and elite Group and yes there were some like today who weren't predjudice and there were those that were. Just as all cultures have this problem. Most of the bible is written in a cryptic fashion. The hebrews were a minority and they concealed thing in there writing using metaphors. They didn't want other peoples reading and understanding. So you have to understand it wasn't written to be understood by anybody but them.

These things have nothing to do with what I believes. Yes I wrote that way on purpose so you could see what many don't see. I wanted you to see it. And as far as believing the first thing I hear. I never cosider the first thing not even twice or three times. Everything is false until proven write and that is the way I feel. But then again I'm not wandering about the literness of adam.

[rogero]

Can somebody here please spell Charleen's name correctly????

[A Beautiful Truth]

Can somebody here please spell Charleen's name correctly????

You're sweet, rogero :wink:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Most of the bible is written in a cryptic fashion. The hebrews were a minority and they concealed thing in there writing using metaphors. They didn't want other peoples reading and understanding. So you have to understand it wasn't written to be understood by anybody but them.

And this is where I really think we have a problem. What is a cult, do you know?


These things have nothing to do with what I believes. Yes I wrote that way on purpose so you could see what many don't see. I wanted you to see it.

Maudman, I believe you to be sincere. I think you are really trying to help me see this because you believe it to be true. But I have to tell you that I am very concerned for you with these beliefs. When you start hearing things like the Bible is writen in a cryptic fashion on purpose, you are at the mercy of those who are "enlightened" enough to figure it out. This sounds like a cult.

Perhaps you will read some more, some opposing views. We must be able to put our views up for falsification in order to pronounce them true, anyway, so it should be par for the course.

In Him (and I do care and want to see you work this out)

~Charleen

[rogero]

... Most of the bible is written in a cryptic fashion. The hebrews were a minority and they concealed thing in there writing using metaphors. They didn't want other peoples reading and understanding. So you have to understand it wasn't written to be understood by anybody but them.

...


This is an ipse dixit, as is most of your thesis. It certainly seems so to a 21st century reader in a modern English translation. Who (besides the God of Creation) knows exactly what the Bible means, especially the early chapters of Genesis? And in answer to your question, what is cryptic to us today might not have been cryptic to Bronze Age Hebrew nomads. What they may have understood at face value would seem to us as utter metaphor today. IMHO, this is the entire problem with the modern "inerrantist" movement, with "scholars" trying to read a Bronze Age document of inspired spiritual truth as a 21st century technical manual for a scanning electron microscope.

R

[maudman]

Hello Charleen

First let me say that I appreciate your concerns.



There are things written in the bible that are very hard to understand. Understanding the people that wrote them and a better understanding of how they thought is one of the key’s to understanding metaphors.
Why the understanding is important that Adam is literal and how the belief of a child that is going to be born out of the lineage of Adam is central to understanding certain misconceptions that certain people can have about things written. There are things that can get twisted and if one doesn’t readily understand a perspective that is key, then things can get ugly. I will give you some examples that will clarify things a little.

Lets look at the whole concept of the Messiah. Most equate the Messiah with the term Son of David, The Christ, Son of Man. When we look at the bible and we go to those scriptures where Israel is documenting who begat who they are documenting those of there own kind, Why? The reason is because they believe that this Messiah is going to born from their people. But the linage Goes back to Adam. Now if one stops and considers the task at hand,
God has burden them with making sure that the line of this seed from Adam is preserved. So these Hebrews with the help of YHWY are going to be birthing this Messiah. From a historical and Jewish beliefs of the time this Messiah was going to come and raise this people to untold Heights. That this Messiah was coming for them and not the rest of the world. This concept had an adverse affect of superiority on this people which still today is alive and well. To many this is racism. And by today’s standards it is and doesn’t matter if it is Gods will or not. But the important part of all of this is many don’t reconcile that the title Son of Man refers to Adam like the title Son of David refers to David and this is largely due to mistranslations. The problem that rises from this perception is due to the fact that Adam is perceived as the is the first man and not the first Holy man. Adam was to the pre-flood world what Israel was after it.
Israel had the Law that was their atonement and this Messiah wasn’t going to die for their sins he was going to rid them of the oppression of the outside world. They weren’t expecting the messiah to Die for their sins cause they had the Law. The idea of atonement never got much further than the sacrifices that the Law required for atonement. except for maybe a few of the more literate of Israelites. You see the whole Idea of the Christ dying for the world made no sense to Israel and that is why early in church history their were divisions. To the Israelite that became Christian Christ was dying for their sins not the worlds, sin was the transgression of Gods law and only the Israelite was burden with Gods law, not the gentile so when God lays on them he is calling Gentiles into the Church their was much confusion in the ranks.
Now you understand why when we look at the bible through a certain perspective such as a Messiah prophesied in the Garden of Eden and how it is going to come about there seems to be racial overtone to the text.
Myself personally don’t believe that God is judging the rest of the world as he is judging those who he has Called and that those other people in the Garden weren’t under the judgment that was laid on Adam and those that would come after him because they didn’t have Gods law from the beginning Adam did and it was his seed (Hebrews) that were burdened with the law of God.

I hope this helps you and clarifies some things for you.

Peace Charleen

[maudman]

This is an ipse dixit, as is most of your thesis. It certainly seems so to a 21st century reader in a modern English translation. Who (besides the God of Creation) knows exactly what the Bible means, especially the early chapters of Genesis? And in answer to your question, what is cryptic to us today might not have been cryptic to Bronze Age Hebrew nomads. What they may have understood at face value would seem to us as utter metaphor today. IMHO, this is the entire problem with the modern "inerrantist" movement, with "scholars" trying to read a Bronze Age document of inspired spiritual truth as a 21st century technical manual for a scanning electron microscope.

R
I never said it was cryptic to the hebrew only to those outside the hebrews. If I said it I said it wrong. The books were for the those peoples YHWY was their God. They were his people. And yes the hebrews would have understood the metaphors. But to say the rest would have Nope they had their own language.

peace rogero

[Lion]

Maudman, you have the most mixed up theology I ever heard. Trees as people--What kind of gibberish is that? Adam understood that a redeemer would come. That's why the practice of offering lambs was instiuted. The purpose was to show faith that a redeemer would come.

You are correct that the Jews thought the messiah would deliver then from whoever was opressing them at any particular time, not to die for their sins.

Charleen, the stories in the Bible are factual, and the father- son lists are accurate. Something happened soon after the flood to shorten men's lives. There has been a lot of guesswork on that, but no proof.

There are things that are symbolic, but comparing scripture will usually clear those up. But we have to get the big picture before we can understand.

[maudman]

Maudman, you have the most mixed up theology I ever heard. Trees as people--What kind of gibberish is that? Adam understood that a redeemer would come. That's why the practice of offering lambs was instiuted. The purpose was to show faith that a redeemer would come.

You are correct that the Jews thought the messiah would deliver then from whoever was opressing them at any particular time, not to die for their sins.

Charleen, the stories in the Bible are factual, and the father- son lists are accurate. Something happened soon after the flood to shorten men's lives. There has been a lot of guesswork on that, but no proof.

There are things that are symbolic, but comparing scripture will usually clear those up. But we have to get the big picture before we can understand.
Well lion it shows you don't read posts very well and you see what you want to see in the scripture. But I don't expect you to. Eziekeil 31 Tells us the hebrews use Metaphores for other peoples and the trees are family trees just as we use that expression today. Where do you think the expression comes from When people say they are searching their family tree. It comes from the bible. But I don't expect you to understand that.
Beside I could end this whole debate with one paragraph and not use one bit of scripture. That is, "for those who search the scripture with the spirit of truth and not justifacation of some pre-concieved Ideaology". Proof-texters, All the struggles what gen 1 and gen 2 are about all of it. But I won't say anything anymore about those things especially when people critize the things I say and then go and use them for justiacation in other places. You may say that my theology is mixed up but I haven't told you everything and I dought I will.
I didn't come here to search for the truth but to see what others think it is and all I see is the whaling and the lashing of teeth. What most today call debating cause they don't know the truth. Because if they did they wouldn't thirst anymore.

[A Beautiful Truth]

There are things that are symbolic, but comparing scripture will usually clear those up. But we have to get the big picture before we can understand.

Perhaps you will address the difference in the order between Gen. one and two.

[Lion]

Charleen, I don’t know if I can answer all your questions about the differences between Gen 1 and 2 or not. But I can try.

The problem you bring up, the differences between the two chapters can be easily resolved when we consider the context. In chapter 1, the main character is God, creating.

There weren’t any humans or animals in existence when the sixth day dawned. First God created the animals, then Adam. Now God had someone He could talk to. So He first had had Adam name all the animals. Each animal had a mate. but Adam didn’t have a mate, so God performed the first anesthetic and took a rib from Adam and made a mate for him. This all happened on the sixth day.

Now I know you have questions on the order of events. But you have to realize that there is more to the story than the strict order of events. We don’t know when the story was written. But Adam or someone must have written his story after sin entered the picture. Did you ever tell a story to a child? Did you tell it exactly as events happened? No. You told it more or less as it happened. The point is that you hit the important points, and then the less important things. The exact order is not important.

God must have told the first pair how he created the earth because there wasn’t anyone else around. He left it up to humans to tell the “rest of the story.”

We need to realize that inspiration of scripture is not dictated by God. Human beings wrote in their own words the thoughts that were guided by the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that the creation story was told by God, but humans want to pick it apart and dissect every little nuance and jot and tittle and say this can’t be so or that may not be true. We need to believe the story and not pick it apart to see if we can find some flaw in it.

Satan wants us to doubt the existence of God and all these doubts are from the father of lies and cast doubt on God.

[Mercury]

There weren’t any humans or animals in existence when the sixth day dawned.What do you make of the fifth day of Genesis 1 when all birds and fish were created? Are you an advocate of the days of proclamation view, where the six days are days of planning, not creating?

[Lion]

You caught me there. I was thinking of land animals, not fish or fowl.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Now I know you have questions on the order of events. But you have to realize that there is more to the story than the strict order of events....The exact order is not important.

So you agree that the account can not be taken literally? Listen, this may be able to be worked out, I am really on a quest. I see indications that the account is not literal. If it is not literal, then what? I think the account has symbolic features, including the Tree of Life. Sounds to me like the account was meant to be symbolic truth.

[Lion]

No, Charleen, It is very literal. The problem is that Gen 1 and the first few verses of ch 2 were the story God told Adam and Eve. Nobody was there to talk to before Adam was created, so God told them.

Now we pck up a different person telling the story. We don't know who is telling the story between there ans chapter 5.

But there is a story behind the story. God had a problem. One of the the angels, Lucifer by name, got puffed up with his beauty, and started slandering God. God refers to him as the king of tyre.

Ezek. 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
Ezek. 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
Ezek. 28:14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezek. 28:15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
Ezek. 28:16 “By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.

God's rule is based in love and free choice. God dared not destroy Lucifer because he had a right to his opinion but Lucifer was bad mouthing God. What was worse, he was creating discord among the angels.

Is. 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
Is. 14:13 “But you said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
Is. 14:14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

Of course he couldnt do that because he was a created being. So what happened next we find in Rev 12

Rev. 12:7 ¶ And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war,
Rev. 12:8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.
Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Now Adam and Eve had free choice. They could obey God by not eating from the forbidden tree, or they could eat of the tree. That was the test, the only place Satan could have access to them By taking the forbidden fruit, they sold out to Satan.

All the rest of the story is history. Satan has had freedom to rule the world whenever men will listen to him.

Satan has done his evil best to beat God. He has deceived people into saying the fall of man and the flood is a myth and folk tales Don't let Satan trick you like he did Eve.

[maudman]

No, Charleen, It is very literal. The problem is that Gen 1 and the first few verses of ch 2 were the story God told Adam and Eve. Nobody was there to talk to before Adam was created, so God told them.

Now we pck up a different person telling the story. We don't know who is telling the story between there ans chapter 5.

But there is a story behind the story. God had a problem. One of the the angels, Lucifer by name, got puffed up with his beauty, and started slandering God. God refers to him as the king of tyre.

Ezek. 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
Ezek. 28:13 “You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
Ezek. 28:14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
Ezek. 28:15 “You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
Ezek. 28:16 “By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.

God's rule is based in love and free choice. God dared not destroy Lucifer because he had a right to his opinion but Lucifer was bad mouthing God. What was worse, he was creating discord among the angels.

Is. 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
Is. 14:13 “But you said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.
Is. 14:14 ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

Of course he couldnt do that because he was a created being. So what happened next we find in Rev 12

Rev. 12:7 ¶ And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war,
Rev. 12:8 and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven.
Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Now Adam and Eve had free choice. They could obey God by not eating from the forbidden tree, or they could eat of the tree. That was the test, the only place Satan could have access to them By taking the forbidden fruit, they sold out to Satan.

All the rest of the story is history. Satan has had freedom to rule the world whenever men will listen to him.

Satan has done his evil best to beat God. He has deceived people into saying the fall of man and the flood is a myth and folk tales Don't let Satan trick you like he did Eve.


Lion Where does it say in the bible that those verses (EZEK 28;12-16 or Isa 14:12-14) refer to satin or lucifer. I don't see those names mentioned anywhere in those verses. Can you tell me who the prince of tyre was when this scripture was being penned.
That interpetation you gave, is one found in most protestant literature. And most just pick up that interpetation and use it just as you did. And that isn't what the text say's at all. It needs no interpetation if you understand the hebrew people and their history.

[Lion]

Maudmam, if most modern religionists think these verses apply to Satan you are sadly in the minority if you don’t agree.

It is true that the name satan is not there but the inference is there.

Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Is. 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Is. 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

lucifer the son of the morning fell from heaven.

Rev. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev. 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

There is no doubt about who these verses are talking about.

[maudman]

Maudmam, if most modern religionists think these verses apply to Satan you are sadly in the minority if you don’t agree.

It is true that the name satan is not there but the inference is there.

Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Is. 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Is. 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

lucifer the son of the morning fell from heaven.

Rev. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev. 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

There is no doubt about who these verses are talking about.

Lion

You are right about I’m in a minority Lion, But this rambling has nothing to do with the literal or non literal view of Adam. But where in the scripture does is say that the majority was ever right? It was always a minority a remnant that was faithful or possessed the truth, so thanks for the compliment. The key word is religionist and religiousness was never the medium of truth but more of faithfulness to what one believes.

Ezekiel 28

The prophet carries the title Son of man (ben Aw-dam) Descendent (son) of Adam and is more concerning Adam and his descendents who chose to be like God to know good and evil which is now the way of the tree of life of good and evil. That man (Adam) and his descendants are the ones fallen and have gone down to the pit, Adam was cast out of the Garden, they where immortal in their beginning. You may need to re-read the fall Lion and have a better understanding of what the real lie was in the fall of the man YHWH created.

Adam and his descendants at times become the incarnation of good and evil, Why? Because of their Flesh, failing to understand the demographics of the peoples and the world at that time causes people to place things out of context. Israel was just a remnant of that seed from which God was going to perform the Messianic convent. They were all Adam’s seed (covenant) but not all Adams seed where Israelites.

Circumcision was the means God chose to separate or distinguish within the Lineage of Adam or later Noah and his descendents for birthing of the Messiah. Prophets in the Old Testament prophesied to Adams or Noah’s descendents and Israel, Because neither were consistent in their worship of YHWH, Not to satin or angels but to the Adam kind which is all of Gods covenant peoples at that time in history. God made covenants with all of them, Covenant peoples within Covenant peoples. These peoples are the battle ground through which God and Satin are both doing a work(good and Evil).
Because many fail to take in account the demographics of Gods covenants they just jump from one flaw precept to another and your quoting these scriptures have nothing to do with the literal or non literal Adam. Although they may be more appropriate for understanding a connection between Satin and God and his Covenant peoples.
Metaphors for Satin and God are constantly used because both incarnations are taking place in his covenant seed. Adam and his descendents would weaken the nations because of their fall and that is why you have the Christ, it is for their atonement and Mankind who shall also stumble because of them and their Evil. Adam became in the Natural world what satin was to the heavens a fallen one.

Peace lion

[Lion]

Maudman, I agree that the majority is seldom right. In this instance you may be in the minority, but you are WRONG. You forgot the rules of plain English. Eze 28: 2 says “Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre,
Ezek. 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre

Son of man is literally, “Son of Adam,”do this. “Say to the leader of Tyre,” or, “Take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre.”

You have taken the command to Ezekiel and made it appear as if it was talking about Adam instead of Satan. This is twisting the text to make it say something it does not say.

Putting it in plain English, I think you have joined the league of pretzel benders. No wonder people get confused.

[Undomiel]

The ancient Sumerian cuneiforms reveal that E.DIN was an actual place in the vicinity of the rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. Ancient Sumer was the first known human civilization on this planet. Prior to that, humans were nomadic, food-gatherers (not unlike the bible depicts the life of Adam, prior to the fall).

I think Adam was an entire group of men, and Eve was an entire group of women, who were created by God with immortal bodies. I believe the Genesis account is literal, but with some symbollism tossed in. The symbols describe important aspects of the events that require additional biblical and scientific studies and lots of prayer to decipher. I believe Genesis 6:4 is an overlay of the story of Adam and Eve's temptation by the "Serpent."

My theory regarding the Trees of the Garden are as follows:

Trees are symbollic in the bible of genetic lines, thusly the Fig Tree is symbollic of the nation of Israel from Adam through Abraham, to Jesus. In the garden, 2 Trees in particular are prominent. The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, the Tree of Life represented the genetic line of humankind in its immortal state and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, represented the genetic line of mortality for humankind.

I'm of the opinion that originally, our cells were not composed of DNA in its current state. A cursory study of the nature of DNA indicates it to be similar to a computer program with its various functions. There are switches on our DNA that literally turn themselves off via pre-programmed information, and we begin to age rapidly - a self-destruct mechanism. My personal opinion is, that DNA is the key to the mysteries of the Creation story in the bible and proof that it was a divinely-inspired document.

[maudman]

Undomiel

I can relate to the way you think, There is truth in some of your statements. Although something’s I might think a little different on because of perspectives, although I don't at this time have time to reply to some of the things you have said your reasoning are valid. Your statement about Adam and Eve as groups is interesting, although its not exactly where I stand, there is one verse of scripture that supports that Inference. Or it at least creates the Idea of plural ness in relation to Adam.

Although Gen 6:4 has other meaning for other peoples of which I'm not all sure that it has the implications they say. Flat out reading of the text without interpretation can render a not so fantastic event as some claim.
But if the men were of old ,men of renown, That were born form the daughters of Adam, Old from the time this is written Then Earth’s history in the past, not exactly sure how far back? But is probably before Gen 1:2. There were peoples long before this event and it also had some apparently evil side affects. This union between the seed of Adam and these Sons of God cause God to destroy Adams Seed of which only Noah and his children are direct descents of that Lineage. ( 9. These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man, [and] perfect in his generations, (He was pure in lineage ,line unbroken) [and] Noah walked with God.) The Flood was to destroy the seed from the union; (of Adams seed and the sons of God) God was destroying Man Flesh not animal flesh. Poor translations fail to show this.( 13. And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me)

Strong's Ref. # 1320

Romanized basar
Pronounced baw-sawr'

from HSN1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extension, body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of a man:

KJV--body, [fat, lean] flesh[-ed], kin, [man-]kind, + nakedness, self, skin.

That word flesh (basar) from strongs’ renders it man flesh.

It is this man flesh that God is destroying. Not as some have been led to believe! All creature flesh. But I don’t hold them or blame them for this misconception as much as I Blame the leadership of the Church for ignoring these things. Because there are those that know.

Your insight yield fruit,

Peace Undomiel

[maudman]

Maudman, I agree that the majority is seldom right. In this instance you may be in the minority, but you are WRONG. You forgot the rules of plain English. Eze 28: 2 says “Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre,
Ezek. 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre

Son of man is literally, “Son of Adam,”do this. “Say to the leader of Tyre,” or, “Take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre.”

You have taken the command to Ezekiel and made it appear as if it was talking about Adam instead of Satan. This is twisting the text to make it say something it does not say.

Putting it in plain English, I think you have joined the league of pretzel benders. No wonder people get confused.

Lion

What I'm saying is that when God tells the son of man to take up a lamatation over the king of tire, The King of tire is a descendent of Adam. The annalogy of satin is Given about how the seed has fallen that's all. Tyre had become evil. Yes, Satin was doing a work there, and it was upon a portion of Gods covenant people.

[Lion]

When you try to take a literal historical story and make it an allegory or myth, you destroy the story. There was nobody else but Adam and Eve, so there was no family tree. It was a literal tree. Satan tempted Eve to disobey a direct command of God and yielded her allegance to Satan.

Eve's children were evidently numerous, although female descendants are not mentioned. Cain and Abel had grown up when Cain killed Abel and was banished to another area. He had no one but his sister to marry, however that was not as bad as it is today. It is not stated so but the inference is that there were two lines of descendants, descendants of Cain, who had rebelled against God and Seth who believed God. The line of Cain were called the sons of men and the descendants of Seth were called the sons of God.

Gen. 6:1 ¶ Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,
Gen. 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen. 6:3 Then 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.”
Gen. 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

The word Nephilim comes from a Hebrew word which means "fallen." The unfallen "sons of God" intermarried with the descendants of Cain and their children naturally followed their mother's teaching, so the earth became wicked and the earth was filled with violence. This led God to say He was going to destroy the earth.

But Noah was righteous, so God told Noah to build a boat to save the animals and his family. Noah did that and the animals went into the ark by themselves.

There has been a lot of critiquing of the story and I won't try to answer all the criticisms but will simply say the story is true, and discussion is not for this thread. The earth was destroyed by the flood.

[Lion]

The whole argument over whether Adam really existed or not breaks down into a discussion over creation versus evolution. Did God create the world in seven days or not? Is faith in God dependent on whether He created our earth or not? Millions have died believing in God rather than give up their confession of God.

Richard Dawkins, member of the Royal Society and professor at Oxford, even states that faith is one of the great evils in the world, comparable to a dangerous virus, but much harder to kill.
Richard Dawkins, "Is Science a Religion?” The Humanist, (January/February 1997): 26-39

Why should this be? There is something in human nature that somehow longs for a better land, a better situation. Take the pagan religions, for instance. They all express a desire for immortality, be it in a spirit world or in another life. The christian faiths universally proclaim a belief in an afterlife in some form, with a supreme being and the angels. The story of the tree of life that would preserve life forever is woven throughout the bible, from Genesis to Revelation. In Genesis 3 the tree of lfe was taken away and in Revelation 22 it is restored.

I might ask where the week originated if it was not from the seven day creation week? There is no natural division of a month or a year that answers that question. This comes back to whether the story of creation is true or not. There have been numerous attempts to create the building blocks of life, but they have all failed. DNA, that marvelous blueprint of all living things, has defied every attempt to reproduce it.

[maudman]

I don't judge people in how they interpret Genisis and I don't think their salvation is in jeopardy because they challenge traditional belief, In the end what one believes will determine weather he is a liar or not if he has been teaching what he believes. Thats all it is either were liars or were forgiven. Christ said who do you say that I am, they all gave different answeres except one and they were all apostles.
And God said he so put it in the world that man would be without excuse. So man can find truth in GODS CREATION. Even the eternal Godhead. So one can have the truth studing Gods handy work and never has to pick up the bible. So there has to be some truth in what some people are finding in their search for truth whether it be in the bible or in the dirt.

peace lion

[Mercury]

The whole argument over whether Adam really existed or not breaks down into a discussion over creation versus evolution.Not necessarily. Glenn has an interpretation that includes a literal Adam while not denying evolution. There's others who accept evolution in most cases except for humans -- I think that's a bad approach, but it still shows that there is more diversity of opinion out there than you acknowledge.
Did God create the world in seven days or not?Do we eat Jesus' flesh when we partake of the Lord's Supper or not? Both are tricky questions that honest Christians disagree on. I described two reasons why I take the days symbolically in [this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=845747&postcount=15)]. Feel free to respond there if you'd like to discuss that. So far, no YECs have interacted with the discussion in that thread.
Is faith in God dependent on whether He created our earth or not?Believing God created the world is important. However, that is not an issue YECs and TEs disagree on.
The story of the tree of life that would preserve life forever is woven throughout the bible, from Genesis to Revelation. In Genesis 3 the tree of lfe was taken away and in Revelation 22 it is restored.You make an interesting point. Do you interpret Revelation 22 as literally as Genesis 3? Do you acknowledge that Revelation 22 contains symbolism while still being true? A tree of life is also mentioned in Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 13:12 and 15:4. In all those proverbs, it is clearly not referring to a literal tree. Those who see all references to "tree of life" as symbolic are merely using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
I might ask where the week originated if it was not from the seven day creation week? There is no natural division of a month or a year that answers that question.It is not necessary to take the creation week as literal history in order to use it to institute the work week and Sabbath. That said, I have no idea when in human history the concept of the week started. That might be an interesting topic to research.

[grmorton]

That said, I have no idea when in human history the concept of the week started. That might be an interesting topic to research.

The Chinese used a 10-day week see David. N.
Keightley, "The Origins of Writing in China: Scripts and Cultural
Contexts," p. 185

When I was studying Mandarin, I tried to figure that calender out but I wasn't smart enough.

The Maya used a 20-day week--they liked the number 20

"The next five heiroglyphs, with bar-and-dato numerical prefixes,
name the units of time: eight periods of the fifth order of
magnitude (144,000 days each), fourteen of the fourth order
(7,200 days each), three of the third (360 each), one of the
second (20 days), and twelve of the first order (single days).
Their total is the number of days-- 1,253,912 in all -- since day
zero of the Middle American day count. This interval leads from
the previously menmtioned epoch to the day commemorated in the
inscription, which is that of A. D.320, September 16 in the
Julian calendar, or Sept 17 in retroactive Gregorian for that
years."

And historically it appears that the 7-day week was connected to the fact that there were seven planets visible to the naked eye.


“The ancient Greeks went along with the seven-day week for reasons unconnected with the Jewish penchant for the number seven. It was entirely a planetary consideration for the Greeks. They knew of the seven planets and, like the Romans, ascribed gods to each of them, so that each god ended up with a planet and a day of the week to patronize.”

[maudman]

[QUOTE=Lion]When you try to take a literal historical story and make it an allegory or myth, you destroy the story.

I have never once said anything in Genesis is an allegory, I said that the bible uses metaphors for things, Metaphors of the natural world, like it does throughout the bible for the mankind of the world. I think you may be confused about things a little Lion.

Metaphors aren't needed to make an allegory nor does the use of metaphors constitute and allegory. But both are used to create perspective. Metaphors do not destroy the literal event but create perspective within it as does allegories. Not in one single soiltary verse of scripture that I have ever read has an allegory or metaphor in the bible destroyed the literalness of an event. "And I said Event!" It can however determine the diference in an interpitation.


There was nobody else but Adam and Eve, so there was no family tree. It was a literal tree. Satan tempted Eve to disobey a direct command of God and yielded her allegance to Satan.

I will not discuss Adam and Eve being the first man and woman with you. Until you acknowledge the proper approach and use of Metaphors.

The two trees in the Garden of Eden are metaphors two ways of life because they were immortal. The one tree they had the tree of life and the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil another way of life. They were metaphors for pro-creation. Adam and eve were never told to be fruitful and multiply. They were imortal, wouldn't see death. Because you do not understand how aincient cultures viewed life you miss what is happening in the fall.

[Lion]

The story of the fall is plain enough without trying to reduce it to a myth or an allegory. When we try to reduce the story to some kind of myth we are falling into Satan's trap. Satan wants us to believe that God did not create the world, but that it just happened accidentally. Sorry, that's not the way it was. Yes God drove a literal Adam and Eve out of a literal garden of Eden where there was a literal tree of life which bore fruit that would sustain life forever. SatAn fell from heaven. (You can't seem to spell his name correctly) He was literally driven out. Eve fell for his lies and lost her right to eat of the LITERAL TREE OF LIFE.

SATAN wants us to believe those lies you have been telling. That is what they are LIES.

[NeilUnreal]

I've never had time to research the topic, but I've always wondered whether the length of the week has something to do with the phases of the moon. The 7-day week roughly coincides with the obviously observable phases of the moon (new, half, and full). Which also roughly corresponds to the human menstrual cycle, and is tied to the association between goddess-worship and the moon (in a general way). And possibly biologically tied to the moon, because of reproductive behaviour? These things, along with the 7 traditional heavenly bodies, are the kind of coincidences the ancients put great stock in.

Also, seven is the only number between 1 and 10 which does not evenly divide 360 -- a possible factor of apologetic significance to the ancient Hebrews, given the importance of the sexigesimal system to the Babylonians. Also possibly related to the significance of the infamous 666.

Ideas diffused widely and rapidly in the ancient world, but largely by word-of-mouth and other means that leave little evidence. So cross-cultural correspondences in calendars, beliefs, etc. may exist even if documentation is sparse.

Like Glenn, I've read a little about the Mayan calendar system, and I've always wanted to work through it and learn some of the related glyphs, etc. IIRC, the Mayan "end of the world" is just a few years off :egad: .

In any event, whether because of design, habit, or biology, a seven-day week seems to work out fairly well as a regulator of human activity.

-Neil

[Lion]

The French tried a ten day week after the revolution but it didn't work out. I never did find out why it ended. It was a revolt against religion.

[grmorton]

The French tried a ten day week after the revolution but it didn't work out. I never did find out why it ended. It was a revolt against religion.

Alexander Waugh, in his book Time, says that the French named the days a different name for 360 days. The peasants ignored it all and went to church every 7 days. That is why it eventually ended.

[kofh2u]

Lion:
When you try to take a literal historical story and make it an allegory or myth, you destroy the story.

KOFHY:
How about talking in parables, is that destructive?

You can insist on both, the ancient tale and the modern meaning. One does not cancel out the other. The famous bookl, Alice in Wonderland, does the same knd of literary presentation. This is the way writing communicates with us! Really.

Lion:
There was nobody else but Adam and Eve, so there was no family tree.

KOFHY:

In the side by side, the parable analogy, Adam/Eve were a "next evolution" from a long branch of other very similar sub-humans.

Lion:
It was a literal tree.

KOFHY:
One of the trees was the Bilogical Tree of Living Organism, in analogy to the tree of life.

The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil refers to the evolutionary branching into the development of minds, in general. Free will is the fruit from this tree, found in the sudden appearance of a Conscious Mind in humanoids, beginning with Adam.

Lion:
Satan tempted Eve to disobey a direct command of God and yielded her allegance to Satan.

KOFHY:
Satan is not specified. A "serpent" influences Eve's thinking in the metaphor. vIn the 21st century parable interpretation, this all makes sense in terms of our secular understanding of Evolution.

Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent, (mankind's archetypal Id), was more subtle (and introverted) than any (psychological) beast of the field (of thoughts in his mind) which the LORD, (the immanent) God, had made (in his own image). And he, (the Id), said unto the woman, (his Feminine Principle within, the Anima), Yea, hath God said, Ye, (the temptress), shall not eat, (feast upon) [Hebrew: akal], of every (archetypal unconscious) tree of the garden, (the garden of this mind?) [Hebrew: gan/ fenced off garden area]

Lion:
Eve's children were evidently numerous, although female descendants are not mentioned. Cain and Abel had grown up when Cain killed Abel and was banished to another area. He had no one but his sister to marry,...

KOFHY:
The missing info about just who these people married hints at the underlying analogy and inference that the story is a parable or metaphor.

Lion:
It is not stated so but the inference is that there were two lines of descendants, descendants of Cain, who had rebelled against God and Seth who believed God. The line of Cain were called the sons of men and the descendants of Seth were called the sons of God.

KOFHY:
It is stated.
The text of Genesis says the were two lines of the ascent of man, culminating in the evolution of Noah-like man, an early form of Modern Homo sapiens. He (his type of humanoid) has three "sons" (racial stocks).

These two lines seem to recombine in an inbreding. The two slightly different creatures that evolve, one from the root of Cain-type men and the other from Seth-type men, both meet in Lamech-types.

Gen. 4:17 And Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), knew his wife; and she
conceived, and bare Enoch, (Australopithecus afarensis): and he builded a city (figuratively, a body of humanoids leading to the evolution of Homo erectus), and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch ("to initiate").

Gen. 4:18 And unto Enoch, (Australopithecus afarensis), was born Irad (a species concurrent with Australopithecus boisei): and Irad begat Mehujael (species concurrent with Australopithecus robustus): and Mehujael begat Methusael (Homo ergaster, Early Homo erectus): and
Methusael begat Lamech (Homo antecessor).

AND,on the other hand, after a long line of begats, the parallel to our own scanty secular knowledge seems to dovetail with the concluding Lamechian development:

Gen. 5:24 And Enoch, (Homo habilis), walked with God, (consciously thinking, evermore realistically): and he was not, (but, totally absorbed); for God took him, (transforming him through hybriding).

Gen. 5:25 And Methuselah, (Homo erectus), lived an hundred eighty and seven (thousand) years, and begat Lamech, (Australopithecus antecessor):

Lion:
Gen. 6:1 , Gen. 6:2 , Gen. 6:3, Gen. 6:4 ... found in KJV

KOFHY: Gen 6:1-4... found in Freudian Bible Interpretatuion, (FBI):

Gen. 6:1 And it came to pass, when men (hominoids) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen. 6:2 That the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) saw the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen. 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit (the pantheistic expression of my Natural Law) shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh (and must adapt to my Reality): yet, (Neanderthal), his days shall be an hundred and twenty (thousand) years.

Gen. 6:4 There were giants (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (the Methusaelian Homo erectus) came in unto the daughters of men (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men (hybrids preceeding the advent of Modern Homo Sapiens) which were of old, men of renown.

Lion:
The word Nephilim comes from a Hebrew word which means "fallen." The unfallen "sons of God" intermarried with the descendants of Cain and their children naturally followed their mother's teaching, so the earth became wicked and the earth was filled with violence. This led God to say He was going to destroy the earth.

KOFHY:
No. Nephilim means "giants."

Lion:
But Noah was righteous, so God told Noah to build a boat to save the animals and his family. Noah did that and the animals went into the ark by themselves.

KOFHY:
But, this parable is a metaphor. The "ark" was the new evolution of a different brain, the Modern Homo was replacing Neanderthal-types.

This Homo sapiens brain would allow speech, the naming of animals. This brain would see God, and the works of God's hand more truly, more realistically.

You can insist on both the ancient tale and the modern meaning. One does not cancel out the other. The famous bookl, Alice in Wonderland, does the same knd of literary presentation. This is the way writing communicates with us! Really.

[Lion]

If you insist on that rot, the junk dreamed up by people who do not believe the scriptures are the word of God, we might as well stop writing to each other.

The Bible is the word of God to fallen man and should be respected as such, not as an Alice in wonderland rot.

[kofh2u]

I don't judge people in how they interpret Genisis and I don't think their salvation is in jeopardy because they challenge traditional belief, In the end what one believes will determine weather he is a liar or not if he has been teaching what he believes. Thats all it is either were liars or were forgiven. Christ said who do you say that I am, they all gave different answeres except one and they were all apostles.
And God said he so put it in the world that man would be without excuse. So man can find truth in GODS CREATION. Even the eternal Godhead. So one can have the truth studing Gods handy work and never has to pick up the bible. So there has to be some truth in what some people are finding in their search for truth whether it be in the bible or in the dirt.

peace lion


Yes.
Not only are you correct, but the message of Chtist, if not hs chief complaint against the Pharisees was just this.

The Pharisees insisted on interpretating scripture as a tool by which to insist upon mechamical, fote human behavior that was required of us. These interpretations of scripture placed a heavy load upon the shoulders of all Jews. We have an example in the Sharia of Fundamentalism of Islam. Sharia is administered by the pharisee like mullahs. These enforcers, the mullah, are self appointed critics of personal behavior of others. They are intolerant of other readings of scripture or/and the way othets ought have the freedom to understand the bibl for themselves.

Under Sharia a person defined as infidel might be murdered. A sister who is raped by her brother is encouraged in suicide. Patriarchy is what Torah became under the pharisee. Stoning accused prostitutes in Matthew is hardly understood by Christians today. They have no idea how life under Judaism of that day was so similar to life with the Taliban in our times.

Jesus died for Truth, and it is true that he died among other things for freedom of expression.

[maudman]

Yes.
Not only are you correct, but the message of Chtist, if not hs chief complaint against the Pharisees was just this.

The Pharisees insisted on interpretating scripture as a tool by which to insist upon mechamical, fote human behavior that was required of us. These interpretations of scripture placed a heavy load upon the shoulders of all Jews. We have an example in the Sharia of Fundamentalism of Islam. Sharia is administered by the pharisee like mullahs. These enforcers, the mullah, are self appointed critics of personal behavior of others. They are intolerant of other readings of scripture or/and the way othets ought have the freedom to understand the bibl for themselves.

Under Sharia a person defined as infidel might be murdered. A sister who is raped by her brother is encouraged in suicide. Patriarchy is what Torah became under the pharisee. Stoning accused prostitutes in Matthew is hardly understood by Christians today. They have no idea how life under Judaism of that day was so similar to life with the Taliban in our times.

Jesus died for Truth, and it is true that he died among other things for freedom of expression.
hello kofh2u

Yes I would agree that today's christians for the most part don't think like most do here or many other websites. There is a gap of knowledge of a practicle understanding of how people lived and thought milleniums & centries ago. Although many things are similar there are vast differences in how people thought and view things in the past. Our modern experiences yield only so much truth in comparison.

I have to say that I am curious concerning your interpitations of things. My mother thinks along your lines but I have never been able to make the bible go that far back in time. except for the gap in Gen 1:1 and 2. I quess I belive in the incarnation of the sons of God(Elohim) and the incarnations of the Sons of Yahwey(Adam). I more adopt the earth age's doctrine.

Do you believe in the incarnations of the sons of God?


Do y

peace

[kofh2u]

hello kofh2u

Yes I would agree that today's christians for the most part don't think like most do here or many other websites. There is a gap of knowledge of a practicle understanding of how people lived and thought milleniums & centries ago. Although many things are similar there are vast differences in how people thought and view things in the past. Our modern experiences yield only so much truth in comparison.

I have to say that I am curious concerning your interpitations of things. My mother thinks along your lines but I have never been able to make the bible go that far back in time. except for the gap in Gen 1:1 and 2. I quess I belive in the incarnation of the sons of God(Elohim) and the incarnations of the Sons of Yahwey(Adam). I more adopt the earth age's doctrine.

Do you believe in the incarnations of the sons of God?


Do y

peace

Hello maudman,

Interpreting scripture and, then, taking the next step, agreeing with what you think it says are two different things.

People develop a metaphysical interpretation which I find as hard to swallow as say a camel, and these same people get all uptight, even scream, "heresy!" as they strain to find some little inconsistency or minor detail in a very simple interpretation.

I interpret these incarnations as genetic reconstructions.

Our mind, especially the enormous Unconscious Mind, is recreated in every birth from the genetic code carried in our human gene pool. It is a gene pool that we contribute to in our life, a chemical dust of encoded instructions from which we were resurrected in our own birth. We will be resurrectedvagain, too,because we are still in that pool. This is the resting place called gehenna. Simple.

Sons of God are good genes, genes destined to last eternally.

Revelation 21:4-5 And God shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a continuum from one generation to the next living generation); and (in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) there shall be no more death, neither sorrow (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own pasts), nor crying (for we are happy in these revelations), neither shall there be any more pain (as circumvented by hypnosis today): for the former things (in Modern Homo sapiens life experience) are passed away.
And he, (the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian sapiens' brain) said, Behold, (in this way) I make all things (in human experience) new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true (rational, and scientifically feasible) and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

[maudman]

Hello kofh2u

I believe the entire bible is document that reveals the spiritual reality of God and that Even though the events are very real reveal a spiritual reality. I think that sometimes translations reflect what many believe at the time of the translations.


I think many modern translations say what those who penned them what you to believe and don’t leave as much room for different Interpretations. That is why I use mostly concordances when studying because they are less tampered with.

Also I don’t think many people actually study the bible anymore, but they tend to cling to things that they can easily and logical comprehend as it makes since or better conforms to their empirical experiences. And that’s ok, but when they tell people they are wrong just because what they say doesn’t reflect what they believe doesn’t make sense cause they say they don’t have to understand you or reread what they or you present. The spirit behind the Eye’s that read is what determines how long one believes what he has read. Some read things for the first time and that’s what they believe from that time on. Or they just read a document that make sense to them and that becomes gospel.

I do think there is something about genes that is important and that God had something in mind when creating genes and using them the way the world reflects its reality and their are those who ignore this or don’t want to look at it that way because they are afraid they will appear as something else that is looked at negatively. I can understand this but it doesn’t make the truth go away. I think many become so consumed with their own missions that things get overlooked or even over analyzed or over simplified.

I also think that all creations, man included are the incarnations of spiritual realities. I think the spirit is like electricity it powers whatever God destines to be formed in the world. I think God sets the limits so his will is made manifest. And I don’t condemn the rest of the world because God has chosen to work with me and share his truths with me and that all are condemned because I believe something they don’t. Were not all hands or all feet but where are one body with different function.

Peace kofh2u

[kofh2u]

Hello muddy,
You seem to have it right, in general. Your perspective seems rational and your mind appears open, while your sense of humility tempers the self-rightness found so prevalent in others.

IMO, religion is soon to experience a secular explanation for the stuff found not only in the bible, but also characteristic of all spiritual insight in every culture and society.

And, yes, genetics will be one of the foundations for these insights into the mysteries of God soon to be revealed:

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (the hidden manna), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture).

[Lion]

Hello KOFH2U and MAUDMAN

I’ve been reading your posts and they remind me of a story. There was a Tabasco commercial ttat ran in superbowl XXXII that showed a red faced man sitting in a rocking chair. He was sweating like anything you want to name. He had several empty bottles of Tabasco sauce scattered near his chair and he was eating a thick crust pizza.

Suddenly the camera focuses on a mosquito with a shrill buzz is about to land on his bare leg. The mosquito fills up and flies off. The insect gets a few feet away and explodes. The man remarks, “He couldn’t take the Tabasco.”

This unreal situation you have been portraying about the scripture is like the commercial. Too many of us want to spiritualize the plain wording of scripture with some allegorical and esoteric meaning, when the plain words carry real meaning.

The first two chapters of the Bible tell of a perfect world fresh from the hand of the Creator. There was a tree of life that would have preserved life forever. The third chapter tells how the created paradise was marred by sin and war and suffering. Man was barred from that tree as a result of sin.

The last two chapters portray a new earth, fresh from the hand of God, a giant city, where the tree of eternal life will be available to all. This is reality just as it reads, nothing imaginary about it, nothing like the imaginary Tabasco commercial.

Rev. 21:5 ¶ And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”
Rev. 21:6 Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
Rev. 21:7 “He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
Rev. 21:8 “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Rev. 22:1 ¶ Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
Rev. 22:2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

[maudman]

Hello lion

Do you actually believe that the tree is an actual tree and not a metaphor for a way of life. Is israel not referred to as a tree(metaphor). Is the term fig tree not used.

Is the metaphor (Root of the tree, braches and graphing of branches) not used in the bible? Were the apostles to be fishers of men(metaphor)? Are children not also refered to as olive plants(metaphor) in the bible?

Metaphors create a perspective drawing an analogy or akinship of likeness of the natural world. They are not use to destroy the literalness of anything but create perspective. You seem to think that just because some people say things are metaphors that it always means they are trying to spitualize things away and that is simply not the case. Metaphors are used for very real things some are spirtual and some are literal both are real.

Some will say some things are metaphors and will use that approach for an interpitation. If they are wrong and sincerly search the scripture for truth and not justifacation they will eventually change. Its the spirit of truth that Guides and that doesn't mean that everything people dream up no matter how honest they try to be, are right or of the truth but they may be trying.

We don't test things against the scriptures cause we already have the truth but to see if there is truth in what people are saying. It doesn't imply that we have all truth if we had it why would we need the bible to search unless we were going to be learning something new or changing previously believed doctrine. Did the Jews understand it all if so why couldn't they see the Messiah in yeshua the Christ.

No matter what your answere will be it will be justication. I try not to use the bible to justify my beliefs but to prove itself to a reader as the written word of God. The Bible defends itself and those who believe it use it that way not to prove what I believe or they believe but what it says. Thats how we learn.

And its about time for a commercial break.

peace.

[rogero]

Madman,

Other than the spelling, you made some excellent points. A pearl to you!

R

[maudman]

Madman,

Other than the spelling, you made some excellent points. A pearl to you!

R
Thanks rogero

Hee! Hee! yeah I feel sorry for those who try to interpret what I say. My speellinng isn't that great at times. I don't alway's use the word processor that would help some of my lingo, Thanks again rogero!

[Lion]

MAUDMAN WROTE
Do you actually believe that the tree is an actual tree and not a metaphor for a way of life. Is israel not referred to as a tree(metaphor). Is the term fig tree not used.
---------------------
LION
I’m searching for the kindest way to say this, but I am at a loss for words. What I want to say is from what I have observed, a lot of people have a problem sorting out metaphor from reality in scripture. I think people have come to the conclusion that anything the Bible says is metaphor. I think this comes from the idea that so much of what scripture is so far removed from what we experience in this sinful world that it seems unreal, a fairy tale that can’t be real.

1Cor. 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Can you believe this? I do. It’s no metaphor.
---------------
MAUDMAN
Is the metaphor (Root of the tree, braches and graphing of branches) not used in the bible? Were the apostles to be fishers of men(metaphor)? Are children not also refered to as olive plants (metaphor) in the bible?

Metaphors create a perspective drawing an analogy or a kinship of likeness of the natural world. They are not use to destroy the literalness of anything but create perspective. You seem to think that just because some people say things are metaphors that it always means they are trying to spitualize things away and that is simply not the case. Metaphors are used for very real things some are spirtual and some are literal both are real.

Some will say some things are metaphors and will use that approach for an interpitation. If they are wrong and sincerly search the scripture for truth and not justifacation they will eventually change. Its the spirit of truth that Guides and that doesn't mean that everything people dream up no matter how honest they try to be, are right or of the truth but they may be trying.
----------------------
Lion
Metaphors are generally easy to spot because they are not real, like the fishers of men or the grafting analogy that Paul used.
-------------------
MAUDMAN
We don't test things against the scriptures cause we already have the truth but to see if there is truth in what people are saying.
-----------------
LION
What do you mean by that statement? How do you know we have the truth except by the scriptures?

Is. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Is. 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The truth must be learned little by little, bit by bit.
-------------------
MAUDMAN
It doesn't imply that we have all truth if we had it why would we need the bible to search unless we were going to be learning something new or changing previously believed doctrine. Did the Jews understand it all if so why couldn't they see the Messiah in yeshua the Christ.

No matter what your answere will be it will be justication. I try not to use the bible to justify my beliefs but to prove itself to a reader as the written word of God. The Bible defends itself and those who believe it use it that way not to prove what I believe or they believe but what it says. Thats how we learn.
--------------------
LION
Are you telling that no matter what I say, that your belief is better than anything I may quote from scripture? If you do,your ideas must be infallible. Hail Maudman the new pope! I am poking fun at you!

[kofh2u]

But mr lion, all in all, you do found you interpretion upon the fundamntal statement that the things you will explain in scripture are referencing another "world"or domain ].

You will agree that the things you will tell the children of the next generation are to be found in another dimension. The kids we talk to today and tomorrow are to understand that talking serpents, seven headed animals, four faced cherubims, bloody moons, red dragons, trees of good and evil apples, flaming swords, seven stars held in the hand, urims that divine the future, and such things really exist, but not EXACTLY here, in the day to day.

Right?

Metaphysics?

[maudman]

LION said
I’m searching for the kindest way to say this, but I am at a loss for words. What I want to say is from what I have observed, a lot of people have a problem sorting out metaphor from reality in scripture. I think people have come to the conclusion that anything the Bible says is metaphor. I think this comes from the idea that so much of what scripture is so far removed from what we experience in this sinful world that it seems unreal, a fairy tale that can’t be real.

1Cor. 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Can you believe this? I do. It’s no metaphor.

I understand what you are saying, I whole heartedly agree that things can get spiritualized away and meaning or interpretations can get distorted, but the door swings both directions as things can get literalized away and interpretations and meaning can get distorted also!

The scriptures you quote to me say that there is something that is going to happen yet future that even Gods children can’t see. And it is not discernable by any of the means that God has given thus far.


LION said
Metaphors are generally easy to spot because they are not real, like the fishers of men or the grafting analogy that Paul used.

Yes! Those are some of the easier ones, and that is why I chose them but others are not as easy to see and that is the problem the bible is simple not that easy to interpret or there wouldn’t be a TWEB. Also the scriptures say that the Mystery of God won’t be finished until the 7th Trump so unless you are full blown preterist this means that things are still being learned.

Kofh2u points this out about revelations and the metaphors that it uses. They are to most a mystery or hard to understand.
But those that are deceived are not aware of deception so how do we know. The scriptures are used for corrections in our lives as well as used to understand the bible using the bible, why does Paul tell us to study and show ourselves approved.



MAUDMAN
We don't test things against the scriptures cause we already have the truth but to see if there is truth in what people are saying.
-----------------
LION
What do you mean by that statement? How do you know we have the truth except by the scriptures?

What I mean here is that I believe that in pages of the Bible is a record of the truth, the revelation of God, and that is a statement of faith. Which means that is what I believe not what I know. It doesn’t mean that I understand its contents entirely.
It means that for some reason which is a spiritual issue, the Lord God at some point in time gave me a spirit to think that way. That at some point in time I chose to uphold the belief that the scripture is Gods words and it’s not because I understand everything that is in it nor do I have to! or the gentiles would have never entered into the church as well as Israel being saved.

That faith has been justified, not because I believed in the Lord but because he believes in me and died because I was ignorant of his Glory.

So when somebody publishes or people say things that contradict what I have been led to believe I go to the scripture to try to see if it is true or false or plausible. To see if they know more than what was previously known or thought, for what ever reason. The plain fact is that people have been sayings things for some time and some people just accept it and some don’t, for what ever reason.

The bottom line is that there isn’t anything that says because I’m a Christian that my belief is infallible accept that Yeshua the Christ was crucified for my sins. One of the few truths I know. I have many beliefs about what is written in the scripture. Those who enter as a little child know they will be learning new things as time goes by.



MAUDMAN
It doesn't imply that we have all truth if we had it why would we need the bible to search unless we were going to be learning something new or changing previously believed doctrine. Did the Jews understand it all if so why couldn't they see the Messiah in yeshua the Christ.

No matter what your answere will be it will be justication. I try not to use the bible to justify my beliefs but to prove itself to a reader as the written word of God. The Bible defends itself and those who believe it use it that way not to prove what I believe or they believe but what it says. Thats how we learn.
--------------------
LION
Are you telling that no matter what I say, that your belief is better than anything I may quote from scripture? If you do,your ideas must be infallible. Hail Maudman the new pope! I am poking fun at you!

I’m not offended at poking fun, I understand.

No, it simply means that when ever you quote or present scripture in context to support a belief system you are justify your position with scripture and that is proof texting and it is adding to the text an interpretation for justification. This aught to be done in humility in terms like this is what I believe not what I know or this is what I have been taught or this is what some think and I jumped on their band wagon. Being of the majority doesn’t make one right just better protected for what ever comes afterwards.


Does that mean that the truth can’t be known NO! it just means that the Lord reveals it to whom he wants and when he wants and it begins with a minority which are often labeled cults by the majority, all majority beliefs system were cult beliefs because those in the majority don’t think, they just go with what makes a frictionless society. So change happens as the mustard seed small and then grows. Because the truth begins small and grows those at its beginning were often chastised by a majority its just an unpleasant really that doesn’t get overlooked by God. This doesn’t mean that everything people dream up that is new is right either. You’ll have to excuse the metaphor! Just poking fun lion!



Peace

[Lion]

Seriously, fellows, I think the problem here is to sort out fact from metaphor and go from there.

The story of creation and the fall into sin and the story of the flood are history.

Now let me talk about something that wasn’t real. It was a dream the king of Babylon had. you can find in the second chapter of Daniel. It’s too long to tell in detail, but the history of the world is summed up in that dream and Daniel was able to tell the king what would happen.

Daniel 7 covers the same history in more detail. Instead of a great statue this time the kingdoms are shown as animals.The statue meant a series of nations and the animals were the same nations, in more detail.

So you see god presents his information in different ways, depending on who the story is aimed at. The king wouldn’t understand the religious side, while Daniel did.

Generally, if the Bible story reads like a story read it like a fact. But if it sounds unreal it is most likely not reality. an example.

Is. 14:7 “The whole earth is at rest and is quiet;
They break forth into shouts of joy.
Is. 14:8 “Even the cypress trees rejoice over you, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying,
‘Since you were laid low, no tree cutter comes up against us.’

Actually, it is talking about Satan, but we won’t go into that.

[kofh2u]

Maudman, you said:
"Kofh2u points this out about revelations and the metaphors that it uses. They are to most a... mystery...
... or hard to understand.

But those that are deceived are not aware of deception so how do we know.

If the scriptures are used for corrections in our lives as well as used to understand the bible using the bible, why does Paul tell us to study and show ourselves approved.

KOFHY:
You also said that the Bible is the Truth and you, Lion, myself, and others have Faith in this. BUT, the this IMPLIES that the believer does NOT know exactly in what way, or just how the truth will out. NOT knowing, being somewhat in the dark about the Word IS our faith. In fact, those who are so certain they KNOW have no need of FAITH, and in that they condemn themselves because we are SAVED through faith alone by the grace we acknowleged in the Word having understood the words by the deed of words made flesh.

You could not have said it more clear to Lion, "Lion, you do not KNOW, but just believe."

Now, for an expert on Revelation like Lion, perhaps he would understand it this way:

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of (Christian Humanitarism) the voice of the seventh angel, (the spirit of human Harmony), when he, (that awakening subconscious apparatus of mind), shall begin to sound (consciously in the thoughts of men), the MYSTERY of God, (the hidden manna), should be finished, as he hath informed his servants the prophets (as recorded in scripture).

[BWSmith]

Early Genesis to me seems apocalyptic in nature.

"Apocalyptic" is probably not a better term than "mythical" (the technical definition of mythical, that is) to describe the kind of symbolism expressed in Gen 1-11.

Apocalyptic literature doesn't have a precise definition, but can be described as a spectrum of literature that ranges from a) metaphorical allusion to real space-time events that bring out the theological significance (like we see in the latter prophets) to b) visionary/dreamlike experiences about the structure and nature of the heavenly realm that are meant to be taken "literally" (like the Apocalypse of Abraham, for example).

Daniel is an example of a perfect hybrid between the two, since it isn't purely metaphorical allusion to the Maccabean revolution, nor is it purely an account of a war between heavenly princes, but rather a fusion of the two that brings out the full significance of the earthly and heavenly realms with regard to the Maccabean revolution.

Whether or not you view Gen 1-11 as "apocalyptic" or "mythical" depends on whether the referent of the metaphors is a personal context (mythcal) or a social/political context (apocalyptic). Gen 1-11 can be taken either as an apocalypse for the history of Judah from David through exile and restoration, or it can be mythical for the personal experience of sin, death, and redemption.

I have been so curious to have input by people who know something of ANE culture. Is it fair to demand a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Depends on what you are studying. NT scholars usually don't have to deal with the historicity issues of the OT because the only thing that matters to them is how 1st-century Jews read their OT, and nearly everyone in 1st-century Palestine read it literally, as we would expect.

But if you are attempting to read the OT directly for application for today, you definitely should not take it literally or you will miss all the little details that give the passages full significance.

Would the hearers demanded it or seen the symbolic nature of it? The woman created at man's side (being equal with the man), the talking snake, the Tree of Life, (which is also mentioned in the apocalyptic book of Revelation) among other symbolic aspects, leads me to believe that the book is to be taken symbolically.

Revelation quotes those metaphors because they are in Genesis, not because they were accepted apocalyptic symbols at the time Genesis was written.

I don't think that the writers or hearers of those parts of Genesis had a critical eye toward these kinds of mythological ideas. There was no "scientific" means by which they could declare that talking snakes didn't exist, because amazing things happened around them all the time.

Their main concern was the supremacy of YHWH and how the story related to Israel's overall story in Exodus-Kings.

But if it is to be taken symbolically, then what of certain teachings like the Fall? I believe these can be answered.

It means a couple of things:
- Eden is not a literal place guarded by an angel that we could re-enter if only we could find it.
- Our bodies are not really designed to live forever as long as we eat from a Tree of Life, and the only reason we die is our separation from a geographical Eden.
- Sin itself is not "inherently genetic" like a stain, to the extent that one needs to jump through immaculate conception hoops to prove that Mary was worthy of bearing a sinless Jesus.
- The locus of sin is therefore man's inclination to sin in his heart (Gen 8:21), which leads to sinful acts and the spread of sin throughout family and nation.
- Paul's assertion that women should have long hair and men short hair because Eve sinned first isn't true (1 Cor 11).

It also means that resurrection is not a simple matter like removing an Edenic curse, but since the risen, resurrected Jesus walked in this spacetime, it clearly is possible to be imperishably risen and still live in "this" world of death and sin.

How do you address: 1) The Fall

If you want the historical significance of the Fall, read Samuel-Kings, because that's the same story, historically verified.

If you want to understand a lot of the obscure details of the Fall, think about "puberty", which is what the original base myth dealt with before it was turned into a non-sexual metaphor for sin and exile. Woman is compared with the ground in which man plants the seed, man is compared with the snake that tempts her, their bliss disappears, God covers them with animal hair "down there", and they enter the path to death, (since sex is a kind of metaphysical "death" of the parents).

2) The Geneologies

Which genealogies? The Masoretic Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch all have different sets of numbers, implying that this was the final touch placed on the text of Genesis.

This website demonstrates that the Samaritan system follows a calculated pattern: http://www.ldolphin.org/haselgeneal.html (of course, the website assumes that because the Samaritan numbers follow a pattern, THEY must be the false numbers, which is a conclusion in search of an argument...)

Hendel's critical study demonstrates (from a purely textual perspective) that the Samaritan numbers are the closest to the original numbers, implying that our Hebrew numbers used to have a numerological significance that was obscured by redactions:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195119614/qid=1110558773/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8121209-0443016?v=glance&s=books

Blenkensopp makes an excellent case that the numbers in the Hebrew were altered away from the Samaritan originals in such a way that the Maccabean cleansing of the Temple fell on year 4,000.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385497881/qid=1110558947/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-8121209-0443016?v=glance&s=books

3) When do you take up non-symbolic history?

David is independently attested by some "House of David" inscriptions, so work backward from him.

Gen 1-11 appears to all be mythical and incompatible with the scientific origins of man and the earth, so work forward from Babel.

Essentially, Abraham-Samuel/Saul is a fuzzy area with units that must be judged on their own merit.

Comments?

[kofh2u]

The question then is whether this age is prepared for an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which is secularly understood in the academic-scientific paradigm of our times.

I.e; Theistic/Freudian Evolutionary Interpretation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

BW, just a friendly hint while I'm thinking about your post--don't get sucked into long exchanges with posters bearing self-authored Freudian Bibles :cough: kof2u :cough:

Sorry, kof2u...

[kofh2u]

BW, just a friendly hint while I'm thinking about your post--don't get sucked into long exchanges with posters bearing self-authored Freudian Bibles :cough: kof2u :cough:

Sorry, kof2u...

John 8:15 Ye judge (the opinions of dead men) after the flesh (of drives for status among you); I judge no man (concerning vain writings and wild guesses, but am original).


Don't be sorry. I wonder why people query back and forth gere at Tweb... it is more sad than sorry.

For instance, you pretend to search for more insight knowing that the unbelievable solutions offered are metaphysical answers.
The mythology of the past ideas are built upon, and even a smart educated person like you seek more ways to scotch-tape the story, the invented mythology from times long past.

Hardly a new question is ever asked, and never an original answered accepted.

Isn't that your point?

Kofh2u offers something not approved already?... not suggested already?... not "authorized?"

Why ask, then, when smart, intelligent, educated people are quite content with their opinions?

Your attitude would have separated you from the apostles because of the originality ov Jesus... if originality is the warning sign to close ranks:

John 8:15 Ye judge (the opinions of dead men) after the flesh (of drives for status among you); I judge no man (concerning vain writings and wild guesses, but am original).

[rogero]

John 8:15 Ye judge (the opinions of dead men) after the flesh (of drives for status among you); I judge no man (concerning vain writings and wild guesses, but am original).


Don't be sorry. I wonder why people query back and forth gere at Tweb... it is more sad than sorry.

For instance, you pretend to search for more insight knowing that the unbelievable solutions offered are metaphysical answers.
The mythology of the past ideas are built upon, and even a smart educated person like you seek more ways to scotch-tape the story, the invented mythology from times long past.

Hardly a new question is ever asked, and never an original answered accepted.

Isn't that your point?

Kofh2u offers something not approved already?... not suggested already?... not "authorized?"

Why ask, then, when smart, intelligent, educated people are quite content with their opinions?

Your attitude would have separated you from the apostles because of the originality ov Jesus... if originality is the warning sign to close ranks:

John 8:15 Ye judge (the opinions of dead men) after the flesh (of drives for status among you); I judge no man (concerning vain writings and wild guesses, but am original).

Qophy,

So, you're a KJV1611-only blasphemous charlantan nutcase heretic then? Very interesting (and amusing!) :lol:

[kofh2u]

Qophy,

So, you're a KJV1611-only blasphemous charlantan nutcase heretic then? Very interesting (and amusing!) :lol:

Perhaps.

But, that type would be forgivable,...

... the only unforgivable blasphemy is reserved to those who mock the spirit of what I do... or the spirit of what jack777 does, or blasphemes the spirit in others whose hearts are truly sincere to the Holy Spirit, in expressing God's word, preaching the Gospel as they believe it.





.

[rogero]

Perhaps.

But, that type would be forgivable,...

... the only unforgivable blasphemy is reserved to those who mock the spirit of what I do... or the spirit of what jack777 does, or blasphemes the spirit in others whose hearts are truly sincere to the Holy Spirit, in expressing God's word, preaching the Gospel as they believe it.

.

Qophy,

So, you think you have something in common with Jack777, then? What exactly would that be? You both are enamoured of the KJV1611? You're both nutcases? You're both an embarrassment for Christendom? You're both extremely obtuse and confusing? What else?

R

P.S. So, do you think the Jackster is going to be among the 144,000 to whom you are planning to hand out copies of your Freudian Bible in Jerusalem? I hope you have good credit at your favorite photocopy retailer. (Of course, if what you say is correct, you won't have to pay the bill anyway!) :lol:

[Lion]

Whenare you guys (and Gal) Going to get real? That fraudian mythologizing nonsense has got to stop., The garden of eden was REAL, not a myth. Except for the symbolic prophecies of the Bible, all of it is REAL and contains a message for how God treated people in the past and how he will treat YOU ifyou listen. Ignoring the message involves risk at your own peril. Eternal life is promised to those who heed the message and etreral death for those who try to say it is a myth or a fable.WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOUR DESTINY IS AT STAKE.

[rogero]

Whenare you guys (and Gal) Going to get real? That fraudian mythologizing nonsense has got to stop.,




Do you mean "Freudian"? Talk to our nutty friend Kofh2u about that. Your guess as to what this wacko means is as good as mine.



The garden of eden was REAL, not a myth. Except for the symbolic prophecies of the Bible, all of it is REAL and contains a message for how God treated people in the past and how he will treat YOU ifyou listen.



You realize of course that NOT all Christians believe as you do. Is it your assertion that those who don't believe as you do are lost? Is God really that cruel? Are you aware that the scientific evidence you've put forth to support and 6-10Ka Earth and Cosmos and a global Deluge has been effectively refuted by Glennn?

It's truly sad to see a seasoned Christian like you so totally immersed in your empirical misconceptions and false necessities.



Ignoring the message involves risk at your own peril. Eternal life is promised to those who heed the message and etreral death for those who try to say it is a myth or a fable.WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOUR DESTINY IS AT STAKE.

Again, do you really believe that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one -- to the point that you assert that all who ignore it are subject to eternal death? How cruel (and unreasonable in view of the empirical evidence) you must believe our Creator God is!

[maudman]

"Apocalyptic" is probably not a better term than "mythical" (the technical definition of mythical, that is) to describe the kind of symbolism expressed in Gen 1-11.


Would disagree with this, The term Mystical I think is the wrong word Metaphorical and apocalyptic I think is better. Both would be seen as interpretive to many. But the GEN 1 seems to express the who and why and is a song. And requires I think a different approach in understanding its purpose.


Apocalyptic literature doesn't have a precise definition, but can be described as a spectrum of literature that ranges from a) metaphorical allusion to real space-time events that bring out the theological significance (like we see in the latter prophets) to b) visionary/dreamlike experiences about the structure and nature of the heavenly realm that are meant to be taken "literally" (like the Apocalypse of Abraham, for example).

Daniel is an example of a perfect hybrid between the two, since it isn't purely metaphorical allusion to the Maccabean revolution, nor is it purely an account of a war between heavenly princes, but rather a fusion of the two that brings out the full significance of the earthly and heavenly realms with regard to the Maccabean revolution.



would agree to some but not all of the comments here. I think there is more to it than this, as propably you also because it is a brief synopsis of approach to what one believes.



Whether or not you view Gen 1-11 as "apocalyptic" or "mythical" depends on whether the referent of the metaphors is a personal context (mythcal) or a social/political context (apocalyptic). Gen 1-11 can be taken either as an apocalypse for the history of Judah from David through exile and restoration, or it can be mythical for the personal experience of sin, death, and redemption.


I would disagree with Mythical all the way around. And I think it is much bigger then the house of Israel.



Depends on what you are studying. NT scholars usually don't have to deal with the historicity issues of the OT because the only thing that matters to them is how 1st-century Jews read their OT, and nearly everyone in 1st-century Palestine read it literally, as we would expect.




That is what some research may claim but there are verses in the NT That tell us that early Israelites/Jews didn't not see things as literal as some claim. This is a YEC slant for justifacation. I can show otherwise. Although there would have been some as today that may have taken it litrally it can be demonstrated otherwise that many, and not just the highy educated thought different about what was written in terms of metaphors. The New Testament is highly metaphorical document.


But if you are attempting to read the OT directly for application for today, you definitely should not take it literally or you will miss all the little details that give the passages full significance.


Revelation quotes those metaphors because they are in Genesis, not because they were accepted apocalyptic symbols at the time Genesis was written.




I agree whole hardly. As to what are your conclusions that you ultimatley claim is the real perspective behind the metaphors is not mentions so thats all I can say. But that is exactly how I think about revelations using the metaphors of Genesis the first and second chapter for the most part.


I don't think that the writers or hearers of those parts of Genesis had a critical eye toward these kinds of mythological ideas. There was no "scientific" means by which they could declare that talking snakes didn't exist, because amazing things happened around them all the time.

Their main concern was the supremacy of YHWH and how the story related to Israel's overall story in Exodus-Kings.



I think they were more concern that you think. Because they didn't see them as Mythogical Ideas but a metaphoric perspective. A hisory of their origins as well as mankinds to understand their Identity and purpose in relation to YHWH. They were metaphors to them. To me its not whether or not they believed them to be metaphors but how did they Interpret the metaphors that is important to real world tangibles. And the bible tells us it needs no interpetation is what I believe.



It means a couple of things:
- Eden is not a literal place guarded by an angel that we could re-enter if only we could find it.


The garden is a metaphor for a mankind created. It is this mankind that is to be cultivated by a man that tends the Garden (Adam) the man created by YHWH.


- Our bodies are not really designed to live forever as long as we eat from a Tree of Life, and the only reason we die is our separation from a geographical Eden.


I think this also


- Sin itself is not "inherently genetic" like a stain, to the extent that one needs to jump through immaculate conception hoops to prove that Mary was worthy of bearing a sinless Jesus.
- The locus of sin is therefore man's inclination to sin in his heart (Gen 8:21), which leads to sinful acts and the spread of sin throughout family and nation.
- Paul's assertion that women should have long hair and men short hair because Eve sinned first isn't true (1 Cor 11).


Sin is the conseqences of having a relationship with the LORD/YHWH because sin is trangression against Gods law. Sin is the revelation of a will that is opposite of Gods will made known to man by God. Evil is a condition of not having a relationship with God. They had not known sin cause they had not known YHWH.

So Mankind wasn't EVIL from a genetic perspective but that mankind had not yet had a relationship with YHWH as did the MAN(ADAM) planted east in Eden. The man created by YHWH was to Bring mankind to a relationship with YHWY (evil was already present but not sin) but he sinned so a Savior was needed for the Adamic man so he could do the work that he was incarnated or predestined to do.


It also means that resurrection is not a simple matter like removing an Edenic curse, but since the risen, resurrected Jesus walked in this spacetime, it clearly is possible to be imperishably risen and still live in "this" world of death and sin.


I would agree for the most part


If you want the historical significance of the Fall, read Samuel-Kings, because that's the same story, historically verified.

If you want to understand a lot of the obscure details of the Fall, think about "puberty", which is what the original base myth dealt with before it was turned into a non-sexual metaphor for sin and exile. Woman is compared with the ground in which man plants the seed, man is compared with the snake that tempts her, their bliss disappears, God covers them with animal hair "down there", and they enter the path to death, (since sex is a kind of metaphysical "death" of the parents).


Yes for the most part I agree here also.


Which genealogies? The Masoretic Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch all have different sets of numbers, implying that this was the final touch placed on the text of Genesis.

This website demonstrates that the Samaritan system follows a calculated pattern: http://www.ldolphin.org/haselgeneal.html (of course, the website assumes that because the Samaritan numbers follow a pattern, THEY must be the false numbers, which is a conclusion in search of an argument...)

Hendel's critical study demonstrates (from a purely textual perspective) that the Samaritan numbers are the closest to the original numbers, implying that our Hebrew numbers used to have a numerological significance that was obscured by redactions:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195119614/qid=1110558773/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8121209-0443016?v=glance&s=books

Blenkensopp makes an excellent case that the numbers in the Hebrew were altered away from the Samaritan originals in such a way that the Maccabean cleansing of the Temple fell on year 4,000.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385497881/qid=1110558947/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-8121209-0443016?v=glance&s=books



David is independently attested by some "House of David" inscriptions, so work backward from him.

Gen 1-11 appears to all be mythical and incompatible with the scientific origins of man and the earth, so work forward from Babel.

Essentially, Abraham-Samuel/Saul is a fuzzy area with units that must be judged on their own merit.

Comments?

To tired to go into this

[Lion]

So it’s all a myth,is it? What has science got to do with it? There are two theories abroad in science, creation, and evolution. Evolution postulates that there is no God, that things just evolved without direction, willy nilly,so the story of creation is just a made up myth.

Most of the ancient near east, in fact many ancient stories have one thing in common, a story that there was a flood that destroyed all life except one family who were saved by a boat.

There is an interesting story I learned a while ago about Chinese writing. The idograph for tree originally was a vertical line like this l. Two trees was ll. Gradually it came to mean a grove. Tree today is a dressed up version, but originally was just l. The story has its origin in the tree of life and the forbidden tree. All I am saying is that somewhere in ancient time the Chinese have a story about two trees, one forbidden.

What I am saying is that many peoples have a legend about the two trees. There is enough commonality to the story that it has the stamp of truth. If so many diverse people have a common tale there must be something to it.

The Bible claims to be the word of God. The story is of a paradise lost and the promise of a paradise promised to those who believe in Jesus. Believe the Bible and receive the promise. It’s as simple as that.

[rogero]

Lion,

I really hate to say this to a Christian man of your advanced years, but it's quite clear that when it comes to science you never emerged from the Piagetian Concrete Operational stage of cognitive development. The world of science is an boolean one to you. It's all black/white right/wrong, etc.

You also conflate science and theology freely.

So it’s all a myth,is it? What has science got to do with it? There are two theories abroad in science, creation, and evolution. Evolution postulates that there is no God, that things just evolved without direction, willy nilly,so the story of creation is just a made up myth.



"Creation" is not a scientific theory. It's a theological one that asserts that there is a creator. Christians believe that God is the Creator. It says that He creates and why He creates, not how He creates.

No, it's not a myth that God creates. Judeo-Christians TEs don't believe it's a myth that God creates. I believe your interpretation of Scripture is a myth since it is not supported by the clear facts of Creation itself, and that it's a dangerous myth put forth by fideists who will succeed in closing the door of heaven in many peoples' faces by equating Christianity with ignorance. So, as a Christian brother, I adjure you to cease spreading myths!

Evolution does NOT postulate that there is no God. Please stop spreading lies! Evolution is a scientific theory, "creation" is not. To a Christian TE, evolution is an explanation of how God creates -- just like the proton-proton chain reaction is a explanation of how "God makes the Sun shine."




...

The Bible claims to be the word of God. The story is of a paradise lost and the promise of a paradise promised to those who believe in Jesus. Believe the Bible and receive the promise. It’s as simple as that.

Nice. So what does this have to do with how God creates? Why does rejecting your scientifically untenable interpretation of Genesis obviate the promises of Jesus? :huh:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Whenare you guys (and Gal) Going to get real? That fraudian mythologizing nonsense has got to stop.,

"Fraudian"? Do you mean the stuff Kof2U defends--The Freudian "Bible"? I do not believe as Kof2u does.

The garden of eden was REAL, not a myth. Except for the symbolic prophecies of the Bible ...Ignoring the message involves risk at your own peril. Eternal life is promised to those who heed the message and etreral death for those who try to say it is a myth or a fable.WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOUR DESTINY IS AT STAKE.

So because I am not sure if it symbolic, I am in peril, my salvation is in question because I have questions? What, have my prayers for salvation been denied because I can't figure out a difficult Bible passage? Come on.

Christ affirmed it, I believe it is true, I just don't know in which way. It's honest questioning. You would have me stoned for asking.

[kofh2u]

So it’s all a myth,is it? What has science got to do with it? There are two theories abroad in science, creation, and evolution. Evolution postulates that there is no God, that things just evolved without direction, willy nilly,so the story of creation is just a made up myth.

Most of the ancient near east, in fact many ancient stories have one thing in common, a story that there was a flood that destroyed all life except one family who were saved by a boat.

There is an interesting story I learned a while ago about Chinese writing. The idograph for tree originally was a vertical line like this l. Two trees was ll. Gradually it came to mean a grove. Tree today is a dressed up version, but originally was just l. The story has its origin in the tree of life and the forbidden tree. All I am saying is that somewhere in ancient time the Chinese have a story about two trees, one forbidden.

What I am saying is that many peoples have a legend about the two trees. There is enough commonality to the story that it has the stamp of truth. If so many diverse people have a common tale there must be something to it.

The Bible claims to be the word of God. The story is of a paradise lost and the promise of a paradise promised to those who believe in Jesus. Believe the Bible and receive the promise. It’s as simple as that.


Mr lion,
You are saved by faith that has been with you many years, and you have been a blessing to Christianity.

Do not trouble yourself with the new fangled ideas that are emerging here, and which you may have to tolerate.

Look to see if these ideas do the good work of bringing the academic community and the scientific-technologs to Christ. If you do not believe in what is said, in this modern vein of thought, believe in the works it accomplishes.

Your view of undertsanding scripture, particularly Genesis as we have been discussing it, is OK. We are not "SAVED" by how we came to Christ, nor why we came to Christ. We ARE saved because we have come to Christ.

Now, rogero is making a sensible suggestion that you become more attentive to what is happening. And, as he suggests, do not oppose it even if you do not personally need it.

The sign of the fig tree has been with us since 1948. The leaves are unfolding, and theology and metaphysics of past generations is giving way to a different point of view from which to understand ideas expressed. The language that has served you, us, for two millennia is changing. The message is the same.

1) We have no other way to explain this Universe, this existence, this personal "being," than to credit it to a omnipotent, unexplainable power beyond comprehension. God. We MUST love God, and study His ways if we hope to survive. Science is one way we do this. Mathematics is another. We must, and many do, love the harmony and beauty these methods, s ience/math bring to that understanding of the First Cause of all things, the thing that transcends and pre-dates the beginning, the Big Bang. God is still the Almighty behind this mystery of life.

2) The next frontier for man is to cross the bridge of understanding the inner world, his own mind. The oldest science, Human Behaviorism, remains, even after 4000 years, as dark as ever. As we come to understand Human Behavior we shall find that love of our fellow man is to our own benefit.
Atruism will emerge as the basic survival technique for our species. We will come to understand that man is his own biggest threat. Man is the impediment to man's survival, and, today, a man's worse enemies are in his own household.
That 60% divorce, wife killing, sexual infidelity, crack babies, etc are real enemies. No. Korea is distance.

These are the two commandments that sum the law.

Both are summed in the most elementary understanding of Jesus.

So, you and I really learned all we need know in Kindergarden. Do not be troubled by these deep discussions, because they are directed at the pharisees of religious wisdom and the unsaved atheists. Not you.

[maudman]

Well said !! KOFH2U

I truly think your post from the heart has greater impact then the Freudian interpretation that seem to saturate some of your post. I think it mask your real genius. Although I can understand what your getting at most of the time other times it can be a bit tiresome, Your ability to readily grasp things and the logic I think is to your credit and you I think truly have a heart of flesh.

Lion I would have to say that I thank God for your existence and that he has called you into the body of Christ. As a Christian in the trenches your faith is steadfast and you have demonstrated it to us all.


Without your presents here it would be impossible to discuss the differences in perspectives and because you don't coward down to post when upholding your beliefs and walk away as some do you’re a credit to the faith that Christians are in dire need of in today’s world. I truly thank God your on our side. If I would have been in the trenches in World War I, I would want you next to me, I really would. I don’t think RogerO, Charleen or kofh2u feel any different about that either. We all at times feel threatened by what others say but we shouldn’t because our faith is laid on a sure foundation. And know matter what storms arise we know were are in the a hands of a God that shall not let go.


Peace to you all and may God bless us in our desire to understand.

[kofh2u]

Well said !! KOFH2U

I truly think your post from the heart has greater impact then the Freudian interpretation that seem to saturate some of your post. I think it mask your real genius. Although I can understand what your getting at most of the time other times it can be a bit tiresome, Your ability to readily grasp things and the logic I think is to your credit and you I think truly have a heart of flesh.

Lion I would have to say that I thank God for your existence and that he has called you into the body of Christ. As a Christian in the trenches your faith is steadfast and you have demonstrated it to us all.


Without your presents here it would be impossible to discuss the differences in perspectives and because you don't coward down to post when upholding your beliefs and walk away as some do you’re a credit to the faith that Christians are in dire need of in today’s world. I truly thank God your on our side. If I would have been in the trenches in World War I, I would want you next to me, I really would. I don’t think RogerO, Charleen or kofh2u feel any different about that either. We all at times feel threatened by what others say but we shouldn’t because our faith is laid on a sure foundation. And know matter what storms arise we know were are in the a hands of a God that shall not let go.


Peace to you all and may God bless us in our desire to understand.

Thanxz for the kind remarks, both to me and lion.

I remind lion that he is past 50, and in his jubilee years... he is/was "saved" long before these Theistic Evolution/ Freudian Spirits /kingdom of the mind within ideas have emerged in Christian discourse.

And, I would ask him to reflect upon the more recent attacks by true Atheists.

These men speak to our children, not us, saved Christians. They ridicule floods, animal arks, seven day creations, and more. They do this, not because they find the ancient metaphors inconsistent with their own words of science, but because they hate religion in general, and its foundation, the Word, specifically.

These are the Anti-Christ who mock us in college classrooms and in the media, the courtrooms.
These "different" ways you have been objecting to, of understanding the same thing by other interpretation, like evolution as THE process of God's methods, or, "days" as geological eras, etc, These are merely tools to confound them by their own words.

But, the market place of these ideas, both those of the anti-christs and the Bible people, does not have an audience among the saved, but before the uninitiated of the next generation.

Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[maudman]

When I first started studying the different views of creation and trying to reconcile them I often found that know matter were I stood on the Origins of man, whether TE, OEC, YEC when using the bible for justification of any of these belief systems I found myself embracing what would appear as irrational tendencies. Although one may appear more rational in relation to the Scripture they really weren’t. I often found myself forcing and interpretation into the scripture or taking scripture to justify an interpretation of scientific data. (proof-texting)
I would often play one against the other. One holding an Empirical impression on human spirit and the other a spiritual impression, both is warring in my members as though I must have some reconciliation or closer. What I would later come to learn is that I was approaching it all WRONG! WRONG!

It seems to be a condition that most suffer from, I think it comes from our present perception that we have to make sense to someone that were not all lunatics because we believe in a book called the bible. So we strive to make sense to a world such as academia so we appear credible to those in the academic world so we don’t appear to be the fools that Christ said we would appear to be to the learned of the world. So some years back I began to look for evidence of something akin to a grand unified hypothesis that would justify all three beliefs systems as that there is some truth in all of them in relation to God and our present understating of the Universe. That’s not a typo, I did say UNDERSTATING.

What I came to realize is that it was most often easier to understand or relate to science than to understand the bible. You see I was under the impression I only need to understand the science and then make science understand the bible, but what I really needed, is a better understanding of the bible. So I put science on the back self and focused on myself about what I actually “new” concerning the scriptures, and what I actually “believed.” You see I had to come clean with myself and had to re-educate myself which is ten times harder then learning from a new beginning. It’s a lot harder to unlearn than it is to learn. We all have been indoctrinated by our parents, churches and academic institutions, some question none of them, and accept what they have been taught. This is the real battle if one considers things honestly. I don’t think it is right to condemn any of the above people, people really do try to get to the truth of things its just there are a lot of thing to get to the truth of and they all seem to be connected in some form or fashion.

For the most part I have been holding back what I believe. I think because sometimes there is a spirit that is counter productive. Our emotion gets in the way of learning because it affects our listening." I have been guilty of this myself." Most of what I believe now, most have never heard and new things tend to bring out the worst in some so I think it is better to let some things go unsaid for the benefit of the debate and the spirit of debate. It is the parable of the wine skins, and we should be respectable of other people’s views for their faiths sake. I don’t think it’s always pertinent to say things just to be right.

There is an understanding about all of this that best serves all the beliefs system above and there is an approach or perspective that lends itself to greater debate, but we can't if we are seeking justification from either science or the bible to appear rational to those forces that don't want to hear what one has to say.
People who turn away from their religion because of science are looking to do so. Their religions have become a prison to them and bind them. They are looking to shuck the chains of social and religious repression. And if they can find a way, while always looking, they will find one.

This happens because there is a fundamental flaw in the approach in our rationalization of both science and religion. In my case it’s the Christian belief systems and science and how one approaches the truth concerning science and the bible. Laying a foundation is important but convincing others of the dogma you think is foundational can sometimes be a challenge because of learning and unlearning that happens both simultaneously.

The spirit in which one approaches the truth is the underlying factor. Fertile soil isn't just that which can comprehend the precepts of God but can grow anything at all. It may can grow many things not just one thing. Fertile soil has potential to grow a variety of things. It’s not just fertile to God but because it is fertile God can Grow! It’s taking the rod and measuring ourselves that so often gets undone.

Peace to all.

[kofh2u]

When I first started studying the different views of creation and trying to reconcile them I often found that know matter were I stood on the Origins of man, whether TE, OEC, YEC when using the bible for justification of any of these belief systems I found myself embracing what would appear as irrational tendencies. Although one may appear more rational in relation to the Scripture they really weren’t. I often found myself forcing and interpretation into the scripture or taking scripture to justify an interpretation of scientific data. (proof-texting)
I would often play one against the other. One holding an Empirical impression on human spirit and the other a spiritual impression, both is warring in my members as though I must have some reconciliation or closer. What I would later come to learn is that I was approaching it all WRONG! WRONG!

It seems to be a condition that most suffer from, I think it comes from our present perception that we have to make sense to someone that were not all lunatics because we believe in a book called the bible. So we strive to make sense to a world such as academia so we appear credible to those in the academic world so we don’t appear to be the fools that Christ said we would appear to be to the learned of the world. So some years back I began to look for evidence of something akin to a grand unified hypothesis that would justify all three beliefs systems as that there is some truth in all of them in relation to God and our present understating of the Universe. That’s not a typo, I did say UNDERSTATING.

What I came to realize is that it was most often easier to understand or relate to science than to understand the bible. You see I was under the impression I only need to understand the science and then make science understand the bible, but what I really needed, is a better understanding of the bible. So I put science on the back self and focused on myself about what I actually “new” concerning the scriptures, and what I actually “believed.” You see I had to come clean with myself and had to re-educate myself which is ten times harder then learning from a new beginning. It’s a lot harder to unlearn than it is to learn. We all have been indoctrinated by our parents, churches and academic institutions, some question none of them, and accept what they have been taught. This is the real battle if one considers things honestly. I don’t think it is right to condemn any of the above people, people really do try to get to the truth of things its just there are a lot of thing to get to the truth of and they all seem to be connected in some form or fashion.

For the most part I have been holding back what I believe. I think because sometimes there is a spirit that is counter productive. Our emotion gets in the way of learning because it affects our listening." I have been guilty of this myself." Most of what I believe now, most have never heard and new things tend to bring out the worst in some so I think it is better to let some things go unsaid for the benefit of the debate and the spirit of debate. It is the parable of the wine skins, and we should be respectable of other people’s views for their faiths sake. I don’t think it’s always pertinent to say things just to be right.

There is an understanding about all of this that best serves all the beliefs system above and there is an approach or perspective that lends itself to greater debate, but we can't if we are seeking justification from either science or the bible to appear rational to those forces that don't want to hear what one has to say.
People who turn away from their religion because of science are looking to do so. Their religions have become a prison to them and bind them. They are looking to shuck the chains of social and religious repression. And if they can find a way, while always looking, they will find one.

This happens because there is a fundamental flaw in the approach in our rationalization of both science and religion. In my case it’s the Christian belief systems and science and how one approaches the truth concerning science and the bible. Laying a foundation is important but convincing others of the dogma you think is foundational can sometimes be a challenge because of learning and unlearning that happens both simultaneously.

The spirit in which one approaches the truth is the underlying factor. Fertile soil isn't just that which can comprehend the precepts of God but can grow anything at all. It may can grow many things not just one thing. Fertile soil has potential to grow a variety of things. It’s not just fertile to God but because it is fertile God can Grow! It’s taking the rod and measuring ourselves that so often gets undone.

Peace to all.


You story is interesting.
A number of things you mention encourage a response.

You observe that the motivation is suspect, of people who want to go beyond the simple traditional Christianity. Perhaps they spread the word and gain souls. Maybe they hope to "make sense that they aren't mad."
Perhaps they believe they have an unexamined insight, and get the same drive that for many a scientist had its own reward.

I have noticed that power, money, and worse has often been the end, though. Truly interesting, innovative and stimulating insights seem to have often lead to a new "church" which immediately set down doctrine and silenced further discussion. The liberty to see differently ended that liberty and replaced it with a collection box and priestly iron guard to stem any further progress.
If science worked so selfishly the technology would not be with us that has been built upon the freedom to further develope ideas.

With this in mind, I read Jesus asking Peter, does the king receive or come a reward with him?

It is not only germane to the sciences that some men have toiled and worked inspite of ridicule. I believe the early evanglia of the kingdom was more like those scientists than like our "salesmen" of a specific denominational membership.

It is my hope and my own interest that sharing ideas might have the effect of seeing more good works from a Christianity now exemely capable of good talks.

For instance, I hear good talks about pro-life, but see no good works in spotlighting the pagan culture of adolescence that produces 1.7 million abortions annually. I see good talks about abstinance, but no good works about resolving the hormonally driven natural human urge for sex from 13 - 28.

This is long enough for our boys to all enter the priesthood for that 15 year period. But, Christian talk asks them to walk, the fires of Molech, because of what parents want... financial security, status, mate of equal creed and race and educational background.

Perhaps some of us read scripture and talk the talk, because that talk is the truth. Perhaps talking the truth is a walk. It is a walk when it could get you killed, in another day, and in another way, not hiding in the internet, chatting these ideas.

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels (from among the seven archetypal modes of my thinking) which had the seven vials (of insights), and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore, (the Institution of Matrimony) that sitteth upon many waters (of western cultural social behaviors):

[maudman]

Hello Kofh2u

Yes I agree! I can definitely relate to some of things you have said. New truth doesn’t often get to bloom to it full potential and often get choked; I guess that has always been the way, since the beginning because the apostles were at times concealing things from the church because they just couldn’t handle the truth at sometimes. Holding back till people have a chance to absorb the truth in little discreet packets seems to be the way still. “It wasn’t hard getting Israel out of Egypt but it took forty years of wondering in the desert to get the Egypt out of Israel”. Some things never change.

Evolution is one of those things that many seem to choke on and it should concern us because people use things for reasons that can have harmful affects and it may serve an alternative purpose as you have noted. But the problem is that Christians who accept evolution seem to want to interpret the bible different and they make the same mistakes YEC’s do. You see everybody thinks they have to create some interpretation of the bible to fit their belief structure and therefore be justified if you can make it fit, and that is just plain false and that is the plain truth. TE’s haven’t been exempt from this either. And this is what causes the problems and creates disunity in the body of Christ.

What I think and I said "think" or believe is a better approach and closer to the truth

Truth #1 is you don’t need the bible to make evolution true or false. God said that he has put the truth in his creation therefore the creation bares record in and of itself as Gods revelation of the reality of his (GODHEAD) to man. His creation is one of his greatest witnesses, driving home the point that we will be without excuse. So those who think its there Job to reinterpret the bible to meet what one comes to learn in science simply isn’t true and they should Quit doing it. Evolution in its infancy was merely an attempt to rationalize change and variety and was seen as a term that really embodied the Idea that conveyed a thought that it was a revelation of a revolution of creativity but as in all things some people who wanted to make more of it than what it was originally seen buy those who were responsible for its inception began to put their spin on it. This is the way of all things, the potential of Good and Evil.

truth #2

The bible isn’t a book that was written to be an explanation of the mechanics into the origins of mankind and that’s what some just won’t let go of. And it’s not just YEC’s either, many think that they will eventually find their belief system in the pages of the bible, like it’s just a matter of time and re-interpretation. And they go and make the same mistake those before them. Putting spins on the text to justify themselves. This is what gets under the skin of some because some Christian evolutionists reduce stories to myths and this is bad, because it reflect ignorance of a truth which is fundamental about the Bible.

The OT is a document that bares records of the Miraculous Origins of a man (Adam) and his Descendents and it is this man and his descendents that preserve this record for their identity and relationship with a God whose name is YHWH and it is a record of that relationship. It is a record of how they and their God view the world.” Mankind in general through their eyes is reduced to metaphors of the natural environment”. Mankind is viewed as a natural extension of the animal kingdom and they (Adam) aren’t, but later are reduced to being subject to the conditions of the natural world because they had sinned against there God YHWH. And they can only overcome this predicament through this mysterious Messiah that is to come and lift this curse brought on them by their forefather (Adam) and this Messiah is going to be birthed through their lineage not mankind’s and he is perceived for the most part their savior not mankind’s.

This is why you won’t find any records of this God except for the fact that the God of this people is going to make him known through these peoples and that is why no other cultures are considered the originator of the book nor have any written record of claims of divine inspiration of the a God known as YHWH for the most part. It’s a document whose primary concerns are one God and his Children that is central to it.
Now there have been other people here saying things that should be taken into consideration but that will have to be later. Although God (EloHim) created all men this one man (Adam) is a Special creation of YHWH and it is in this man and his descendents that he is going to incarnate his “Holy Spirit”. The bible is a book written by them and for them not mankind it is their origins and beginnings. Although mankind will eventually benefit from its beginnings the bible is more specialized then many now claim.

My belief

The Bible does very little to nothing for the cause of evolution pro or con and shouldn’t be used to justify it. Accept for the time Gap between Gen 1: 1 and 1:2 nothing needs to even be mentioned.

I don’t think Science can prove evolution true or false, but can only raise inquiries as to functions reduced to equations to better understand cause and effect to better understand the relationship of the phenomenon observed. “Science tries to fix states of matter and in doing this collapses the wave function for observation and by doing so stops all information because when we fix the particle we collapse the wave function of information that the particle generates.

So science only observes a fixed state of phenomenon at a particular moment it time which may not give any if at all any insight into God because “life is an unfolding dynamic reality that isn’t fixed or suspended”. Life is quanta’s of dynamic forces both spiritual and empirical. Those who observe phenomenon and make deductions from it often have other reasons in mind for doing so. But people most often will see what they want to see because it’s what they want to believe. The reverse is also true in that evolution does nothing for the Bible. As I stated Early here on Tweb the bible is concerned with whom and why not how and when as it comes to the origins of mankind.

But the Man (Adam) created buy YHWH is another issue apart from mankind.

[Lion]

Maudman, you have said not just a mouth full, it was several. I never knew you were so insightful. Your post was a pleasure to read.

There is one thing many of the posts have ignored. The Bible is not a thing to be understood in some analytical, esoteric frame of mind, as if it does not mean what it says in plain English. Those who want to to that are deceiving themselves. There are two kinds of science, true, everyday physical science that can be verified by experiment, and the other that relies on someone’s ideas as to origins.

The subject of origins has been the subject of controversy ever since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. Actually it was long before that, but he gets the credit for the modern theory. Then there are several theories, but we won’t go into them.

Nobody can put any theory of origin in a test tube. It relies on the word of someone. The Bible is different. The first chapters of Genesis tell how God created the world and how sin entered. There was an enemy, Satan, who deceived Eve and brought all the evil on the world.

After a while the people got so bad that God decided to destroy the earth and start over. He sent a flood that wiped out all life except what had been preserved in the ark. The question faacing us today is, do we believe the story or not?

Then in the last book in the Bible we find that there will be a time when an evil power will attempt to force everyone to worship a false god. (Rev 13) Then in Rev 14 there are three angels portrayed as flying in the heavens with messages for the world.

Message 1 Rev. 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

This is a message that men should worship the one who created the earth, because he is going to judge the earth.

Message 2 Rev. 14:8 ¶ And another angel, a second one, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who has made all the nations drink of the wine of the passion of her immorality.”

Most of the religious world will follow the false religion. They are fallen and will sufferthe judgment of God.

Message 3 Rev. 14:9 ¶ Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
Rev. 14:10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
Rev. 14:11 “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Rev. 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

This is a message of doom on all who receive the mark of the beast. They will be burned up. There will be no escape. But those who refuse the mark will be protected. They are the ones who keep the commandments of God and trust Jesus.

[rogero]

...

This is a message of doom on all who receive the mark of the beast. They will be burned up. There will be no escape. But those who refuse the mark will be protected. They are the ones who keep the commandments of God and trust Jesus.

Lion,

Are you implying in this last paragraph that at least some Christians (who accept that Earth and Cosmos are billions of years old and that biological evolution is the physical means that the Creator used to bring about the continuity and diversity of life and the current state of the biosphere) are capable of refusing the Mark of the Beast (whatever that may turn out to be)? Are these profligate heretics (Maudman and Kofh2u) who don't read Genesis "literally" like you do (but are very polite to you), also allowed a portion in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Is politeness to you the criterion? If not, then you should re-read Glennn Morton's posts and see that his view is much more Biblical "literalist" than either of these two fellas.

R

[maudman]

Lion,

Are you implying in this last paragraph that at least some Christians (who accept that Earth and Cosmos are billions of years old and that biological evolution is the physical means that the Creator used to bring about the continuity and diversity of life and the current state of the biosphere) are capable of refusing the Mark of the Beast (whatever that may turn out to be)? Are these profligate heretics (Maudman and Kofh2u) who don't read Genesis "literally" like you do (but are very polite to you), also allowed a portion in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Is politeness to you the criterion? If not, then you should re-read Glennn Morton's posts and see that his view is much more Biblical "literalist" than either of these two fellas.

R
Lion thanks for the kind remarks.

Thanks RogerO, what is a profligate heretic? I have never been called that.
I do appreciate your honesty I really do. You are honest in your debates. In all the post I have read of yours your questions when challenging have all been seen in my eyes as reasonable, valid and practical in content.

The gist of the post isn’t to destroy Evolution as a means and I know I didn’t go into it much. As I have posted else ware my belief that evolution is valid and is a term that better describes the nature of creative genius. I think you probably think this also to a lesser or greater degree and you can correct me if I’m wrong in presuming that.

I will try to explain a little so Lion understands if he doesn’t know what I will be eventually getting around to in my belief.

What has not been said here is what I mean when I say evolution in a deterministic sense. That all things to me are an unfolding of creative genius and is an observable phenomenon and is an evolutionary process. And this to me is what most Christian who believe in evolution also believes.

Ok lion, here goes something that might help you understand me a little better.

Deterministic Evolution

What I came to learn in my attempt to understand Evolution from a metaphysical sense is that all things created are preceded by (vocabulary, will and spirit) which I also believe is the GODHEAD the Father (will) the son, Logos (vocabulary) and the Holy Spirit. That these attributes of Godhead work in harmony together and that man is also endowed with these attributes apart from a spirit which is holy but more human, and that they are responsible for all created reality. That when man creates something these forces which can’t be put into a test tube but are a reality unto themselves, manifest themselves in all the creations that man has been responsible for. “That Ideas themselves are not” something that is empirically tangible, but in all practical human experience are responsible for all that is anything and the when these three forces are at work in harmony a tangible object can arise from the material universe.

When we begin to understand the very process of design and creation of the innumerable things that have already been created, these processes of creativity can be explained as genuinely an evolutionary process. This is to a lesser or greater degree what most Christian evolutionist believe. I myself find nothing wrong with this approach that doesn’t need the bible to understand, it as a reality self evident in Life as we see it through a certain perspective. That man creates things and refines them as it attempts to redefine quality and the forms express a linear form of progression of that product that has undergone changes and modification such as an early model of vehicle and later model with all the different models in between. And this is How most creative evolutionist view things. It is this Idea that is transposed to God and it would only seem natural to me that this happens. That when scientist peer into the natural world they see something that is not far or at least appears to be consistent with our present way of understand what it means to be creative.

Peace to you all

[kofh2u]

Lion thanks for the kind remarks.

Thanks RogerO, what is a profligate heretic? I have never been called that.
I do appreciate your honesty I really do. You are honest in your debates. In all the post I have read of yours your questions when challenging have all been seen in my eyes as reasonable, valid and practical in content.

The gist of the post isn’t to destroy Evolution as a means and I know I didn’t go into it much. As I have posted else ware my belief that evolution is valid and is a term that better describes the nature of creative genius. I think you probably think this also to a lesser or greater degree and you can correct me if I’m wrong in presuming that.

I will try to explain a little so Lion understands if he doesn’t know what I will be eventually getting around to in my belief.

What has not been said here is what I mean when I say evolution in a deterministic sense. That all things to me are an unfolding of creative genius and is an observable phenomenon and is an evolutionary process. And this to me is what most Christian who believe in evolution also believes.

Ok lion, here goes something that might help you understand me a little better.

Deterministic Evolution

What I came to learn in my attempt to understand Evolution from a metaphysical sense is that all things created are preceded by (vocabulary, will and spirit) which I also believe is the GODHEAD the Father (will) the son, Logos (vocabulary) and the Holy Spirit. That these attributes of Godhead work in harmony together and that man is also endowed with these attributes apart from a spirit which is holy but more human, and that they are responsible for all created reality. That when man creates something these forces which can’t be put into a test tube but are a reality unto themselves, manifest themselves in all the creations that man has been responsible for. “That Ideas themselves are not” something that is empirically tangible, but in all practical human experience are responsible for all that is anything and the when these three forces are at work in harmony a tangible object can arise from the material universe.

When we begin to understand the very process of design and creation of the innumerable things that have already been created, these processes of creativity can be explained as genuinely an evolutionary process. This is to a lesser or greater degree what most Christian evolutionist believe. I myself find nothing wrong with this approach that doesn’t need the bible to understand, it as a reality self evident in Life as we see it through a certain perspective. That man creates things and refines them as it attempts to redefine quality and the forms express a linear form of progression of that product that has undergone changes and modification such as an early model of vehicle and later model with all the different models in between. And this is How most creative evolutionist view things. It is this Idea that is transposed to God and it would only seem natural to me that this happens. That when scientist peer into the natural world they see something that is not far or at least appears to be consistent with our present way of understand what it means to be creative.

Peace to you all

Don't be hurt by rogero's remarks.

He is not too different from many Nicolaitans who mistake the sacrifice of their time for the mercy God wants from us.

In Freudian synthesis with the Words of the New Testament, it is apparent that rogero's insistence on KNOWLEDGE without the spirit of charity (Altruism) denies his Christianity.

1Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the (secularly wise) tongues of men and of (spiritual wisdom of) angels, (FULFILLING MY NEED TO KNOW), and have not (Altruism), charity, (I AM NOT SANE), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

[Lion]

Maudman, I understand where you are coming from. Theistic evolution, as I understand it, is a belief that God started the creation going and then stood back for long ages and just let it happen. I don’t believe that. When God came down on Mt Sinai and spoke the ten commandments, he said “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is.” That means six literal 24 hour days, not six million years.

Does it seem strange that when Lazarus who had been dead four days and was beginng to smell bad could be made alive by a word from Jesus? Is it a giant stretch of the credulity to imagine creating the world?

Jesus was god in human form. He could speak a word and it was done.

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
John 1:14 ¶ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Make no mistake about it, it is no metaphor, the creator lived among men. And when the angel says to worship the creator he is referring to a six day event. We will be judged on whether we honor the creator.

[kofh2u]

Maudman, I understand where you are coming from. Theistic evolution, as I understand it, is a belief that God started the creation going and then stood back for long ages and just let it happen. I don’t believe that. When God came down on Mt Sinai and spoke the ten commandments, he said “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is.” That means six literal 24 hour days, not six million years.

Does it seem strange that when Lazarus who had been dead four days and was beginng to smell bad could be made alive by a word from Jesus? Is it a giant stretch of the credulity to imagine creating the world?

Jesus was god in human form. He could speak a word and it was done.

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
John 1:14 ¶ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Make no mistake about it, it is no metaphor, the creator lived among men. And when the angel says to worship the creator he is referring to a six day event. We will be judged on whether we honor the creator.

?
"We will be judged on whether we honor the creator..."

I presume you mean, honor him by doing the works he directed us to complete?

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matt. 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Matt. 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Matt. 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

[rogero]

Don't be hurt by rogero's remarks.

He is not too different from many Nicolaitans who mistake the sacrifice of their time for the mercy God wants from us.

In Freudian synthesis with the Words of the New Testament, it is apparent that rogero's insistence on KNOWLEDGE without the spirit of charity (Altruism) denies his Christianity.

1Cor. 13:1 Though I speak with the (secularly wise) tongues of men and of (spiritual wisdom of) angels, (FULFILLING MY NEED TO KNOW), and have not (Altruism), charity, (I AM NOT SANE), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Qophy,

Why don't you explain your eschatological views to Maudman and Lion and let them decide how heretical they are? It's obvious that you make a mockery of scripture with your "Freudian" Translation, and any reasonable person should see that your views are beyond the pale.

So, Qophy -- David Judah Loeb (Layb?), "The Lion of Judah", the Philadelphia Prophet -- tell everyone how you are going to be involved personally in the selection of 144,000 and how your "Freudian Bible" is going to be a part of that?

Maybe you can give that postal address again where (only worthy!) people can obtain a copy of this wondrous document?

R

[rogero]

...

Thanks RogerO, what is a profligate heretic? I have never been called that.
I do appreciate your honesty I really do. You are honest in your debates. In all the post I have read of yours your questions when challenging have all been seen in my eyes as reasonable, valid and practical in content....

Peace to you all

Maudman,

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was speaking to Lion that in his point of view both you and Qophy would be considered "profligate heretics" for your acceptance of Theistic Evolution and denial of a "literal" Genesis.

That being said, I do consider Qoph2u heretical and blasphemous. I would sincerely advise to avoid being sucked into his wacky views. He has made a mockery of scripture with his Freudian nonsense, and his views on eschatology has him and his Freudian Bible playing a role. Be careful!

So, I apologize again for the misunderstanding. And, to reiterate the point of my previous post to Lion -- one must be careful to confuse politeness with truth.

Peace,

R

[maudman]

Maudman, I understand where you are coming from. Theistic evolution, as I understand it, is a belief that God started the creation going and then stood back for long ages and just let it happen. I don’t believe that. When God came down on Mt Sinai and spoke the ten commandments, he said “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is.” That means six literal 24 hour days, not six million years.
.

Yes I understand. My mother was a TE to a degree, Although she really didn't understood the science, and her knowledge of the scripture was lacking, She was faithful and tried to make us understand the importance of our christian inheritance. She didn't seek to indoctrinate us like canned chicken soup but understood the importance of letting God work in our life and she understood that our knowledge may exceed hers. So she made sure we had the basics concerning the charactor that is primary to all the children of God. That Godly charactor that is essential for Growth.


Does it seem strange that when Lazarus who had been dead four days and was beginng to smell bad could be made alive by a word from Jesus? Is it a giant stretch of the credulity to imagine creating the world?


Yes, I understand what you are getting at, and I do account for that. IN trying to be fair concerning What I have come to believe concerning the scripture. I will try to go into a brief overveiw of how what you say is true and how, I reconcile this understanding about God.

The word God (Elohim) in genesis is a uniprural form of the word God, its meaning conveys the concept of Family like the a family that we in the natural word experience, The God family kinda like the smiths in a crusde sort of way.

Romanized 'elohiym
Pronounced el-o-heem'

plural of HSN0433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:

KJV--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

It is here that in relation to the book of Job that when the sons of God shouted for joy at the initial creation of the universe, It was for them the sons of God that the lord YHWH had created the universe or cause it to happen. It is the Sons of God that are exercising the creative Genuis of the GodHead, they are an extension of it so to speak, And when Science pears into Earth ancient past they are seeing a deterministic evolution that reflect their learning and manipulating of the physical universe.
In other words the creation was a Giant sand box to the Sons of God. And that Genesis is not a record of its original created state but a renewing of the Earth after a corruption that come to be in the kingdom of heaven and I think it has to do with the fact that the material universe had an adverse affect on the spirit of God in the Sons of God. This is not far beyond our emperical experience. That the material world can sometime warp or distort the spirit of man. You know the old saying you can't play in the dirt pile and not get any on ya and I think this what possibly happened.

This to me is the nature of the rebellion that took place in the kingdom of heaven that lead to Genesis. That God shuts down all activity because of the problems that has arose and renews the Earth in what some call a second earth Age. The Earth was an Inheritace for the Sons of God. So God renews the Earth and creates a mankind and then YHWH creates a special man (Adam) through whom he is Going to incarnate the Sons of God, and this man is a Magistrate set over his Creation in the Garden east in Eden, He's not a turnip farmer but metaphors of the civilized man are used. He is to cultivate the spirit of the peoples in the Garden which are depicted as metaphors such as trees, beast of the field, fowl of the Air and so forth. Adams purpose was to nuture the spiritual devolpment of the mankind created in the Garden. But then he (adam) falls, the mediator of YHWH fails. But understand this an why there has to be a change in how we approach the scriptures. And previously believed interpretation.



First it has to do with how I came to approach Genesis. I did believe as you at one time,
Jesus was god in human form. He could speak a word and it was done.


Its not that I believe that life has been an uninterupted evolution of biology but that Evolution can only be seen incontext that those that weren't self existant go through a learning process, its the sons of God who were Evolving in a spiriual sence which can be seen indirectly through the earth past. BUt they still had some things to learn and YHWH is giving them a good dose of evil so they understand what the consequences of spiritual corruption is really like by making them subject to their own decisions for a moment in time.


John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
John 1:14 ¶ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Make no mistake about it, it is no metaphor, the creator lived among men. And when the angel says to worship the creator he is referring to a six day event. We will be judged on whether we honor the creator.

These verses are some of the most important verses that one can read and understand in christian theology but I'm not going to say anything yet about them cause it take a lot of typing to say what I would have to say about them. It is strange that you posted them I will say.


peace LIon

[maudman]

Maudman,

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was speaking to Lion that in his point of view both you and Qophy would be considered "profligate heretics" for your acceptance of Theistic Evolution and denial of a "literal" Genesis.

That being said, I do consider Qoph2u heretical and blasphemous. I would sincerely advise to avoid being sucked into his wacky views. He has made a mockery of scripture with his Freudian nonsense, and his views on eschatology has him and his Freudian Bible playing a role. Be careful!

So, I apologize again for the misunderstanding. And, to reiterate the point of my previous post to Lion -- one must be careful to confuse politeness with truth.

Peace,

R


RogerO, I wasn't offended by what you said I actually found it somewhat comical and smiled. I do understand that my views may be different then some believe and I know some will take it as heresy. But I am posting what I have come to believe from asking Questions not only about what I actually know and have been lead to believe from my past and I think you understand what I have been saying. I try to make things comprehensable to all that read. It is a challenge to write in a way that conveys ones insight and not be offensive for the sake of preserving the spirit of debate.

Although I know I don't understand all that KOH2U believes nor the extent of any agenda he might have it might be interesting to hear, although I think it would be hard to convince me about a predestined 144,000. You can't become one of them in my belief because God predistined them. I don't think you can necessarilly become something in the bible because we see it written. I could be mistaken but that is how I currently believe. In My christian belief there are things that are set in stone and God sets them its not up to us it is his will made manifest and mans will doesn't have anything to do with it. Salvation on the other hand is something offered to whom God wills it to be offered and involve more of a personal choice. I seperate salvation and things predistined.

There are salvational issues and their are inheritance issuses one is freely given(salvation) the other inheritance is something that is being resolved as it was determined it needed to be before the foundation of the world. I don't condem the rest of the world because they are not CHristian but that the world is an inhertence for the sons of God. In most traditional belief of Christianity everybody is being burned up because they aren't christian I think this is a misconception and it has a lot to do with Genesis more then most realize.

This current earth age is decideing who are going to be the meditors for YHWH in the world to come. I mean if the kings of the east are going to come and sit down at the table with Abraham and the nations are say let us go up to the mountain of the Lord then God in his infinite mercy is sparing the mankind of the world. Most of Gods JUdgments are coming on his own children because they are the transgressor because are the ones who have his words.

peace to you all.

[kofh2u]

RogerO, I wasn't offended by what you said I actually found it somewhat comical and smiled. I do understand that my views may be different then some believe and I know some will take it as heresy. But I am posting what I have come to believe from asking Questions not only about what I actually know and have been lead to believe from my past and I think you understand what I have been saying. I try to make things comprehensable to all that read. It is a challenge to write in a way that conveys ones insight and not be offensive for the sake of preserving the spirit of debate.

Although I know I don't understand all that KOH2U believes nor the extent of any agenda he might have it might be interesting to hear, although I think it would be hard to convince me about a predestined 144,000. You can't become one of them in my belief because God predistined them. I don't think you can necessarilly become something in the bible because we see it written. I could be mistaken but that is how I currently believe. In My christian belief there are things that are set in stone and God sets them its not up to us it is his will made manifest and mans will doesn't have anything to do with it. Salvation on the other hand is something offered to whom God wills it to be offered and involve more of a personal choice. I seperate salvation and things predistined.

There are salvational issues and their are inheritance issuses one is freely given(salvation) the other inheritance is something that is being resolved as it was determined it needed to be before the foundation of the world. I don't condem the rest of the world because they are not CHristian but that the world is an inhertence for the sons of God. In most traditional belief of Christianity everybody is being burned up because they aren't christian I think this is a misconception and it has a lot to do with Genesis more then most realize.

This current earth age is decideing who are going to be the meditors for YHWH in the world to come. I mean if the kings of the east are going to come and sit down at the table with Abraham and the nations are say let us go up to the mountain of the Lord then God in his infinite mercy is sparing the mankind of the world. Most of Gods JUdgments are coming on his own children because they are the transgressor because are the ones who have his words.

peace to you all.

Thank you maudman for demonstrating the Christian behavior of forgiving.

You also witness the Spirit by instructing us on non-judgemental acceptance of ideas different than our own.

We must all remember that the greatest heretic to ever live was the Lord himself. We must watch carefully that the speck of criticism we rush to find in comments here never ignor the timber of the sound of our own belief.

It is not enough, by far, to cry out majority rules, " You are a blasphemous fool."

This was the Jew error, the Jew, chosen just for this purpose, that Christians might never act identically:

John 8:13 The Pharisees... therefore said unto him,...

Thou bearest record of thyself, (not traditional dogma);

thy record (of interpretation), is not true (which ours and our father's is).

[rogero]

Thank you maudman for demonstrating the Christian behavior of forgiving.



David Judah Loeb, you don't need to be forgiven, you need to explain clearly and honestly your eschatological views fpr all to see. Then we can all make up our minds about whether or not they are heretical.

So, could you explain to us how your Freudian Bible will be involved in the choosing the 144,000 true Christians in Jerusalem?



You also witness the Spirit by instructing us on non-judgemental acceptance of ideas different than our own.



If your eschatological views are the same as they were last year, your use of the word "judgmental" here is risible. 144,000 true Christians out of a billion is a pretty judgmental -- you think less than 0.2 percent of Christians will be saved. Very compassionate...!



We must all remember that the greatest heretic to ever live was the Lord himself. We must watch carefully that the speck of criticism we rush to find in comments here never ignor the timber of the sound of our own belief.



So are you equating your burden in some way with that of the Lord Jesus Christ? Can you spell "blasphemy?"



It is not enough, by far, to cry out majority rules, " You are a blasphemous fool."

This was the Jew error, the Jew, chosen just for this purpose, that Christians might never act identically:

John 8:13 The Pharisees... therefore said unto him,...

Thou bearest record of thyself, (not traditional dogma);

thy record (of interpretation), is not true (which ours and our father's is).

Can't you resist using your souped-up King Jimmie version for even one post?

Maudman, can't you see the heresy in this Qophy fella? He has a huge martyr complex and truly believes that he has some new inspired spirituality that supercedes the traditional forms. What "interpretation" do you think he's referring to here? :lolo:

R

[maudman]

Hello RogerO

Yes I have read the blimps in kofh2u post with biblical text and I have noted them at times and at other times I kind of just glean over them. But he hasn’t done that as much with me. Most of his Posts have been in the spirit of discussion in a debate and that he can relate to being accused of be a heretic for his beliefs. I try to pick out the things that he actually says he believes which he hasn’t said much about what he actually believes. He hasn’t really attached the continent of my post.

He has given me a glimpse of the fact that he does study eschatology in some of his bible quotes. I do understand that there are people who study the bible from a psychological perspective in trying to understand that maybe the language carries with it meaning to those who think a certain way. That there are meanings in the text that go unnoticed unless you see things in a certain way and I can understand how it might lead some to try to make a connection to the 144,000 in revelation. The nature of those texts is about those who see things in a different light a new song or insight.

I try not psychoanalyze people in these discussions because it destroys the spirit of debate. I look more at the content of the discussion and so far he has refrained from saturating me with it. I would only read so much of it and I think he understands that.

He hasn’t ask much about the content of my belief or challenge the validity of what I am saying. And maybe it is because my answers are satisfactory to him. Or maybe he likes the spirits of the discussions were having. Not having to doggedly defend a post can lead to interesting observations as I think you also appreciate? I think sometimes when we hear things that are different or not commonly understood in a spirit that lead to discussions that people think a little more about some things.
My purpose isn’t to convince people I’m right and their wrong. I’m trying to present a perspective on the origins purely from biblical text that helps science and Bible believers it is a challenge to put it into words because I am not doing with written documentation all of this is just coming out of my head as I type and it reflects my studies for the past 23 years.

Peace RogerO

[rogero]

Hello RogerO

Yes I have read the blimps in kofh2u post with biblical text and I have noted them at times and at other times I kind of just glean over them. But he hasn’t done that as much with me. Most of his Posts have been in the spirit of discussion in a debate and that he can relate to being accused of be a heretic for his beliefs. I try to pick out the things that he actually says he believes which he hasn’t said much about what he actually believes. He hasn’t really attached the continent of my post.



"Blimp"??? What are you talking about?

What do you mean by the "continent" of your post???

Do you understand the crap that Qophy posts? Maybe you do and I don't -- perhaps he's too "deep" for me.



He has given me a glimpse of the fact that he does study eschatology in some of his bible quotes. I do understand that there are people who study the bible from a psychological perspective in trying to understand that maybe the language carries with it meaning to those who think a certain way. That there are meanings in the text that go unnoticed unless you see things in a certain way and I can understand how it might lead some to try to make a connection to the 144,000 in revelation. The nature of those texts is about those who see things in a different light a new song or insight.



You better ask your new friend about what he means explicitly about the 144,000. I think he has a much more literal interpretation than you want to admit. There's not a thing symbolic or metaphorical about this heretic's interpretation. I would suggest you go through his posts and assess this for yourself.



I try not psychoanalyze people in these discussions because it destroys the spirit of debate. I look more at the content of the discussion and so far he has refrained from saturating me with it. I would only read so much of it and I think he understands that.



You don't need to "psychoanalyze" anything in the debate. You should simply read through Koffy's posts from beginning to end and assess them at face value.



He hasn’t ask much about the content of my belief or challenge the validity of what I am saying. And maybe it is because my answers are satisfactory to him. Or maybe he likes the spirits of the discussions were having. Not having to doggedly defend a post can lead to interesting observations as I think you also appreciate? I think sometimes when we hear things that are different or not commonly understood in a spirit that lead to discussions that people think a little more about some things.
My purpose isn’t to convince people I’m right and their wrong. I’m trying to present a perspective on the origins purely from biblical text that helps science and Bible believers it is a challenge to put it into words because I am not doing with written documentation all of this is just coming out of my head as I type and it reflects my studies for the past 23 years.

Peace RogerO

He hasn't "asked much" from you since all he cares about is finding some innocent sap who will give some attention to his nonsense. He will kiss your butt and make you feel like an apologetic genius if you decide to engage him in a positive way. Most folks here either dismiss him as a complete nutcase or a risible heretic. Do you think he really has something edifying to say? Maybe you should pursue the question I posed to Qophy in my previous posts -- ask him to explain the role that he (his name is David Judah Loeb -- "the Lion of Judah", BTW) believes he has in eschatology. He really thinks he (and his blasphemous "Freudian Bible") have a special purpose in the selection of "true" Christians in his particular eschatological view. If you don't believe me, just ask him. Don't be taken in with his offer that you will be part of this blasphemous heretic nutcase's 144,000.

I reiterate my previous advice -- avoid this blasphemous heretic at all costs. If you do not, I will be here to intervene and expose and oppose his nonsense.

R

[maudman]

"Blimp"??? What are you talking about?

Well his Fruedian blimps, the brief phsyco-analysis of the scriptures that he he appends to the scripture, Blimps are inflated blips. Its "his" gas that fills the ballon. I ignores these for the most part, I don't believe that truths of the bible comes from a new way of thinking but an old one, understanding the people who wrote it and what they ment.
To me the truth of the bible comes from people re-evauting what they know and believe about the bible, recongnizing they know very little about the bible. When they start realizing they overlook about 80% of it and yet say they understand it, kinda like science does at times. So in my belief Fruedian approach doesn't help biblical text. It maybe useful for understanding the human spirit but not the holy one(spirit).



What do you mean by the "continent" of your post???


Should be content, "I goofed again"


Do you understand the crap that Qophy posts? Maybe you do and I don't -- perhaps he's too "deep" for me.


I pretty much why he does it.


You better ask your new friend about what he means explicitly about the 144,000. I think he has a much more literal interpretation than you want to admit. There's not a thing symbolic or metaphorical about this heretic's interpretation. I would suggest you go through his posts and assess this for yourself.


There are many Groups that work under the belief that they are the 144,000. But there is nothing in scripture that say's that the individuals themselves are aware of their own Identity in relation to God. Only God knows who they are and they may or may not even be a cohesive group or gathering.


You don't need to "psychoanalyze" anything in the debate. You should simply read through Koffy's posts from beginning to end and assess them at face value.


Exactly


He hasn't "asked much" from you since all he cares about is finding some innocent sap who will give some attention to his nonsense. He will kiss your butt and make you feel like an apologetic genius if you decide to engage him in a positive way. Most folks here either dismiss him as a complete nutcase or a risible heretic. Do you think he really has something edifying to say? Maybe you should pursue the question I posed to Qophy in my previous posts -- ask him to explain the role that he (his name is David Judah Loeb -- "the Lion of Judah", BTW) believes he has in eschatology. He really thinks he (and his blasphemous "Freudian Bible") have a special purpose in the selection of "true" Christians in his particular eschatological view. If you don't believe me, just ask him. Don't be taken in with his offer that you will be part of this blasphemous heretic nutcase's 144,000.

I reiterate my previous advice -- avoid this blasphemous heretic at all costs. If you do not, I will be here to intervene and expose and oppose his nonsense.

R

I understand for the most part what kofh2u believes apart from any personal rational, and am very familiar with the paradigm that drives this belief. And can debate it in ways most currently can't even begin to imagine. I just haven't said anything directly but I have said things that indirectly affect what he believes but only he would see it. The truth is i have read many of his post and understand exactly what drives his interpretation of things.

I will have to say though that it's the first time I have seen Freudian slant that is obvious, most times the Freudian is secretive hidden so he's not totally deceptive. If he believes something that isn't true and he is Genuine about understanding things time will bare this out to him. I understand that people who believe they understand it all can be hard to discuss things with in content. But maybe he will share with us some of the reasons he believes what he does those are the things that are debatable. Concerning origins for the threads purpose.

If people believe they have some truth they don't fear to lay it on the table. That is what I know about people cause they act on the what they believe is true at least those who are honest with themselves. I myself do not believe in apologetics. I don't get offended by what people say nor do I demand an apology for being wrong. The only people who don't make mistakes are the people who aren't doing anything and there making the biggest mistake of all.

I'm glad to see your watching things and I value your input. I do enjoy our discussions. So keep it coming rogerO and peace. And if find things wrong in what I say please point them out.

[maudman]

Hello kofh2u

Thank you for the kind words.

Yes it is the majority that claims right to label people heritic it is also true that the word heritic isn't that bad. Yes in many way's Christ was a heritc cause he went beyond the majorities acceptable dogma, He came to bare witness of himself and the father. Neither of which they knew.


This was the Jew error, the Jew, chosen just for this purpose, that Christians might never act identically:

John 8:13 The Pharisees... therefore said unto him,...

Thou bearest record of thyself, (not traditional dogma);

thy record (of interpretation), is not true (which ours and our father's is).



Yes, these things you said are true also. But I would disagree with never act Identically. Maybe a better way is that his Grace was sufficience for the differences in his children is how we should look at it. And these differences are a spice to life adds flavor so to speak. But the truth is something learned or revealed and create unity that binds the differences.

You might tell us how you see some of the things concerning the Origins and literalness of Adam. It would be interesting to hear what you believe concerning it and if you can steer from the Freudian and explain in a more comprehenable language for us. One that creates debate or discussion about the thread can you do this for us KOFH2U it would be nice to hear what make you you .

[kofh2u]

Hello mr maudy,
You ask:
You might tell us how you see some of the things concerning the Origins and literalness of Adam.

KOFHY:
I see Genesis at least five different ways. It is Epic for, a Jew. It is like our English epic, and ancient "tail" of our long ancestory. It is a foundation upon which millennia of Jewish philosophy and cultural has sprung. And, it IS literal for me in this respect. One can not honor the father and mother and at the same time people like Jack777 who still hold to just this on appreciation.

But, I also see the Wor
as a truly living book, one that has adapted itself to the gradual change in our social and cultural paradigm. As man has become more informed and has come to better understand t
e real world, surprisingly, this book has revealed the subtle incorporation of meaning that accommodate this developing knowledge.

We see that Genesis, for instance, calls God by Elohim, a plural. For 1200 years Jews have understood this in one way. These Jews may still maintain that ancient understanding, but they, too, find their scripture might well have second guessed the coming truth of Trinity.

maudy:
It would be interesting to hear what you believe concerning it and if you can steer from the Freudian and explain in a more comprehenable language for us.

KOFHY:
Genesis is "Fruedian" in ways even you don't steer away from.

Maybe Jungian would be a better term. If the best thinking on thinikng is correct, then we can only think in Four Functions of Thinking. Why this explicit observation is demonized, while implicitly people pretend to think about their person functional approach to literary criticism of Genesis and its theological impacy on their reasoning in underdtanding it beyond me.
Hardly a respected literary critic of say, "Alice in Wonderland," doubts that Carrol wrote on a number of levels, all one and the same time.

But, with Scripture, to suggest for a second that people do not read Genesis tuned into the Jungian Functinal Intuition available them would be hard to defend.

I mentioned Epic as one way to think about Genesis. Your personal "Feelings," a second Jungian thinking function, would probably not automatically "turn on" unless you were Jewish. Though, as the root and foundation for Christians, many might having strpng "feelings" in regard to how one reads this.
Myself, being Jewish, the feelings are similar to Nationalistic. This is our Epic, now valued in the world in general. This is the national anthem of "In the beginning"...
It is to western religion what Einstein is to Relativity.

Then, " intuitively speaking,"... ig is a spirotual experience, a link with the dead, the long tail of civilization and the collective consciousness of our past, of the mystery of First Causes, the unknown, and that we die.
I will not trouble you with every detail of this type analysis of my own reactions to Genesis. Let me jump ahead to the matter of TE.

It occurs to me that the sole approach of intuitive people, like Jack777, will be cornered as we have seen. The Logical Thinkers, academicians and science readers will mock that Jungian view as out of step. More. They will condemn the literature because of the reader's report concerning what it says, ITO.

Yet, these same people miss the easy point, that this living Bible easily ows again, even in these modern times. The science of men, merely a logical way of thinking, just expands the embrace of Truth in scripture.

Gen. 4:1 And Adam, (Ramaphitecus Man), knew Eve, (mother of all hominoids), his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), and said, I have gotten a man, (another hominoid), from the LORD.

maudy:
One that creates debate or discussion about the thread... can you do this for us KOFH2U it would be nice to hear what make you you.

KOFHY:
My pleasure.
I find that the concise and direct meani of what I am saying, t
ough, reduces to either a reiteration of the intuitive and the epic interpretations in denial, or dismissal often with or without expressed anger for such audacity, a different view.

[maudman]

Genesis is "Fruedian" in ways even you don't steer away from.


I would agree pretty much with this,


Maybe Jungian would be a better term. If the best thinking on thinikng is correct, then we can only think in Four Functions of Thinking. Why this explicit observation is demonized, while implicitly people pretend to think about their person functional approach to literary criticism of Genesis and its theological impacy on their reasoning in underdtanding it beyond me.
Hardly a respected literary critic of say, "Alice in Wonderland," doubts that Carrol wrote on a number of levels, all one and the same time.

But, with Scripture, to suggest for a second that people do not read Genesis tuned into the Jungian Functinal Intuition available them would be hard to defend.


I would agree for the most part. People do it all the time by replacing a vocabulary with one that cleverly conceals the real meanings of things; the attributes of the symbol stimulate the intuitiveness in the persons physic.
This is the nature of the song. But songs played somewhat a different role in antiquity. The problem that many have today is that they don’t understand its function in the social structure was more academic in antiquity, the songs use before the written language was used as an Archive. When one of these singers of songs was killed it was like losing an archive. When the written language began to develop these songs or archives were better preserved.

I think it is denial, and because people don’t understand that the man created by YHWH isn’t the first man and this along with other misconception lead to preconceived absurdities. Understanding what happens in the fall actually is something that happens all the time but saying that those same things happen in genesis it’s heresy. The symbolism is and can be a form of denial.



I mentioned Epic as one way to think about Genesis. Your personal "Feelings," a second Jungian thinking function, would probably not automatically "turn on" unless you were Jewish. Though, as the root and foundation for Christians, many might having strpng "feelings" in regard to how one reads this.
Myself, being Jewish, the feelings are similar to Nationalistic. This is our Epic, now valued in the world in general. This is the national anthem of "In the beginning"...
It is to western religion what Einstein is to Relativity.


I understand, I have come to learn it may not be just a Israelite or Jewish epic, although I would say that they would at this point in time feel more personally identifiable with it, But I am learning it is a YHWH Adamic man epic of which Abraham was a portion of that epic and that the rabbit whole is much bigger Dorothy. HEE! HEE! Israel’s purpose is a more specific role in the overall scope of thing.


Enjoy the discussion peace kophy

[kofh2u]

I would agree pretty much with this,



I would agree for the most part. People do it all the time by replacing a vocabulary with one that cleverly conceals the real meanings of things; the attributes of the symbol stimulate the intuitiveness in the persons physic.
This is the nature of the song. But songs played somewhat a different role in antiquity. The problem that many have today is that they don’t understand its function in the social structure was more academic in antiquity, the songs use before the written language was used as an Archive. When one of these singers of songs was killed it was like losing an archive. When the written language began to develop these songs or archives were better preserved.

I think it is denial, and because people don’t understand that the man created by YHWH isn’t the first man and this along with other misconception lead to preconceived absurdities. Understanding what happens in the fall actually is something that happens all the time but saying that those same things happen in genesis it’s heresy. The symbolism is and can be a form of denial.




I understand, I have come to learn it may not be just a Israelite or Jewish epic, although I would say that they would at this point in time feel more personally identifiable with it, But I am learning it is a YHWH Adamic man epic of which Abraham was a portion of that epic and that the rabbit whole is much bigger Dorothy. HEE! HEE! Israel’s purpose is a more specific role in the overall scope of thing.


Enjoy the discussion peace kophy


Maudy, you bring up a very important point. I have only intuitive support for what you say here. In referring to the Jewish Cantors and to the occassional chanting of ceremonial verses by the Catholic priests, few people realize that Genesis was more like a song, actually, a rythymic chanting. It was also played out, between a number of Cohans. It was more like a modern day musical than a boring reading from the pulpit.

What do you know about this "song" you mention, where did you conceive of the idea your offer here. Are there any references to which you can direct me that elucidate this "song?"

Maudy:
"This is the nature of the song. But songs played somewhat a different role in antiquity.

The problem that many have today is that they don’t understand its function in the social structure was more academic in antiquity, the songs use before the written language was used as an Archive.
When one of these singers of songs was killed it was like losing an archive.

KOFHY:
This above, is true.

Maudy:
When the written language began to develop these songs or archives were better preserved.

KOFHY:
Preserved, yes... better, no!

Matt. 3:12 Whose FAN (of forked fingers) is in his hand (held as the Kohamin), and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

[Warcraft3]

Do you understand the crap that Qophy posts? Maybe you do and I don't -- perhaps he's too "deep" for me.

:rofl:

[rogero]

:rofl:

Welcome back, Russ!!! :cheers:

So, I take it you don't get Qophy either? I'm glad he manages to find a few friends who enjoy the blasphemously abstract. :wink:

Roger

[Lion]

Excuse me, folks, but what you have been saying doesn’t show a deep understanding of what the scripture is all about. To illustrate, the talk about the 144,000 is a number of the redeemed, but that group seem to be a special company. I don’t know much about them, and lots of people have wondered who they are. They appear to be the group of saints who are alive when Jesus returns to take His redeemed to heaven, but not much is said about them.

Which brings up something I want to say. Quophy seems to be enamored with that silly Freudian trash that makes zero sense. Why in the name of common sense does he do that? The Bible makes sense just as it reads. It does not need some esoteric meaningless trash thrown in just to confuse the issue.

If you read the plain scripture for what it says there is a plain message, but when the Satanic, (and that’s what it is) meaningless jargon thrown in, it obscures the plain word of God and helps Satan. The devil wants to hide the pure word and I hate to accuse Quophy of being a tool of Satan, because I think he mistakenly thinks he is adding to understanding, when he is really making the word less understandable.

The word of God interprets itself when you study it carefully and ask God to show you the message it has for you. Compare scripture with scripture. I have several versions on a CD. I can find any text by using a word search. Sometimes one version doesn’t have the word you are looking for but another version will. That helps in your study. It also helps to look up the same text in different versions. Hebrew and Greek often have the same word translated in different ways. The usual (Mine does) Bible CD have an exhuaustive dictionary for each Hebrew or Greek word. For instance:

Take John 3:17.

John 3:17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. NAS95
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. KJV
John 3:17 For God has not sent his Son into the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him. DRBY
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; YNG

So we have four translations of the same verse each with a slightly different wording. Now let’s take the exhaustive Greek.

By a click of the mouse we get a parsing menu. We click on parse and get the text with the English words, the exhaustive dictionary number and the Greek word for each word.

The help menu allows us to pick any word. We notice the word condemn is translated two ways. So we select number 2919 and we find all the possible meanings of the Greek word krine and the number of times it occurs.

2919. krino; a prim. vb.; to judge, decide: —act as judge(m)(1), concluded(1), condemn(1), condemning(1), considered(1), decided(8), determine(1), determin ed(2), go to law(1), goes to law(1), judge(43), judged(24), judges(10), judging(5), judgment(1), pass judgment(1), passes judgment(1), passing judgment(1), pronounced(m)(1), regards(m)(2), stand trial(m)(2), sue(1), trial(3), tried(1), try(1).

I hope this small tutorial helps.

[kofh2u]

Lion:

Excuse me, folks, but what you have been saying doesn’t show a deep understanding of what the scripture is all about. To illustrate, the talk about the 144,000 is a number of the redeemed, but that group seem to be a special company. They appear to be the group of saints who are alive when Jesus returns to take His redeemed to heaven, but not much is said about them.

KOFHY:
Yes.
RogerO was mistaken that these are the onLY saved.

They were the priesthood of his 1000 years reign, who serve the multitudes who worship the Lamb. Many, many among that large multitudeare saved, too.

Lion:
I don’t know much about them, and lots of people have wondered who they are.

KOFHY:
That's why it is OK to hypothesize just what scripture tells us in such circumstances. As you point out, "...lots of people have wondered" about this and many other things.

Here is a hypothesis that you might consider, but you will NEVER lose salvation because you accept it as pretty good, or deny it, either.

Rev. 14:4 These, (the 144,000), are they, (the monks of the monastic age, 6th-16th century), which were not defiled with women, (celibate); for they are virgins, (Catholic Priests). These are they, (the Christian host) which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits (of the 1000 year reign of Christ in Christianity) unto God and to the Lamb.

Lion:
Which brings up something I want to say. Quophy seems to be enamored with that silly Freudian trash that makes zero sense. Why in the name of common sense does he do that? The Bible makes sense just as it reads. It does not need some esoteric meaningless trash thrown in just to confuse the issue.

KOFHY:
Few would deny that the bible stresses change in our behavior.
The born again experience, baptism, the indwelling of the spirit of love all suggests a mental change.
The word "soul" means "mind," in Hebrew, and "psyke," in Greek.

Hardly anyone misses the point, for instance, that accepting Jesus is expected to bear fruit which can be noticed in a new morality. In particular, with regard to our sexual behavior, for example.

Today, we know that these drives, for instance our sexual urges, are centered in psychological apparati like the Libido.

I find it strange that you do not see this. Our thinking has seven SUBCONSCIOUS inputs. That means, we are not aware of the thinking that preceeds much behavior. Truly, Christ is waking us up to control just these psychic forces in the Kingdom within.

Lion:
If you read the plain scripture for what it says there is a plain message, but when the Satanic, (and that’s what it is) meaningless jargon thrown in, it obscures the plain word of God and helps Satan.

KOFHY:
During the late middle ages, even in Puritan America, many "witches" were condemned according to history books on the subject, because of sexual relationships with satanin men in the woods. They confessed to this behavior.

Sex and Satan seem very much related.
The binding of Satan, for the 1000 year reign of Christ, was marked by strict puritanical sexual discrimination in the pre-renaissance Dark Ages.

Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system
of exploitative sexual mores), that old serpent, (cultural Paganism), which is the devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) satan, and bound him, the dragon, a thousand (1000) Years throughout (The DARK AGES),

lion:
I hate to accuse Quophy of being a tool of Satan, because I think he mistakenly thinks he is adding to understanding, when he is really making the word less understandable.

KOFHY:
Well, what's good is that you can take it or leave it, but my message, regardless of who we see as satan, is DON'T.
Don't be sexually permiscuious. Don't let your sexual urges and sex drive control and motivate your direction in life.

But, we also must note that our Jewish and Christian heritage is full with accusations, indicting others for they way they understand sscripture.
The Inquisition lost, but the self assured all so sure the flat earth people and the geocentricists would have indicted everyone here whomis not RC. True?

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service

Lion:
The word of God interprets itself when you study it carefully and ask God to show you the message it has for you. Compare scripture with scripture.

KOFHY:

BUT.
BUT, you said: "The 144,000... not much is said about them."

You said: " I don’t know much about them, and lots of people have wondered who they are."

Make a list. Can you explain the "hidden manna," the Urim and Thummim, the Iron Rod, life without death or pain?

Do you not need to ask us to buy into a metaphysical explanation that is NOT explicit in the Bible, one that is also not rational, but only to be experienced and understood AFTER we die.

[rogero]

...

lion:
I hate to accuse Quophy of being a tool of Satan, because I think he mistakenly thinks he is adding to understanding, when he is really making the word less understandable.

KOFHY:
Well, what's good is that you can take it or leave it, but my message, regardless of who we see as satan, is DON'T.
Don't be sexually permiscuious. Don't let your sexual urges and sex drive control and motivate your direction in life.



Well, that's sure an interesting take on things, Qophy. Are the bolded sentences revealing of your "Freudian" take on the Scriptures? Very provocative! :lol:



But, we also must note that our Jewish and Christian heritage is full with accusations, indicting others for they way they understand sscripture.
The Inquisition lost, but the self assured all so sure the flat earth people and the geocentricists would have indicted everyone here whomis not RC. True?

John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time
cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service

...


So, are you now equating the opposition (from Lion and I, in particular) to the promulgation of your ridiculous, blasphemous, and heretical "Freudian Bible" with the Inquisition and the attack of the geocentrists on Kepler and Gallileo?

Son, you got some really BIG problems!

Love and Peace in Christ,

Roger

P.S. Qophy, Why don't you explain to all the readers here how you, David Judah Loeb, and your "Freudian Bible" have a specific role in eschatology?

[kofh2u]

Blasphemy?
What is that?

Matt. 12:31
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:

So... then Jesus forgives all manner of blasphemy... with one exception. If you mock and attack the spirit of Christ in men who believe, like Jack777, like Lion, like maudy, .. that kind of mockery and scoffing will not be forgiven.


..."but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

[rogero]

Blasphemy?
What is that?

Matt. 12:31
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:

So... then Jesus forgives all manner of blasphemy... with one exception. If you mock and attack the spirit of Christ in men who believe, like Jack777, like Lion, like maudy, .. that kind of mockery and scoffing will not be forgiven.


..."but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

So, my criticism of your ridicuous and completely unsubstantiated rape of (the King Jimmie version of) Scripture is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"? You are a hoot! Crazy people can be so entertaining! :lol:

Bring it on, Nutcase! :wink:

R

P.S. Your kissing up to people who don't criticize you openly is noted. Do you realize how transparent your heretical idiocy is? :lol:

[Warcraft3]

Welcome back, Russ!!! :cheers:

So, I take it you don't get Qophy either? I'm glad he manages to find a few friends who enjoy the blasphemously abstract. :wink:

Roger

Heh....

I usually just read his posts with wide eyes and my mouth half open and say Oooooooooooooooooooookay.

Thats as far as I get on the twisted path to understanding where the paranthetical remarks come from....



Russ

[rogero]

Heh....

I usually just read his posts with wide eyes and my mouth half open and say Oooooooooooooooooooookay.

Thats as far as I get on the twisted path to understanding where the paranthetical remarks come from....



Russ

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone. Sometimes I think this Qophy fella makes sense to others since they either ignore him or engage him in a cogent manner and seem to take him seriously. Very few people criticize him. I don't know why? Are they afraid of him? Are they afraid of hurting his feelings? Do they think he's such a deep intellect that they are intimidated in the presence of such greatness? These are mysteries all. OTOH, when I have the slightest attack of dyspepsia, I get moderated. Go figure.

Anyway, I think we should press Qophy on exactly how he and his Freudian Bible will figure into eschatology. If you read through all his posts, I think you will find some "curious" ideas -- in particular about the selection of the 144,000 in Jerusalem.

Russ, you are a voice of reason that I (and most other Tweb) Christians respect. Do you think we (I?) should continue to hound Cough-two-you about his pompous and heretical views, or should we let him just bang on and on with his drivel and hope and pray that no weak impressionable young Christian is led astray by his nonsense -- or that a non-Christian things that this nutcase represents a viable version of the faith? I appreciate your wisdom on this, I really do. :smile:

God's Peace,

Roger

P.S. Do you still not have a 'puter keyboard with an apostrophe key? :lol::wink:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Blasphemy?
What is that?

Matt. 12:31
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men:

So... then Jesus forgives all manner of blasphemy... with one exception. If you mock and attack the spirit of Christ in men who believe, like Jack777, like Lion, like maudy, .. that kind of mockery and scoffing will not be forgiven.


..."but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

So people will go to hell if they don't accept your Freudian theology?

[kofh2u]

So people will go to hell if they don't accept your Freudian theology?


Huh?

I think I could make a good argument, concurring with the Pope, that we ARE in Hell and a better understanding of scripture might get us out.

Now, I'm saying that 2000 years of talking the talk doesn't mean no one is walking the walk,... maybe just not enough walkers.







The mass of men live their lives in quiet desperation.

[Warcraft3]

Hey Roger......

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone. Sometimes I think this Qophy fella makes sense to others since they either ignore him or engage him in a cogent manner and seem to take him seriously. Very few people criticize him. I don't know why? Are they afraid of him? Are they afraid of hurting his feelings? Do they think he's such a deep intellect that they are intimidated in the presence of such greatness? These are mysteries all. OTOH, when I have the slightest attack of dyspepsia, I get moderated. Go figure.

Afraid? Nah......Intimidated by his deep intellect? Probably not....

Hurting his feelings? That sounds like a possible candidate...

I dont enage him because I find his views to be so completely without any support (save his own mind, of course) that I find no need to engage him...


Anyway, I think we should press Qophy on exactly how he and his Freudian Bible will figure into eschatology. If you read through all his posts, I think you will find some "curious" ideas -- in particular about the selection of the 144,000 in Jerusalem.

From the posts that I have read by him I have seen many "curious" ideas.....his interpretation methods (meaning how he gets the paranthetical remarks) seem so obviously arbitrary that I never really thought anyone would see them as anything but strange (although at times they can be clever in a weird sort of way)......


Russ, you are a voice of reason that I (and most other Tweb) Christians respect. Do you think we (I?) should continue to hound Cough-two-you about his pompous and heretical views, or should we let him just bang on and on with his drivel and hope and pray that no weak impressionable young Christian is led astray by his nonsense -- or that a non-Christian things that this nutcase represents a viable version of the faith? I appreciate your wisdom on this, I really do. :smile:

Thank you for such a high compliment....I hope my answer is worthy of such words......

I would tell you to continue to hound him....this is a debate site after all.....and he is presenting his views here and is opening them up to attack by doing so.

Those who debate here at TWEB are unlikely to change their mind about things, since they are the ones actively involved in debate, but the silent readers....those that we never hear from.....could be swayed one way or the other by the words we write.....so you challenging (and mocking) his unsupported ideas is to be expected, and in my view, is something that is necessary.

He most definately does not represent any Christian view that I have ever encountered, and while most of us ignore him, it is a good thing that at least one person here is taking the time and energy to challange his views.




P.S. Do you still not have a 'puter keyboard with an apostrophe key? :lol::wink:

Heh...

:bonk:

I should be getting my cool new keyboard tomorrow as a matter of fact....Im not sure if it has that key though......:wink:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/72e2/

.....besides, I find your hounding to be hilarious at times.....

:lol:



Russ

[grmorton]

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone. Sometimes I think this Qophy fella makes sense to others since they either ignore him or engage him in a cogent manner and seem to take him seriously. Very few people criticize him. I don't know why? Are they afraid of him? Are they afraid of hurting his feelings? Do they think he's such a deep intellect that they are intimidated in the presence of such greatness? These are mysteries all. OTOH, when I have the slightest attack of dyspepsia, I get moderated. Go figure.

I don't find much of use in Koph2u's theology. However, I kinda like wacky people (maybe because I am one). While most ideas generated by people like him are not going to work (as is the case with most people) once in a while an interesting insight arises out of people like this. Thus, I listen and sift through the chaff

I am always reminded of a little known scientist named Julius Robert Mayer. This passage from a delightful book tells his story, wacky ideas and all

"In the beginning, Mayer imagined, the universe had
been brought into existence by a single, inexpressibly huge
force, which he called the Ursache, German for 'the Cause.'
Subsequently, the Ursache had split up into smaller, diverse
krafte ('forces'), each of which now powered some particular
aspect of the universe, be it electric, chemical, thermal,
and so forth.

"Mayer alienated theologians with his lack of reference
to God and scientists with his reference to the
supernatural-like Ursache. Not surprisingly, therefore,
Mayer was rejected when he tried publishing the theory in
Annalen der Physik and Chemie ('Annals of Physics and
Chemistry'), one of Europe's most prestigious scientific
journals.

"Thereafter, even when Mayer's explanations were more
conventional, his reputation for being and oddball
prejudiced the reviews his work received from peers. At no
time was this more evident than in the winter of 1840, when
young Dr. Mayer agreed to serve as physician aboard a Dutch
merchant ship bound from Rotterdam to Surabaya, Java.

"Like most nineteenth-century doctors, Mayer treated
his patients by bleeding them, the theory being that a
surfeit of blood was what caused the body to become swollen
with illness. At first, Mayer did not notice anything
abnormal in the blood he let from the sailors. But as the
journey took them closer and closer to the tropics, he
noticed their blood becoming redder and redder.

"This puzzling phenomenon, he decided, was an
unexpected validation of the popular caloric theory of heat
and Lavoisier's ideas about biological combustion. Back in
the Netherlands, he reasoned, the cold weather had forced
the sailors' bodies to generate a lot of heat in order to
stay warm. In this progressively warmer climate, however,
their bodies' combustion mechanism was able to throttle
down. Therefore, less of the air inhaled by the sailors was
burned up; more of the air was simply absorbed into their
blood, causing it to become redder.

"Had it been announced by anyone else, this astonishing
discovery would have been hailed by the caloric-theory-
loving establishment. But coming from this iconoclastic
young Bavarian, the elegant explanation was published with
very little reaction or appreciation from his peers.

"Disheartened but undefeated, Mayer proceeded to do
himself even greater harm by incorporating his very credible
explanation of the sailors' reddening blood into the
framework of his very incredible Ursache theory. The cross-
breeding produced a chimeric view of the world that
horrified the contemporary mind.

"According to Mayer, the one huge seminal force that
had split up into many smaller and smaller forces was, to
this day, still splintering. The sun's force, for example,
was now bifurcating into a luminous force (sunlight) and
thermal force (solar heat), both of which were being
transformed by plants into a chemical force (food), which
itself was being split up in multitudinous ways by the
living creatures that consumed it.

"Some of the chemical force was being converted by the
creatures' internal combustion chambers into a thermal force
(body heat) and some by their muscles into a mechanical
force (body movement). Some of the chemical force, also, was
being converted by the creatures' voice boxes into an
acoustic force (sounds) and by their brains into an electric
force (neural impulses).

"Mayer's grand conclusion? The strengths of all the
subordinate forces of today—luminous, thermal, chemical, and
others yet unnamed—added up exactly to the strength of the
original Ursache, from which they all had sprouted. In other
words, though things everywhere appeared to be changing
ceaselessly, the total amount of force in the universe was
one of the great constants of life; it never had changed,
and it never would change.

"It was like saying that a barterer's total wealth
remained unchanged, even though the number of her
possessions increased steadily. It could happen, if the
wealth were being split up into an increasing number of
lesser and lesser expensive items.

"Years hence, in the hands of Clausius and others,
Mayer's fantastic assertions would become one of the most
sacred theories in all of science. But this was 1842, and
though young Dr. Mayer managed to get it published in a
respectable journal, Annalen der Chemie ('Annals of
Chemistry'), his theory of the natural world was widely
snubbed.

"Most of his colleagues rejected it, based solely on
their wariness of the author's reputation for odd ideas.
Those few who did bother to contemplate the theory rejected
it for speaking of a thermal force being transformed into
other forces (e.g., the sun's thermal force being
transformed by plants into a chemical force). According to
the caloric theory, heat—whether called a force or a fluid
or whatever—could not be destroyed and then reincarnated as
something else. Heat, the caloric disciples chanted, was
indestructible."

"In the years ahead, Mayer's despair worsened. Since
most scientists had never even read his paper, they were not
able to give him credit, even when they began to publish
theories reminiscent of his own. IN 1847, for example, the
great Hermann Ludwig von Helmholtz, a fellow German,
published Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft ('Concerning the
Conservation of Force"). It was hailed as a brilliant piece
of work, suggesting the exciting possibility that the
combined strengths of all natural forces in the universe
never changed, yet not once was Mayer's name even mentioned!

"By this time, Mayer had come to the very threshold of
a nervous breakdown, and his doctors were threatening to
commit him to a mental hospital. Mayer's woes increased
further when he was arrested by insurgents during the
Revolution of 1848, a violet paroxysm of German nationalism.
He was released shortly afterward, but two years later, all
the frustration and alienation of his tormented life finally
caught up with him: One night, unable to sleep, the thirty-
six-year-old pariah climbed out of bed and leapt from the
window of his second-story apartment.

"Much to his chagrin, however, Mayer did not succeed in
killing himself; he was still alive, but why? While his
colleagues were still trying to understand the source of
life, now more than ever, he craved only to understand the
meaning of life. He cursed fate for his continued suffering,
not realizing that in this most tragic year of his
discontent, his ideas—his life—were about to be validated by
a young Prussian physicist who finally would get to the
heart of heat."

After thermodynamics was established, here was the reaction.

"Within a short time, therefore, Rudolf Julius Emmanuel
Clausius was being praised all over Europe—and so were Joule
and the outcast Mayer, whose work had inspired the young
scientist. It was a turning point for all three, but
especially for Mayer, who in the years ahead was made a
member of the world-famous French Academy of Sciences and
awarded their prestigious Prix Poncelet for a lifetime of
outstanding achievement; by the time Mayer died at the age
of sixty-four, he was at peace, having received the credit
he had so desperately sought as a tormented young man."

And he was still wacky.

edited to add. his usache which split is a remarkably modern-like idea, kind of like symmetry breaking.

[A Beautiful Truth]

If you mock and attack the spirit of Christ in men who believe, like Jack777, like Lion, like maudy, .. that kind of mockery and scoffing will not be forgiven.


..."but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men."

So disagreeing with the theological views of you and Jack and Lion is "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" and will ensure eternal damnation?

Saying you are not a prophet, is that also an unforgivable sin? Not accepting your theology is worthy of hell fire?

[kofh2u]

Charleen:
So disagreeing with the theological views of you and Jack and Lion...

KOFHY?
The verse has no reference to you.

It pertains to believing one's own misinterpretation of scripture and proclaiming it. It means they, (Jack, me, lion, whoever), whether right or weong, are not judged blasphemous because of it, our interpretation.
We can only be blasphemous if we sum our interpretation to mean the Spirit a lie. The Christian Holy spirit...

Charleen:
Saying you are not a prophet, is that also an unforgivable sin?

KOFHY:
Huh?
I said I what about prophets?

Charleen:
Not accepting your theology is worthy of hell fire?

KOFHY:
Accepting anyone'svtheology has nothing to do with salvation, as you need no reminding. We are saved by accepting Christ.

In fact, you have my point arse backwards. With 12 Mainstream Christian Denominational Churches, seven American Fundamenalists Organizations, Hebrew-Christians, Moonies, and a multiplicity of small sects, let us hope that salvation is not so chancey as that we are sitting in the right pew on The Day of the Lord.







Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[kofh2u]

I don't find much of use in Koph2u's theology. However, I kinda like wacky people (maybe because I am one). While most ideas generated by people like him are not going to work (as is the case with most people) once in a while an interesting insight arises out of people like this. Thus, I listen and sift through the chaff

I am always reminded of a little known scientist named Julius Robert Mayer. This passage from a delightful book tells his story, wacky ideas and all

"In the beginning, Mayer imagined, the universe had
been brought into existence by a single, inexpressibly huge
force, which he called the Ursache, German for 'the Cause.'
Subsequently, the Ursache had split up into smaller, diverse
krafte ('forces'), each of which now powered some particular
aspect of the universe, be it electric, chemical, thermal,
and so forth.

"Mayer alienated theologians with his lack of reference
to God and scientists with his reference to the
supernatural-like Ursache. Not surprisingly, therefore,
Mayer was rejected when he tried publishing the theory in
Annalen der Physik and Chemie ('Annals of Physics and
Chemistry'), one of Europe's most prestigious scientific
journals.

"Thereafter, even when Mayer's explanations were more
conventional, his reputation for being and oddball
prejudiced the reviews his work received from peers. At no
time was this more evident than in the winter of 1840, when
young Dr. Mayer agreed to serve as physician aboard a Dutch
merchant ship bound from Rotterdam to Surabaya, Java.

"Like most nineteenth-century doctors, Mayer treated
his patients by bleeding them, the theory being that a
surfeit of blood was what caused the body to become swollen
with illness. At first, Mayer did not notice anything
abnormal in the blood he let from the sailors. But as the
journey took them closer and closer to the tropics, he
noticed their blood becoming redder and redder.

"This puzzling phenomenon, he decided, was an
unexpected validation of the popular caloric theory of heat
and Lavoisier's ideas about biological combustion. Back in
the Netherlands, he reasoned, the cold weather had forced
the sailors' bodies to generate a lot of heat in order to
stay warm. In this progressively warmer climate, however,
their bodies' combustion mechanism was able to throttle
down. Therefore, less of the air inhaled by the sailors was
burned up; more of the air was simply absorbed into their
blood, causing it to become redder.

"Had it been announced by anyone else, this astonishing
discovery would have been hailed by the caloric-theory-
loving establishment. But coming from this iconoclastic
young Bavarian, the elegant explanation was published with
very little reaction or appreciation from his peers.

"Disheartened but undefeated, Mayer proceeded to do
himself even greater harm by incorporating his very credible
explanation of the sailors' reddening blood into the
framework of his very incredible Ursache theory. The cross-
breeding produced a chimeric view of the world that
horrified the contemporary mind.

"According to Mayer, the one huge seminal force that
had split up into many smaller and smaller forces was, to
this day, still splintering. The sun's force, for example,
was now bifurcating into a luminous force (sunlight) and
thermal force (solar heat), both of which were being
transformed by plants into a chemical force (food), which
itself was being split up in multitudinous ways by the
living creatures that consumed it.

"Some of the chemical force was being converted by the
creatures' internal combustion chambers into a thermal force
(body heat) and some by their muscles into a mechanical
force (body movement). Some of the chemical force, also, was
being converted by the creatures' voice boxes into an
acoustic force (sounds) and by their brains into an electric
force (neural impulses).

"Mayer's grand conclusion? The strengths of all the
subordinate forces of today—luminous, thermal, chemical, and
others yet unnamed—added up exactly to the strength of the
original Ursache, from which they all had sprouted. In other
words, though things everywhere appeared to be changing
ceaselessly, the total amount of force in the universe was
one of the great constants of life; it never had changed,
and it never would change.

"It was like saying that a barterer's total wealth
remained unchanged, even though the number of her
possessions increased steadily. It could happen, if the
wealth were being split up into an increasing number of
lesser and lesser expensive items.

"Years hence, in the hands of Clausius and others,
Mayer's fantastic assertions would become one of the most
sacred theories in all of science. But this was 1842, and
though young Dr. Mayer managed to get it published in a
respectable journal, Annalen der Chemie ('Annals of
Chemistry'), his theory of the natural world was widely
snubbed.

"Most of his colleagues rejected it, based solely on
their wariness of the author's reputation for odd ideas.
Those few who did bother to contemplate the theory rejected
it for speaking of a thermal force being transformed into
other forces (e.g., the sun's thermal force being
transformed by plants into a chemical force). According to
the caloric theory, heat—whether called a force or a fluid
or whatever—could not be destroyed and then reincarnated as
something else. Heat, the caloric disciples chanted, was
indestructible."

"In the years ahead, Mayer's despair worsened. Since
most scientists had never even read his paper, they were not
able to give him credit, even when they began to publish
theories reminiscent of his own. IN 1847, for example, the
great Hermann Ludwig von Helmholtz, a fellow German,
published Uber die Erhaltung der Kraft ('Concerning the
Conservation of Force"). It was hailed as a brilliant piece
of work, suggesting the exciting possibility that the
combined strengths of all natural forces in the universe
never changed, yet not once was Mayer's name even mentioned!

"By this time, Mayer had come to the very threshold of
a nervous breakdown, and his doctors were threatening to
commit him to a mental hospital. Mayer's woes increased
further when he was arrested by insurgents during the
Revolution of 1848, a violet paroxysm of German nationalism.
He was released shortly afterward, but two years later, all
the frustration and alienation of his tormented life finally
caught up with him: One night, unable to sleep, the thirty-
six-year-old pariah climbed out of bed and leapt from the
window of his second-story apartment.

"Much to his chagrin, however, Mayer did not succeed in
killing himself; he was still alive, but why? While his
colleagues were still trying to understand the source of
life, now more than ever, he craved only to understand the
meaning of life. He cursed fate for his continued suffering,
not realizing that in this most tragic year of his
discontent, his ideas—his life—were about to be validated by
a young Prussian physicist who finally would get to the
heart of heat."

After thermodynamics was established, here was the reaction.

"Within a short time, therefore, Rudolf Julius Emmanuel
Clausius was being praised all over Europe—and so were Joule
and the outcast Mayer, whose work had inspired the young
scientist. It was a turning point for all three, but
especially for Mayer, who in the years ahead was made a
member of the world-famous French Academy of Sciences and
awarded their prestigious Prix Poncelet for a lifetime of
outstanding achievement; by the time Mayer died at the age
of sixty-four, he was at peace, having received the credit
he had so desperately sought as a tormented young man."

And he was still wacky.

edited to add. his usache which split is a remarkably modern-like idea, kind of like symmetry breaking.


Thanx u for adding this story to my growing list of unrecog ized, even martyred-like men of the Arts.

Of course you know Avogadro couldn't even get anyone's attention in his day. Newton's Law of Gravity would have remained unpublished if it were not for Halley, an insurance salesman, who needed to know about the possibility of a cyclic return of a comet he saw. He heard that some fruitcake had said something about the moon circles around the earth.

Of course, Galilleo paid dearly, as did the priest, Caperinicus.

Ohm's Law is used so fundamentally, and so easily verified today few would know he was scorned, fired, riduculed, and berated for telling us about it.

These are saints of science, but we have them in fine arts, Vangogh, and in aeronautics, and everywhere.

Could it be that our human condition is such that we deny the new, reinforce the Traditional, hate the only thing permanent which is change?

Is it the nutcases we ought examine, or is the Christian message in part, tolerance and self-examination?

Whar do we fear, is it just fear itself, unexamined fear, a reaction to originality? If we have advanced by force of human creativity, if the mother of our invention is ONLY need, then do punish the kook or ourselves by ignoring ideas, unexamined ideas?

Is it arrogance or Status, establishmentarism? Or, is it cowardice?

42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.









Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[maudman]

What is blasphemy?

I am amazed at how it is often used in our speech. Its get shaken and dumped into glass like a James bond martini. People serve it up and say drink.

I think we need a lesson just how blasphemy played out in our Christian heritage. And what it meant to the Israelite culture. There is an understanding that few understand about just what happened in Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago. Oh there are many who can tell of events and the things written but there are few to nearly non that can tell you what really drove the events that transpired. And if you don’t think blasphemy was the cornerstone of our Christian heritage you are sorely confused.

I was debating with myself as to whether I should post this or not and my spirit is grieved because I feel compelled to do it when normally I wouldn’t. To post what I’m about to post under the conditions and spirit that prevails under which I feel force to post because it’s not how I would normally discuss this thing. The truth should be the Good news and is best received in the spirit of thanksgiving not in contempt or accusations, or bickering. We are instructed by our forefathers to put such behavior behind us.

Have you ever wondered why Israel was hated the way they were in the Scripture by the rest of the world? It was because of the spirit of “””HOW DARE YOU””””. Do you know what shocks me about most Christians is how ignorant about One word in the entire bible that gets used on daily basis by so many and yet few know its meaning, and it’s the name ISRAEL.

Romanized Yisra'el
Pronounced yis-raw-ale'

from HSN8280 and HSN0410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity:

KJV--Israel.

You see the very name of Israel is blasphemy the way you’ll are saying it and using it.

Israel is actually three Hebrew words made into one. IYSH one of the Hebrew word for man which carries the attributes of a man of High degree or high standing ruler. The second word is RAW-DAW it’s a primitive root which means to subjugate, reign over, have dominion, RULE. The last word Is EL is a primitive particle and is in conjunction with GOD, it actually means “The Man who will rule as God”! To clarify it a little further AS means to the degree or amount: Equally. Now as I posted earlier the Hebrew word EL-OHIYM is a translated GOD and is plural form of the word like the word family it means the God family. So Israel is a family that shall rule as God. It is through them Gods will is going to be made known to mankind.

These things are very important to understand and this understanding plays an important role in the Israel community in Jerusalem in antiquity and don’t think for one minute that Israel misunderstood the meaning of the name which was their National Identity. Now with the understanding that there is going to be this Messiah that is going to come and he is going to bring this people to the status or fulfillment of “their national identity”. This man who is going to be to some in their belief, basically a reincarnation of their king David or a man born of his linage, This man isn’t suppose to be God incarnated but a man anointed of God for their greatness. They’re not looking to find Identity in this Messiah but he is coming so they can fulfill “their Identity”. You see their not ruling anything and their hope is in this Messiah this man of God, their not looking for God as a Man accepted in Israel as a whole. The whole concept of a man claiming to be God didn’t make much sense cause the man that is to rule as God was going to be the Israel family. This messiah would be part of the identity that was prophesied in Israel but not it in itself.
What most don’t understand is that not even this messiah was exempted for blasphemy charges. That no man could be God but only anointed of God. This was the majorities acceptable dogma.

Now consider what we know about this Person call Jesus of Nazareth who outright isn’t born from what most would see as the upper echelons of the Jewish society. He is just a man born from humble beginnings to his people. And the only thing that would give any indication that he was other was his speech, the things he would say, and later the miracles that he would later perform during his earthly ministry. Now also consider that his claim as the messiah is only revealed to his closest followers the apostles and he instructs them that they aren’t to utter a word of his true Identity of being the messiah until after his “””death”””. His gospel had nothing to do with his being their messiah. “””Even if he made the claim of being the messiah it may have not helped his blasphemy charges”””” even when their prophecies that pointed otherwise. He made no public acknowledgment of what he actually was, so to the Jews he was just a man claiming to be the son of God which is the same as saying he was God. They didn’t differeniciate between the two. If he had made claims of being the messiah it would have completely derailed what the messiah was to do because of their perception of what they were expecting from this Individual. You see the point is Israel didn’t truly understood what it meant to be “””the man who was to rule as God””””. They weren’t expecting to find their Identity but to have it fulfilled and there expectations were premature empirically speaking. They were suffering from and Identity crisis.

Now consider some of the statement that our lord “God in the flesh” and savoir puts forth.

Matt 25:
45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. “Blasphemy”
1 Corinthians

19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's (Blasphemy) at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

These verses are at the heart of the Gospel. But if Christ was considered blasphemous and he is the firstfruit of many fruit even to them that were asleep already how much more to them that come after. That Our Father is Going to bring his entire creation and make it subject to His Christ and Christ’s and they are to rule as God and execute the will of the father. These statements are all blasphemous to the world but it is our hope and not in vain that it become a reality.

Christianity as well as Israel is founded on what is to the world blasphemy. The hatred of the world does not come on Gods people because of some watered down apologetic bull SH*&. It is to us the power of our God and the testimony of his Christ and Christ’s if you ain’t got the guts to walk the walk and talk the talk don’t expect much in the kingdom of Heaven because you will be considered the “””least”””. Make no bones about it Our God and savior did come to die suffer the most unimaginable death for a second rate compromising TE,YEC, OEC bull he came so his children could receive their inheritance. “””You pitiful poor SAPS”””. You neither express the truth of the Gospel nor do you represent its power in any empirical or metaphysical expression. I fear the Judgment that shall befall you in the near future. Blasphemy is only sin to those who say they are Gods children and do not the will of the Father.

And they shall wonder whose names are not written in the lambs book of life written before the foundation.

[rogero]

I don't find much of use in Koph2u's theology. However, I kinda like wacky people (maybe because I am one). While most ideas generated by people like him are not going to work (as is the case with most people) once in a while an interesting insight arises out of people like this. Thus, I listen and sift through the chaff
...

Yeah, Glennn, you're probably right -- I should just sit back and enjoy the Qophy Show. :wink: It's difficult to find comedy material this good -- anywhere.

He has said some amusingly wacky things, such as Noah's Ark being a Cube which represents the skull of Homo sapiens:



The "ark" which is symbolic of a closed cube shaped box, refers to the skull of Modern Homo Sapiens. Inside was the "three floors" of the mind: the Conscious Mind, the Subconscious Mind, and the Unconscious Mind.



Which can be found in this (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39912&highlight=noah%27s+ark+cube+kofh2u) thread started by Sylas. The thread will show the Tweb neophyte a peek inside the noggin of our Philadephia Prophet.

R

P.S. I just hope and pray no one, especially an impressionable young Christian, takes this fella seriously. You're right though, I shouldn't let him get to me.

[rogero]

Here's (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=447911&postcount=19) another gem from the Qophy archives. Makes you want to place your order immediately for the Freudian Bible with the Kofh Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA -- does it not? :pot: :dizzy: :shrug: :lolo:

... Of course, if you want your free copy, just be one of the 144,000 "true" Christians who happen to be on a peace march in Jerusalem at the time when God ordains, and David Judah Layb (aka Kofh2u) will hand one to you personally!

[kofh2u]

What is blasphemy?

I am amazed at how it is often used in our speech. Its get shaken and dumped into glass like a James bond martini. People serve it up and say drink.

I think we need a lesson just how blasphemy played out in our Christian heritage. And what it meant to the Israelite culture. There is an understanding that few understand about just what happened in Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago. Oh there are many who can tell of events and the things written but there are few to nearly non that can tell you what really drove the events that transpired. And if you don’t think blasphemy was the cornerstone of our Christian heritage you are sorely confused.

I was debating with myself as to whether I should post this or not and my spirit is grieved because I feel compelled to do it when normally I wouldn’t. To post what I’m about to post under the conditions and spirit that prevails under which I feel force to post because it’s not how I would normally discuss this thing. The truth should be the Good news and is best received in the spirit of thanksgiving not in contempt or accusations, or bickering. We are instructed by our forefathers to put such behavior behind us.

Have you ever wondered why Israel was hated the way they were in the Scripture by the rest of the world? It was because of the spirit of “””HOW DARE YOU””””. Do you know what shocks me about most Christians is how ignorant about One word in the entire bible that gets used on daily basis by so many and yet few know its meaning, and it’s the name ISRAEL.

Romanized Yisra'el
Pronounced yis-raw-ale'

from HSN8280 and HSN0410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity:

KJV--Israel.

You see the very name of Israel is blasphemy the way you’ll are saying it and using it.

Israel is actually three Hebrew words made into one. IYSH one of the Hebrew word for man which carries the attributes of a man of High degree or high standing ruler. The second word is RAW-DAW it’s a primitive root which means to subjugate, reign over, have dominion, RULE. The last word Is EL is a primitive particle and is in conjunction with GOD, it actually means “The Man who will rule as God”! To clarify it a little further AS means to the degree or amount: Equally. Now as I posted earlier the Hebrew word EL-OHIYM is a translated GOD and is plural form of the word like the word family it means the God family. So Israel is a family that shall rule as God. It is through them Gods will is going to be made known to mankind.

These things are very important to understand and this understanding plays an important role in the Israel community in Jerusalem in antiquity and don’t think for one minute that Israel misunderstood the meaning of the name which was their National Identity. Now with the understanding that there is going to be this Messiah that is going to come and he is going to bring this people to the status or fulfillment of “their national identity”. This man who is going to be to some in their belief, basically a reincarnation of their king David or a man born of his linage, This man isn’t suppose to be God incarnated but a man anointed of God for their greatness. They’re not looking to find Identity in this Messiah but he is coming so they can fulfill “their Identity”. You see their not ruling anything and their hope is in this Messiah this man of God, their not looking for God as a Man accepted in Israel as a whole. The whole concept of a man claiming to be God didn’t make much sense cause the man that is to rule as God was going to be the Israel family. This messiah would be part of the identity that was prophesied in Israel but not it in itself.
What most don’t understand is that not even this messiah was exempted for blasphemy charges. That no man could be God but only anointed of God. This was the majorities acceptable dogma.

Now consider what we know about this Person call Jesus of Nazareth who outright isn’t born from what most would see as the upper echelons of the Jewish society. He is just a man born from humble beginnings to his people. And the only thing that would give any indication that he was other was his speech, the things he would say, and later the miracles that he would later perform during his earthly ministry. Now also consider that his claim as the messiah is only revealed to his closest followers the apostles and he instructs them that they aren’t to utter a word of his true Identity of being the messiah until after his “””death”””. His gospel had nothing to do with his being their messiah. “””Even if he made the claim of being the messiah it may have not helped his blasphemy charges”””” even when their prophecies that pointed otherwise. He made no public acknowledgment of what he actually was, so to the Jews he was just a man claiming to be the son of God which is the same as saying he was God. They didn’t differeniciate between the two. If he had made claims of being the messiah it would have completely derailed what the messiah was to do because of their perception of what they were expecting from this Individual. You see the point is Israel didn’t truly understood what it meant to be “””the man who was to rule as God””””. They weren’t expecting to find their Identity but to have it fulfilled and there expectations were premature empirically speaking. They were suffering from and Identity crisis.

Now consider some of the statement that our lord “God in the flesh” and savoir puts forth.

Matt 25:
45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. “Blasphemy”
1 Corinthians

19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's (Blasphemy) at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

These verses are at the heart of the Gospel. But if Christ was considered blasphemous and he is the firstfruit of many fruit even to them that were asleep already how much more to them that come after. That Our Father is Going to bring his entire creation and make it subject to His Christ and Christ’s and they are to rule as God and execute the will of the father. These statements are all blasphemous to the world but it is our hope and not in vain that it become a reality.

Christianity as well as Israel is founded on what is to the world blasphemy. The hatred of the world does not come on Gods people because of some watered down apologetic bull SH*&. It is to us the power of our God and the testimony of his Christ and Christ’s if you ain’t got the guts to walk the walk and talk the talk don’t expect much in the kingdom of Heaven because you will be considered the “””least”””. Make no bones about it Our God and savior did come to die suffer the most unimaginable death for a second rate compromising TE,YEC, OEC bull he came so his children could receive their inheritance. “””You pitiful poor SAPS”””. You neither express the truth of the Gospel nor do you represent its power in any empirical or metaphysical expression. I fear the Judgment that shall befall you in the near future. Blasphemy is only sin to those who say they are Gods children and do not the will of the Father.

And they shall wonder whose names are not written in the lambs book of life written before the foundation.


Maudy,
Could you be more direct?

What I get from your writing, which I think is not what you mean, is that blasphemy is saying Jesus IS God, as opposed to Son of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.








Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

[rogero]

Maudy,
Could you be more direct?

What I get from your writing, which I think is not what you mean, is that blasphemy is saying Jesus IS God, as opposed to Son of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


Maudy,

Neither of the above. Ask the Lion of Judah (Judah Layb) how he thinks he and his idiotic "Freudian Bible Interpretation - FBI" has a role in God's plan for the future, i.e., eschatology.

AFAICS, "blasphemy" according to the Cough-meister is disagreeing either with his scatological commentary on scripture or opposing any TWeb participant who listens to and tolerates his confusing detritus.

Please, I adjure you, do not be mlslead by this moron. Have a go at his posts here. If you don't think he's an absolute nutcase, then please start a thread in defense of the Cough-meister.

Roger





Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

Very Good, David Judah Layb --- you're beginning to recognize your own faults. That's a very good first step... :lol:

[maudman]

Maudy,
Could you be more direct?

What I get from your writing, which I think is not what you mean, is that blasphemy is saying Jesus IS God, as opposed to Son of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!!

It would have been seen as blasphemy for any man to claim to be God. And saying that you are the son of God is the same.

The Messiah wasn't believed or seen as the literal son of God but an annoited one out of Adam and David an anointed king from their lineage.

Christ title was son of Adam and Son of David, Jesus claim of being the son of God would be taken as blasphemy. When a man and woman joined as man and wife they became one flesh by the offspring. Jesus claim to be the son of God ment he was ONe with God.

John 10:33 reflect the charge which was blasphemy, the nature of the blasphemy was his claim to be God. Blasphemy was a charge that carried any one of a number things Jesus's blasphemy was he claimed that God was his father. They weren't looking for a savior, but a king an anointed one. Not God in the flesh, They had the law for attonement. Christ just wasn't telling them what the messiah actually was because he never made the claim publically.

[kofh2u]

maudy:
It would have been seen as blasphemy for any man to claim to be God.
And saying that you are the son of God is the same.

KOFHY:
True, for Jews in that day and today, that's their understanding, I guess:
John 10:36; 19:7
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemest;" because I said, I am the Son of God?
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

BUT FOR CHRISTIANS:
Jesus had a different understanding of the Old Testament, right?

He said blasphemy against the spirit is unforgivable.

But, about saying someone is "the son of God"... NO PROBLEM

Rom. 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Phil. 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless,...
... the sons of God,...

... without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called...
... the sons of God:...

maudy:
The Messiah wasn't believed or seen as the literal son of God but an annoited one out of Adam and David an anointed king from their lineage.

KOFHY:
You mean the messiah whom they expected, right?

But, they forgot that Malachi promised that a miracle working Elijah to come BEFORE the messiah, king.

Jesus, the messiah to us, would be more recognizable to the Jew today as their Elijah.

Think about it.

maudy:
Christ's title was son of Adam and Son of David, Jesus' claim of being the son of God would be taken as blasphemy.

KOFHY:
The Jews needed a messiah to throw off the Roman yoke. Their focus on this selfish demand ignored their own tradition that a suffering messiah, the messiah ben Joseph must come first.

We are awaiting the messiah ben David, the lion of Judah, the root of David:

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, ...the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, ...

...hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven (7) seals thereof.












Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!! Unfair interpretive technique!!!

[maudman]

maudy:
It would have been seen as blasphemy for any man to claim to be God.
And saying that you are the son of God is the same.

KOFHY:
True, for Jews in that day and today, that's their understanding, I guess:
John 10:36; 19:7
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, "Thou blasphemest;" because I said, I am the Son of God?
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.


yeah pretty much


BUT FOR CHRISTIANS:
Jesus had a different understanding of the Old Testament, right?


YES, PROBABLY THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE TO SAY, FROM WHAT WE SEE HE NEW IT WHERE THEY DIDN'T.



He said blasphemy against the spirit is unforgivable.

But, about saying someone is "the son of God"... NO PROBLEM

Rom. 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Phil. 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless,...
... the sons of God,...

... without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called...
... the sons of God:...


YEP, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IT, ANY BODY CLAIMING TO BE A CHRISTIAN, IS COMMINTING BLASPHEMY IN THE EYES OF THE JEWS OF HIS DAY, CHRISTIAN WERE SEEN AS BLASPHEMERS.


maudy:
The Messiah wasn't believed or seen as the literal son of God but an annoited one out of Adam and David an anointed king from their lineage.

KOFHY:
You mean the messiah whom they expected, right?

But, they forgot that Malachi promised that a miracle working Elijah to come BEFORE the messiah, king.

Jesus, the messiah to us, would be more recognizable to the Jew today as their Elijah.

Think about it.


YEP, APART FOR HIS CLAIM TO BE THE SON OF GOD, THEY THOUGHT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ELIJAH EVEN THEN.


maudy:
Christ's title was son of Adam and Son of David, Jesus' claim of being the son of God would be taken as blasphemy.

KOFHY:
The Jews needed a messiah to throw off the Roman yoke. Their focus on this selfish demand ignored their own tradition that a suffering messiah, the messiah ben Joseph must come first.



It was definetly more Roman than it was for the Jews hatred of him. If you were one who was ruling in Judea it wouldn't be hard to understand what they did. From a political and religius perspective. But like today you had different Jewish sec screaming different things you had your orthidox and hellinistic Jews both ends of the spectrum just like we have in the christian communities today.



We are awaiting the messiah ben David, the lion of Judah, the root of David:

Rev. 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, ...the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, ...

...hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven (7) seals thereof.


yep, that's pretty much what were doing waiting for the same person they have been. Everybody is still waitning.

[kofh2u]

yeah pretty much

yep, that's pretty much what were doing waiting for the same person they have been. Everybody is still waitning.

And, while we are waiting,...
12 Denominational Christian Mainstream Churchs,...
seven American Fundamentalists Groups,...
the Moonies,...
The Hebrew-Christian Movement,...
and innumerable Christ proclaiming Sects are all insisting that only they read scripture correctly.

They demonstrate more than intolerance for one another, but repression of free speech. They forget... "Elijah was here and see how ye treated him"...

I think the First Coming was the "dry run" for Christians to reflect upon what kind of behavior ought be appropriate for them. Do you agree?

What the First Coming tells, is about Human Nature and the arrived messiah.

The messiah throws no stones at glass houses...

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).









Brackets! Ugh! Heresy! Blasphemy! No fair! Evil! Dumb! Cheat! Satanic!!! Unfair interpretive technique!!!

[Lion]

Thanks, Maudman for the insight into Jewish thinking at the time of Christ. I had always thought it was because he didn’t come as a conqering king, although the blasphemy charge does ring a bell. I had always thought the Jews were looking for a messiah to deliver them from the tyrrany of whatever power they were living under at the time, and they were a rebellious lot.

Changing the subject, talking to all of you,
I wonder if you gave any thought to how we got the Bible?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.2 Tim 3: 16, 17.

2Pet. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I have noticed several times in the past, particularly Kofhy playing fast and loose with the word of God. It is offensive, particularly to one who holds the word of God sacred. To me, meddling with the plain statements of scripture is close to blasphemy. It is all right to quote scripture and then say what it means but not to garble the text with meaningless drivel.

[maudman]

And, while we are waiting,...
12 Denominational Christian Mainstream Churchs,...
seven American Fundamentalists Groups,...
the Moonies,...
The Hebrew-Christian Movement,...
and innumerable Christ proclaiming Sects are all insisting that only they read scripture correctly.



They demonstrate more than intolerance for one another, but repression of free speech. They forget... "Elijah was here and see how ye treated him"...


Matthew 11

9. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Jesus was more than a prophet.

10. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

John the Baptist was Elijah, He was preparing the way for the The messiah.


I think the First Coming was the "dry run" for Christians to reflect upon what kind of behavior ought be appropriate for them. Do you agree?


I would disagree, He was preparing they way to take the kingdom of heaven. By vilolence. Spiritual warfare.


What the First Coming tells, is about Human Nature and the arrived messiah.


Not really in my opinion. Although we could rationalize some things that point to the flaws of human nature and how God would deal with it. Your combining two things human spirit and nature as one in a synthesis. Christ was dealing with hell and redemption. He came so that those who predestined before the foundation of the world could recieve their Inheritance. That why he is their savior.

The problem is TE's are trying to rationalize humans and nature to get at sin and your nowhere close. Ignoring the fact that Sin Krept into the kingdom of heaven and it suffereth violence. Your either trying to evolve good or the Evil. You rationalize Good existed first and therefore it is paradigm that drive the interpitation.

Because most TE's have a better understanding of science and evlotion it suffers because it dirve their interpitaion of the bible which doesn't need that slant to understand.


The messiah throws no stones at glass houses...

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of scriptural interpretion) shall he not
break, and smoking flax (of misguided dogma) shall he not quench, till (after) he send forth (good) judgment unto victory (in ecumenical amalgamation).


Well that depends. Sometimes he drives a mack truck through your livingroom. Its an issue of truth and sometime it can get nasty. Whats the point of persicussion. Glass house are coming down. What most don't understand is that Christ said we should be considerate to those in the faith and seek not to destroy their faith for truths sake. Faith was more important, Faith that God had justfied.


peace.

[kofh2u]

Matthew 11

9. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Jesus was more than a prophet.

10. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

John the Baptist was Elijah, He was preparing the way for the The messiah.



I would disagree, He was preparing they way to take the kingdom of heaven. By vilolence. Spiritual warfare.



Not really in my opinion. Although we could rationalize some things that point to the flaws of human nature and how God would deal with it. Your combining two things human spirit and nature as one in a synthesis. Christ was dealing with hell and redemption. He came so that those who predestined before the foundation of the world could recieve their Inheritance. That why he is their savior.

The problem is TE's are trying to rationalize humans and nature to get at sin and your nowhere close. Ignoring the fact that Sin Krept into the kingdom of heaven and it suffereth violence. Your either trying to evolve good or the Evil. You rationalize Good existed first and therefore it is paradigm that drive the interpitation.

Because most TE's have a better understanding of science and evlotion it suffers because it dirve their interpitaion of the bible which doesn't need that slant to understand.



Well that depends. Sometimes he drives a mack truck through your livingroom. Its an issue of truth and sometime it can get nasty. Whats the point of persicussion. Glass house are coming down. What most don't understand is that Christ said we should be considerate to those in the faith and seek not to destroy their faith for truths sake. Faith was more important, Faith that God had justfied.


peace.


Yeah..."seek not to destroy their faith for truths sake."

That's my favored retort to people who insist my presentation are an abomination.

Many people, nevertheless, have been both complimentary to me and even appropriated the idea of direct, in text and context bracketing.
These people apparently recognize the difference between Form and Content. They need not agree with my Content, and certainly might elect to replace in with their own.

It is quite convincing, though, to have a Bible written so plainly reading as anyother "novel." The pathos or general story line has a theme that is reiterated and carried through from beginning to end.

A critique examining contradiction proves the Freudian Bible Interpretation to be coherent and open to a traditional exegesis that is quite satisfactory in my opinion. The value of this bracketed approach is to be found in its ability to make simple meaningfrom hard puzzling passages of cryptic phrases, symbolism,and both historical and bible references.

With this said, I can add my own sum to your own personal take, quoted above.

The FBI is TE in that it explains the coming of new creatures, in a short twinkling of time now very near. Unlike the "flood" of Modern Homo sapiens 40,000 days and nights ago which drove previous humanoids to extinction, Modern man will merely change mentally.

The FBI equates this non-physical, intangible mental apparati, mind, to Spirit. It is this spirit of mind that has been made capable to image the creator in understanding His creation. As Sons of God, mankind will fulfill the meaning of YHVH, "I am what I will become."

YHVH will become a physical presence on the earth, He, in spirit or immanently, within the mind of men, will be among us. Jung, defining The Collective Unconscious Mind realized His presence, but did not understand His significance. The day of the Lord comes when we see clearly The Collective Total Conscious Mind, not through a sea of glassas at present.

The gift of salvation through Christ has made us ready. We in western society have only one name for God in heaven now, the pagans long gone.

We are ready for our remission from original sin.

We are ready to be collectively born again, washed of our innate, almost inherited attitude of Selfishness.

The Lamb of God has prepared us by remorse for His crucifixion to realize that Altruism is the choice for a future, for an eternal life of genetic rebirths and physical and mental resurrections from our Human Gene Pool.

The proofs are in the details as are the secrets promised, hidden manna.

I think I see a compatibility with what I just said and the quote of yours above it which I previously read.

Perhaps you do too, and, perhaps not. But, as you said, this is immaterial to your independent faith.

It has not gone unnoticed that you try to walk the talk, that sacrifice is not as important as mercy, and that know the Holy Spirit.

love bro.

[airbornisgood4u]

Alright, this is a tough issue if you beleive the descent of man has a great deal of evidence behind it which i do. But I also beleive, not necessarily in Genesis, but in the books that Paul writes that it is clear there was an original adam, and Eve. I have thought about this forever, and have looked at Morton's ideas about how to harmonize this, and i believe it's an excellent try, but i just don't see how the genealogies can go back that far, no Hebrew expert beleieves they stretched that long. The most I would stretch them (because I do beleive there were gaps) is about 100,000 years or 200,000 assuming these were the longest stretched geneologies ever made. So I see God as building man up from the apes, with transitional forms until man begins participating in spiritual art. When he does this, i beleive a spirit needs to be present with him, so Adam must have been right before this spiritual art started. There are drawings in caves, before 100,000 years ago, but not very spiritual I don't think. Therefore Adam was possibly Homo Sapien Sapien or something slightly lower than anatomically modern humans. God there, did two things, he gave man a spirit that was different from the souls of the animals, and came into a covenant with man. Issues with the text have been brought up before, I agree with Stephen Jones, that the idea that God literally breathed into man a spirit would mean God has a literal body, and we don't want to be mormon's, so I don't take this literally. Formed is used in other places in the bible, and so is created, but whenever it speaks like these we all know that the men it is talking about God forming were born of a mother. So i take "formed man from the dust of the earth" to mean a process , not necessarily a single special creation act. I agree with morton that God says "Dust you are", so we don't have to take the dust part literally either. The distinction of man's spirit is hard, but i beleive our bodies have a purpose and that is to be able to accomplish what our spirit wills. Men allready had souls before they had a spirit, and i beleive this had to do with certain emotions, and the abillity to make simple decisions. God then added the spirit to man, which makes us able to realize him, and participate in aesthetic experiences, and much deeper emotional thinking too. I do beleive in a literal adam and eve, beleive certain aspects of genesis 1-3 are non-literal, and am a Framework advocate, or a anthropomorphic day advocate, just as long the days are understood as God's workdays, I take that position. thanks. Please respond to my view if you like, take me on something. challenge me. bye everyone!

[maudman]

Alright, this is a tough issue if you beleive the descent of man has a great deal of evidence behind it which i do. But I also beleive, not necessarily in Genesis, but in the books that Paul writes that it is clear there was an original adam, and Eve. I have thought about this forever, and have looked at Morton's ideas about how to harmonize this, and i believe it's an excellent try, but i just don't see how the genealogies can go back that far, no Hebrew expert beleieves they stretched that long. The most I would stretch them (because I do beleive there were gaps) is about 100,000 years or 200,000 assuming these were the longest stretched geneologies ever made. So I see God as building man up from the apes, with transitional forms until man begins participating in spiritual art. When he does this, i beleive a spirit needs to be present with him, so Adam must have been right before this spiritual art started. There are drawings in caves, before 100,000 years ago, but not very spiritual I don't think. Therefore Adam was possibly Homo Sapien Sapien or something slightly lower than anatomically modern humans. God there, did two things, he gave man a spirit that was different from the souls of the animals, and came into a covenant with man. Issues with the text have been brought up before, I agree with Stephen Jones, that the idea that God literally breathed into man a spirit would mean God has a literal body, and we don't want to be mormon's, so I don't take this literally. Formed is used in other places in the bible, and so is created, but whenever it speaks like these we all know that the men it is talking about God forming were born of a mother. So i take "formed man from the dust of the earth" to mean a process , not necessarily a single special creation act. I agree with morton that God says "Dust you are", so we don't have to take the dust part literally either. The distinction of man's spirit is hard, but i beleive our bodies have a purpose and that is to be able to accomplish what our spirit wills. Men allready had souls before they had a spirit, and i beleive this had to do with certain emotions, and the abillity to make simple decisions. God then added the spirit to man, which makes us able to realize him, and participate in aesthetic experiences, and much deeper emotional thinking too. I do beleive in a literal adam and eve, beleive certain aspects of genesis 1-3 are non-literal, and am a Framework advocate, or a anthropomorphic day advocate, just as long the days are understood as God's workdays, I take that position. thanks. Please respond to my view if you like, take me on something. challenge me. bye everyone!

Welcome: airbornisgood4u

Myself I try to seperate the bible and science one doesn't need the other to be true. They both testify of God. When I look at the bible I try to use it to understand itself. I don't think the bible is a book of the origins of man and that it shouldn't be used as such.

Science can contribute although I think it contributes less to understanding the bible than the bible does. It might be good to read some of the previous post if you haven't done it. just in case you feel like challenging any of the views it helps.

peace airbornisgood4u

[maudman]

Thanks, Maudman for the insight into Jewish thinking at the time of Christ. I had always thought it was because he didn’t come as a conqering king, although the blasphemy charge does ring a bell. I had always thought the Jews were looking for a messiah to deliver them from the tyrrany of whatever power they were living under at the time, and they were a rebellious lot.


Your welcome.


Changing the subject, talking to all of you,
I wonder if you gave any thought to how we got the Bible?


To me one of the most fundemental things a Christian can do is better understand the story behind the bible that sets in front of them. And there are many. Because translations differ it helps to have concordinances and some linguistic guides. Because the translations reflect what those who penned them thought at the time or they massauged the text a little here and there a little. Although I think their efforts were sincere for the most part.



All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.2 Tim 3: 16, 17.
[/QUTOE]

THIS IS TRUE

[QUOTE=Lion]
2Pet. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Yes I believe this to be true and I think the key word there is spoke. Much of what we have in the earliest part of the scriptures were Songs preserved in an oral tradition. And was later preserved in written form as the written language developed. The human Archive the song singer the story teller.


I have noticed several times in the past, particularly Kofhy playing fast and loose with the word of God. It is offensive, particularly to one who holds the word of God sacred. To me, meddling with the plain statements of scripture is close to blasphemy. It is all right to quote scripture and then say what it means but not to garble the text with meaningless drivel.

Well I think it is using a Jewish approach to understanding. Not unlike the talamud in many way's the scripture with a Jewish slant SIGMUND understanding what some see as a Jewish document. It looks like a Fruedian commentary wooven into text. Some of the things I find are actually accurate but others I'm not sure about because I get tired of trying to read text within text. That is on some of his other post in other threads. But he hasn't done it that much here apart from some of his outs.
I have know idea about the agenda that RogerO mentions but RogerO seems to believe or know something and I think he will tell us if he see something he doesn't like. But i'm not offended.

Everybody is somebody elses wierdo.

peace Lion

[kofh2u]

maudy, you mentioned this befor. It certainly takes us off course, but I'd like to add to what you said here:

"Yes I believe this to be true and I think the key word there is spoke. Much of what we have in the earliest part of the scriptures were Songs preserved in an oral tradition. And was later preserved in written form as the written language developed. The human Archive the song singer the story teller."


This is avery important but unknown factor in understanding the Gospels.

The Torah was largely unwritten until @ 900 BC. It was collected and canonized, taking what was available in hand printed scolls. We know of four basic sources. Judah and Ephraim, two separate kingdoms had slightly different forms.

Neverthless, as you say, the whole of Torah was verbal. It was memorized or ritualized. The people, Levites, who had responsiblity for "singing" or dramaically presenting the passages were called the Cohanims.

What is important to us is that the scribes, the educated class, basically "fired" these Cohanim and usurped the presentation to the congregations by reading verses as they continue to do today.
These Cohanim, a vistage still known in the synagogue today, had an art by which to remember the facts, sort of a way to keep the integrity of the bible together. This "fence" which has been referenced vaguely in the Talmud, used the digits of the hands as a memory system which cued the lines of scripture in a presentation.

They held their fingers spread apart, forming like a fork of two pairs, like Spock, the Startrekky.

Laying on of hands in 32AD was related to this:

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan (of forked fingers) is in his hand (held as the Kohamin), and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

[kofh2u]

Lion:
Thanks, Maudman for the insight into Jewish thinking at the time of Christ. I had always thought it was because he didn’t come as a conqering king, although the blasphemy charge does ring a bell.
KOFHY:
Actually, maudy is informative, but only partially correct. The Jews "got" Him on a trumped up charge of blasphemy.
The charges were vague and not so generally accepted as a "crime" as maudy suggests.
In fact, Jesus asked if his blasphemy had been so terrible, why they hadn't arrested him when he said he was tge son of God, right in the Temple.

There is scripture to back this up.

LION:
I had always thought the Jews were looking for a messiah to deliver them from the tyrrany of whatever power they were living under at the time, and they were a rebellious lot.

KOFHY:
You are correct. Most were focused on their own selfish benefits in a messiah. They had a tradition of two messiahs, or one coming twice, as Christian have come to believe. Jesus was their Elijah, promised to return.
We know this because Elijah need come before the messiah ben David. We know this Elijah had had a miraculous birth the first visit. We know this because Elijah had been MORE than a prophet, he had NEVER died! He had ascended to heaven before and did again, in the resurrection of the man we call Jesus.
We know that our Jesus = their Elijah = their "suffering messiah," messiah ben Joseph.
How do we know?
Scripture/Jewish tradition and teaching BEFORE the Talmud of 200-400 AD. And, because of Eli, Eli,...why hast thou forsaken me?"

LION:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;...

KOFHY:
Absolutely!
And you have placed your very finger upon the educational and instruction aid published by Kofh Educational Publishing Corp., namely, The Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation (FBI)!

Whereas reading passages where every student must focus on each and every symbolic reference, all vague phraseology, and every historical or theological reference is "profitable for teaching.:

Each page in the FBI has a duplicate. One page has the empty spaced brackets, WITHOUT editoral comment used "for reproof," i.e.; the teacher's answers, which are on the second page. See? Its like a Directed Reading Assignment. It requires the student to "fill in the blanks."

Then, the discussion and lesson "for correction" consists of comparing the teacher's "answer sheet," or the second page which has all the blank brackers filled in.

LION:
I have noticed several times in the past, particularly Kofhy playing fast and loose with the word of God.

KOFHY:
Hmmm... glass houses and rock throwing... ?
You give no examples, but if you would like I will defend the FBI on a passage or two.

Here, take this educational and informative lesson about a never noticed ONE WORD mystery that the churches have overlooked for 2000 years... specifically BECAUSE they have not utilized the bracketed approach to instruction. They did not require themselves to confront each and every expression in this book of divine revelation to our bible writers.

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan ( "blank" ) is in his hand ( "blank"), and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

LION:
It is offensive, particularly to one who holds the word of God sacred.

KOFHY:
Lion, think about what you said here, its an oxymoron. If one holds the TRUTH so sacred EVERY word and each vague phrase needs direct attention. The micro-analysis of the FBI methodology is one step closer into thevTruth.

LION:
To me, meddling with the plain statements of scripture is close to blasphemy.

KOFHY:
First, "playing fast and loose" with that word, "blasphemy," is reminiscent of the trumped up charges of the bible experts who crucified our Lord.
They could not oppose his interpretations, so they got him on other charges:

Matt. 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

LION:
It is all right to quote scripture and then say what it means but not to garble the text with meaningless drivel.

KOFHY:
But, we don't always KNOW what is meaningful and what isn't. Even word derivations come into play, some peole revisiting the Greek and Latin, even Hebrew. Subtle inferences seem the rule for most exegesis, true?

Like "fan,? CAN YOU find a significance? I have seen this very verse, Matt 3:12, posted just yesterday. But, I have never had anyone or any theologian focus on this divinely revealed cryptic expression.
What does a expert like you make of it, using ANY method of telling us, no brackets needed?








Ted Noel:
The Kophy method cleared it up. Let me see if I get this right. In your view, Jesus says:

[maudman]

maudy, you mentioned this befor. It certainly takes us off course, but I'd like to add to what you said here:

"Yes I believe this to be true and I think the key word there is spoke. Much of what we have in the earliest part of the scriptures were Songs preserved in an oral tradition. And was later preserved in written form as the written language developed. The human Archive the song singer the story teller."


This is avery important but unknown factor in understanding the Gospels.

The Torah was largely unwritten until @ 900 BC. It was collected and canonized, taking what was available in hand printed scolls. We know of four basic sources. Judah and Ephraim, two separate kingdoms had slightly different forms.

Neverthless, as you say, the whole of Torah was verbal. It was memorized or ritualized. The people, Levites, who had responsiblity for "singing" or dramaically presenting the passages were called the Cohanims.

What is important to us is that the scribes, the educated class, basically "fired" these Cohanim and usurped the presentation to the congregations by reading verses as they continue to do today.
These Cohanim, a vistage still known in the synagogue today, had an art by which to remember the facts, sort of a way to keep the integrity of the bible together. This "fence" which has been referenced vaguely in the Talmud, used the digits of the hands as a memory system which cued the lines of scripture in a presentation.

They held their fingers spread apart, forming like a fork of two pairs, like Spock, the Startrekky.

Laying on of hands in 32AD was related to this:

Matt. 3:12 Whose fan (of forked fingers) is in his hand (held as the Kohamin), and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Yes the of statement are coorect.

And I have recieved the laying on of the hands. It isn't something that is dead to christiananity but only to certain christian sect.

[maudman]

Lion:
Thanks, Maudman for the insight into Jewish thinking at the time of Christ. I had always thought it was because he didn’t come as a conqering king, although the blasphemy charge does ring a bell.
KOFHY:
Actually, maudy is informative, but only partially correct. The Jews "got" Him on a trumped up charge of blasphemy.
The charges were vague and not so generally accepted as a "crime" as maudy suggests.
In fact, Jesus asked if his blasphemy had been so terrible, why they hadn't arrested him when he said he was tge son of God, right in the Temple.

There is scripture to back this up.


I don't think the charges were trumpted up. Its that Jesus created a paradox in his ministry he was saying things that were clearly out right blasphemy to Jewish beliefs but at the same time he was doing all these miricles that fractures any thought process that would lead to a decisive action. The leadership failed to act or feared may be better way osf saying it because the people saw him as a prophet.

They had not clearly understood a spiritual meaning in their scriptures. He was taking them to the next level. Blaspemy was a serious charge. Do you dought that you could get stoned for a lot less. How about Mary Mag.


LION:
I had always thought the Jews were looking for a messiah to deliver them from the tyrrany of whatever power they were living under at the time, and they were a rebellious lot.

KOFHY:
You are correct. Most were focused on their own selfish benefits in a messiah. They had a tradition of two messiahs, or one coming twice, as Christian have come to believe. Jesus was their Elijah, promised to return.
We know this because Elijah need come before the messiah ben David. We know this Elijah had had a miraculous birth the first visit. We know this because Elijah had been MORE than a prophet, he had NEVER died! He had ascended to heaven before and did again, in the resurrection of the man we call Jesus.
We know that our Jesus = their Elijah = their "suffering messiah," messiah ben Joseph.
How do we know?
Scripture/Jewish tradition and teaching BEFORE the Talmud of 200-400 AD. And, because of Eli, Eli,...why hast thou forsaken me?"


As showed in the scripture Matthew 11, Jesus told his apostles John the baptist was that prophet in the spirit of Elijah. He said "if they could receive it". And scriptures say he(Jesus) was more than a prophet.

Jesus was the Messiah. He was the SUM SUM SUM SUM of all the prophets. He came to fulfil the law Of all all all all all the Prophets!!!!!!!!!!!

And the Eli Eli.... why hast thou forsaken me, is a quotation of scripture found in psalm 22: 1, He is showing he is the son O David, It is a psalm of David.

[maudman]

hello kophy

About the songs that we have been lightly touching upon. You said something that I found should not go unoticed and it is to your credit. It is something that points to a fundemental truth of the new testament. And you will understand this completely.

When I mention that the transformation of the oral tradition to written form as a better way to preserve you said No! and you are exactly right. This should not go unotice cause YHVH said that he would write his precepts upon our heart and mind and that was what the song was all about.

There is know better way to preserve our God than in the Hearts and Minds of it recipents and is exactly why the Jewish culture has maintained its Idententy throughout the generations is because there God was transportable. While all pagan cultures on the face of the planet have virtually disolved or dilluted, Israels wasn't and this is the very reason.

Those that say that Oral tradition points to a more to inferior means of preservation. Fail to take in the entire saga of Jewish history and this was at the core of their strength. I appoligize for the oversight. Because you had well said.

Peace kophy

[Lion]

Somehow I wish Kofhy would deep six that offensive Freudian hot air he peddles, athough he hasn’t done too much of that in the last few posts.


Maudman, What is your Jewish heritage, if it is a fair question? You showed a deeper understanding than I expected. I never understood the function of a cantor before.

[maudman]

Somehow I wish Kofhy would deep six that offensive Freudian hot air he peddles, athough he hasn’t done too much of that in the last few posts.


Maudman, What is your Jewish heritage, if it is a fair question? You showed a deeper understanding than I expected. I never understood the function of a cantor before.


Hello Lion:

First let me explain how I see things as a Christian. I think that sometimes there is a spirit that prevails that is associated to one’s zealousness and what we believe is truth.

Many people when they learn something new they are compelled to tell all they can about it and what often happens is they don’t understand or ignore or just don’t plain care that the way things are presented don’t go down well. And one should be concerned. Sometimes we have to step back and look at what isn’t going down and ask ourselves why? This is a two way street. Sometime we should ask ourselves why we don’t digest it very well. In the case of KOFH2U, we are used to looking at scripture and then if we “”want”” we will go to a commentary to maybe!!!! If need be gain someone else’s insight. In his case it is a Freudian slant that most are completely estranged to. I mean most of us don’t consider Freud as a means to reveal deeper meaning of the scripture. The question is does it reveal anything to us. Well I don’t own an FBI so honestly I can’t testify to the fact that it does more good than bad. A Christian psychologist might find it VEERY Interesting.

But we shouldn’t ignore the signs of things and as Christians we should make adjustments. As Christians we are told that we are responsible for the gospel and we shouldn’t seek to prematurely ram things down. That in our zealousness to present the truth and cause rejection we may be prematurely causing one to reject something that takes time. In other words we shouldn’t cram a big mac down somebody’s throat. It must be consumed in a more digestible fashion. If your audience takes little bites then serve them that way. And if your vocabulary doesn’t match theirs then its up to the presenter to learn theirs.

But we should also understand that the Gospel was given to very normal people with a practical understanding about life. And that the gospel was presented to such And that no matter how slick things can sound or be it may amount to nothing but dung to our Lord. So it’s better to keep things simple and let the complexity grow. The brackets reflects the interpetation in a micro fashion as KOPHY pointed out earlier.

Yes the cantor was very important to what we now call the written word and we who seek Gods word become cantors in a less formal sence. It was a highly structured religous componet of Jewish culture.

I will have to discuss some later about myself but for now I have said enough.


peace Lion

[Lion]

Maudman, reading between the lines, I detect some Hebrew background somewhere. That is not intended as a derogatory comment. It is only an observation that your familiarity says you have some Jewish background somewhere.

I am familiar with most of the ancient Tabernacle ritual as described in Leviticus. Most people just skip over that and go to the New Testament. But there are some important things in those books.

As to Genesis being a song, I’ve head that before. In fact many of the passages are in poetic form. Most people don’t realize that the psalms are poetic they look for modern poetry rhme and meter but Hebrew poetry is idea based, an idea and a contrast or similar. But you are familiar with that.

The theme of the thread has gotten way off the original theme, more or less on creation. I’m a YEC myself and I believe the gerden of Eden wes real and was destroyed by the flood. What do you think?

[kofh2u]

maudman:

I don't think the charges were trumpted up. Its that Jesus created a paradox in his ministry he was saying things that were clearly out right blasphemy to Jewish beliefs but at the same time he was doing all these miricles that fractures any thought process that would lead to a decisive action. The leadership failed to act or feared may be better way osf saying it because the people saw him as a prophet.

KOFHY:

I find what I bring to your attention important for TWO (2) reasons, nay, three.

1) Christians must defend against rabbi who say the crucifixion means Jesus violated Torah :

"JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS," makes him a human sacrifice for guilt of others.

A human sacrifice for sin violates Deuteronomy.

2) The Jews MUST be told that it was they, THEMSELVES, who violated their own Mosaic Code!

They SACRIFICED a human!

PROOF OF WHAT I SAY:

St John:
"Consider that it is expedient for us, (the Jews), that ONE MAN should be SACRIFICED for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Caiaphas prophesied thatJESUS SHOULD DIE for that nation."

What say you?

[maudman]

Hello Kophy

These are very good points. I knew you were capable of them. I have what I hope will be some good answers.

Kophy :

1) Christians must defend against rabbi who say the crucifixion means Jesus violated Torah :


Maudman:

This is one of the most intelligent responses I have seen in a while concerning these things and your Jewish background shows here.

But to understand this paradox one must better understand the nature of Law. You see to the Jew the Law had become a way of life. Or better said; a way that clearly defined them apart from all others. It had become the life that made them what they appeared to be in relation to the God they served. Their Identity had become entwined in it. I think you can relate to this.

Because evil is so prevalent in man, it would be hard for them after centuries to understand it any different. They had in effect developed an intuitive relationship with it. It had become like a second nature.

But here is the answer. The Law doesn’t define “”life”” it defines “”transgression”” it is in fact a means to define a deviation from a path which is strait and few there be that find it. This is one of the most misunderstood things even to some Christians and what our new covenant says about it is a most marvelous thing. Because some of the statements made by Paul and the convening of the apostles over this. It was even a controversy the very people that walk the earth with our Lord.

You see Jesus could make the statement “”thy sins be forgiven, take up thy bed and walk.” Which was blasphemy to the Jew, Only because they didn’t believe he was the life that was straight that path, from which their law hung. It wasn’t blasphemy in the Eyes of the FATHER only to the law of the torah because he came unto his own and they received him not. And there is no life in the law but transgression. Sin came by the hearing of the law. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. Take away the sin what need is there for the law.

Those that truly Enter into the life that was predestined from the foundation, do not here the law because they desire non of those things which brings upon us the Curse that the law had become to them. Only the Son of God could do what was blasphemy in their law. Because it was through Our lord that the law had come. That is the power and the testimony of our Lord that in him is life not the Law.

Kophy Said:

JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS," makes him a human sacrifice for guilt of others.

A human sacrifice for sin violates Deuteronomy.


Maudman say’s
The truth is it really a final sacrifice for their sin. The truth is it was the will of the Father. Christ prayed; Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me, But not my will, let thy will be done. He came to do the will of the Fathers not Israel’s. Israel actually resisted it more than most realized. He prayed Father forgive them they no not what they do. Our Lord felt their anguish.

You see Kophy only Israel could make a sacrifice that was atonement for sin. They were the only ones that had YHVH’s Law. They didn’t sacrifice God’s only son God did. They were chosen before the foundation to do it.


Kopy said:

2) The Jews MUST be told that it was they, THEMSELVES, who violated their own Mosaic Code!

They SACRIFICED a human!

Maudman say’s

They need to be told that they have been forgiven. That our Lord has called them into his bosom, that they may feel the real love of the Father through his Christ.


Kophy These are some of the best questions I have had to answer in a long time I hope my answers set well with you.

Peace in the love of Yeshua the Messiah

[kofh2u]

mr maudy,
Your responses were very good.

In regard to the guilt of the Jews, (their leaders), yes, they definitely had decided to offer up Jesus to be killed. This was a sacrifice of one Jew instead of all Jews.

A human, sacrifice
to Rome, so as to save themselves... then, indeed, Jews saved by Christ, 9n spite of their protests today,... not spiritually, but concretely and physically.

When Jewish brothers question, even mock salvation by Christ, I remind them of the truth, that Christ was used, their scape goat, to placate Rome.
They were saying, "Not us, some Jews are revolting, but we are with you guys."

Just a point to be made in discussion with Jews.

NOW... IMPORTANT...

Jesus as a human sacrifice did not violate Torah!

Remember I said that.

Neither God, nor a willing Jesus, actually sacrificed a human.
Neither did the rabbi.

Nor did the Jews kill Jesus.

There is no party guilty of violating Deuteronomy's prohibition against Human sacrifice.

No way!

That is the beauty of easter.

This is the sum of God's plan.

This is the greatest individual moment of God's forgiveness, and the essence of his forgiveness.

Because, we are all guilty, including all those people: the earliest Christians, the angry Jews, the apostles themselves who fled him at the Cross, and we today, too, who are not really ready to support his return.
We, who are more likely to quiz him first, put our fingers in every hole of what he may say to us, doubt that He, the messiah is here...

Because we are redeemed at the Cross in His resurrection... NO ONE ACTUALLY KILLED HIM, AFTER ALL.

Easter.

He is risen, not dead, alive evermore!
HabeusCorpus... no body was found. Neithe soldier nor Jew, not Jesus, God actually killed anyone!

[maudman]

That is right Kophy

It was a battle that was taking place in heaven completely beyond the scope of man. For the benefit of man. The kingdom of heaven was being shaken by a mighty wind. Death and hell had been defeated. A battle that has been waging in the mind of man had now been won by forces few have ever had the priviledge of seeing.. How Great!!! Great and marvelous our LOrd truly is and their are few who understand truly from the heart how Great. And yet people still play the blame game.

[maudman]

The theme of the thread has gotten way off the original theme, more or less on creation. I’m a YEC myself and I believe the gerden of Eden wes real and was destroyed by the flood. What do you think?

I agree but sometimes the spirit leads us in a direction. And I think you'll can understand.

Now concerning the thread:

I stated early that I believe that Adam was Literal, Nothing has changed nor will it. I believe the Garden was real. And yes I believed there was a Flood.

But I also believe that the Objects are seen from a heavenly perspective. It is a description that comes from Gods Eye's and not ours. And that is why Metaphors are used. It is Gods perspective of his creation not mans. He is reavealing to man his words not ours. Its about what he has done. """And people have been using their words to understand it""". The words are Gods words looking down from on high and communicates it in words that man can Understand. The things are real make no mistake about it.

You see Lion God is in the Soul harvesting Business and that is the reason for the metafors. Mankind are the objects planted in EDen and in the Garden and the tender of the Garden is man YHWH created which has become known as Adam. He is the dresser and keeper of the Garden. He is a man of God not a man of kind.

peace Lion

[kofh2u]

I agree but sometimes the spirit leads us in a direction. And I think you'll can understand.

Now concerning the thread:

I stated early that I believe that Adam was Literal, Nothing has changed nor will it. I believe the Garden was real. And yes I believed there was a Flood.

But I also believe that the Objects are seen from a heavenly perspective. It is a description that comes from Gods Eye's and not ours. And that is why Metaphors are used. It is Gods perspective of his creation not mans. He is reavealing to man his words not ours. Its about what he has done. """And people have been using their words to understand it""". The words are Gods words looking down from on high and communicates it in words that man can Understand. The things are real make no mistake about it.

You see Lion God is in the Soul harvesting Business and that is the reason for the metafors. Mankind are the objects planted in EDen and in the Garden and the tender of the Garden is man YHWH created which has become known as Adam. He is the dresser and keeper of the Garden. He is a man of God not a man of kind.

peace Lion


How do you feel your understanding of these stories makes a difference, between you and others who claim they accept Christ, yet differ totally in their view?

I add, that these others say they, too, believe the stories, but read their meanings as analology.

[maudman]

How do you feel your understanding of these stories makes a difference, between you and others who claim they accept Christ, yet differ totally in their view?

I add, that these others say they, too, believe the stories, but read their meanings as analology.
Hello Kophy

Well that is a fair question. Which requires a lengthy answer one. I will try to condense one but not sure I can.

There are many beliefs about the first chapters of Genesis. Most people study such things to seek the truth or just to understand what the bible actually says. Some study so they can have an answer for what ever reason. But most of people study the bible with a preconditioned built in bias. In other words these are those who are defenders of the faith and their faith is what they believe base on what they believe they know. “”Now I shouldn’t have to explain the Freudian behind this to you”” right? Everybody prompts for a response. Everybody is making God out in their image and in their likeness; God becomes the sum of their knowledge. But how much does one really know? Or how much does one thinks he knows? How much of what one say’s he knows is really what one believes.

Let’s take TE and YEC for Instance two ends of the spectrum they both approach the Bible as a book of origins for the most part. Interpretations can vary within each belief structure and I have read on both ends. Now take what I have said previously that I don’t think either one should approach the bible as a book concerning the origins of mankind except in context of who and why. That the bible primarily is a book concerning one man and woman who are the ancestors of a people who are the only ones to have a record of the one God YHWH that is nobody “””else’s God.””” Nobody even knows what is going on with this God and his peoples except this people. And the only understanding that most of the world outside this people has of this invisible God is when they come in contact with the people. There isn’t any idolatry that peoples outside can relate to.

Another thing that few have taken in account, those who claim to know so much is that the bible was a Archive in the heads of this people. And if this man Adam and his wife are the first man and woman and it is oral tradition then why doesn’t every culture on the face of the planet have an oral tradition that has been translated or written that bares record of this man and this God? Ask yourself why? And for those that think the flood is Global the complexity just raised by a magnitude of 10 because this Noah and his descendents are the only ones that were supposed to survive. These are just a few of the problems that YEC’s face and there are many many more. But I keep them in reserve just in case.

Now many TE Christian beliefs of which (I was Raised on TE) have their problems in my opinion. First “one” is they use the same approach as YEC (go figure) as the bible is the written word of God and it is about the Origins of man but the stories of genesis are in need of a different interpretation (of which I will agree) there has to be a way that fits evolution (I agree). Then TE’s do one thing right concerning the bible, they see that there are metaphors in Genesis and then most blunder they start using science to interpret metaphors or make the metaphors fit science or they start using things that aren’t metaphors and make them into metaphors. Why? Because they don’t understand the rules for metaphors. Then lets throw in some archeology or Pathology and study ancient cultures an apply what we know to the peoples of the bible. Oh ok. The bible is a lot nice stories and mythological characters that may not have existed. That things become Mythological and spiritualized away all because of one thing Evolution. But hey its got some great moral value and that is why I believe. The bible never say’s that science can explain the God that wrote the bible it say’s that in it you can discern at most GODHEAD. Now many think they know what that means but they don’t. All it say’s is that you can believe in a creator from the evidence of science but it doesn’t say you can KNOW him and there is BIG difference.

Now you ask? How I Believe My understanding is better? It’s not how I know but Why! I know it’s better. TE’s would truly love and hate what I would say. YEC’s would love and hate what I would say. People act like they want to know but they really don’t they just want confirmation of convictions. How could you deal with some who say’s he believes he understand from the first real cause.

Do you believe that there are really Going to be people that can open doors that NO MAN can shut. And if you do? Do you think you are them or you in your life time will ever meet them. But also remember the book given to John and he was told to take it and eat it and in his belly it was bitter but in his mouth sweet as honey. That’s what it means to understand the truth. We think we want it but I’m hear to tell it tears at my inward parts. To whom much is given much is required you may not really want to know.


Peace kophy

[kofh2u]

Hello Kophy

Well that is a fair question. Which requires a lengthy answer one. I will try to condense one but not sure I can.

There are many beliefs about the first chapters of Genesis. Most people study such things to seek the truth or just to understand what the bible actually says. Some study so they can have an answer for what ever reason. But most of people study the bible with a preconditioned built in bias. In other words these are those who are defenders of the faith and their faith is what they believe base on what they believe they know. “”Now I shouldn’t have to explain the Freudian behind this to you”” right? Everybody prompts for a response. Everybody is making God out in their image and in their likeness; God becomes the sum of their knowledge. But how much does one really know? Or how much does one thinks he knows? How much of what one say’s he knows is really what one believes.

Let’s take TE and YEC for Instance two ends of the spectrum they both approach the Bible as a book of origins for the most part. Interpretations can vary within each belief structure and I have read on both ends. Now take what I have said previously that I don’t think either one should approach the bible as a book concerning the origins of mankind except in context of who and why. That the bible primarily is a book concerning one man and woman who are the ancestors of a people who are the only ones to have a record of the one God YHWH that is nobody “””else’s God.””” Nobody even knows what is going on with this God and his peoples except this people. And the only understanding that most of the world outside this people has of this invisible God is when they come in contact with the people. There isn’t any idolatry that peoples outside can relate to.

Another thing that few have taken in account, those who claim to know so much is that the bible was a Archive in the heads of this people. And if this man Adam and his wife are the first man and woman and it is oral tradition then why doesn’t every culture on the face of the planet have an oral tradition that has been translated or written that bares record of this man and this God? Ask yourself why? And for those that think the flood is Global the complexity just raised by a magnitude of 10 because this Noah and his descendents are the only ones that were supposed to survive. These are just a few of the problems that YEC’s face and there are many many more. But I keep them in reserve just in case.

Now many TE Christian beliefs of which (I was Raised on TE) have their problems in my opinion. First “one” is they use the same approach as YEC (go figure) as the bible is the written word of God and it is about the Origins of man but the stories of genesis are in need of a different interpretation (of which I will agree) there has to be a way that fits evolution (I agree). Then TE’s do one thing right concerning the bible, they see that there are metaphors in Genesis and then most blunder they start using science to interpret metaphors or make the metaphors fit science or they start using things that aren’t metaphors and make them into metaphors. Why? Because they don’t understand the rules for metaphors. Then lets throw in some archeology or Pathology and study ancient cultures an apply what we know to the peoples of the bible. Oh ok. The bible is a lot nice stories and mythological characters that may not have existed. That things become Mythological and spiritualized away all because of one thing Evolution. But hey its got some great moral value and that is why I believe. The bible never say’s that science can explain the God that wrote the bible it say’s that in it you can discern at most GODHEAD. Now many think they know what that means but they don’t. All it say’s is that you can believe in a creator from the evidence of science but it doesn’t say you can KNOW him and there is BIG difference.

Now you ask? How I Believe My understanding is better? It’s not how I know but Why! I know it’s better. TE’s would truly love and hate what I would say. YEC’s would love and hate what I would say. People act like they want to know but they really don’t they just want confirmation of convictions. How could you deal with some who say’s he believes he understand from the first real cause.

Do you believe that there are really Going to be people that can open doors that NO MAN can shut. And if you do? Do you think you are them or you in your life time will ever meet them. But also remember the book given to John and he was told to take it and eat it and in his belly it was bitter but in his mouth sweet as honey. That’s what it means to understand the truth. We think we want it but I’m hear to tell it tears at my inward parts. To whom much is given much is required you may not really want to know.


Peace kophy


Thanks for the thoughtful response.

You quote, "in his belly it was bitter but in his mouth sweet as honey," is a favorite and a verse t
at is understood only by those who have come to actual get the message of scripture.

It reminds me of what my father would say about Pogo, his favorite comic:

Pogo said, "I have met the enemy, and he is me."


Yes, we can put people into different groups. Some elect to take scripture seriously because they relate from a YEC perspective, or OEC, TE, even Mormon or moonie position.

And, as you say, most read and defend their perspective the same way they do in regard to country or race or ethniticity. Programmed learning. Enculturated.

I see nothing wrong in this. Much good, in fact.

The evil lies in priesthoods and the self-rightness of orthodoxy.

Jesus said, "Ye traverse the earth far and wide to "save" one proseltyte, and after indoctrination, he's worst off the course of the actual meaning of scripture."

So, to me, a behavioralist interpretor, TE is most useful in synergizing the scientific atheism with the irrational metaphysical Christian dialogue. Here, both parties meet a rationale' that disturbs yets supports there own.

[maudman]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

You quote, "in his belly it was bitter but in his mouth sweet as honey," is a favorite and a verse t
at is understood only by those who have come to actual get the message of scripture.

It reminds me of what my father would say about Pogo, his favorite comic:

Pogo said, "I have met the enemy, and he is me."



Yes this is very true, We at times are our worst enemy. It is the natural way things work. If it woks any different it is devine Intervention. Our lord is most merciful and for obvious reasons.


Yes, we can put people into different groups. Some elect to take scripture seriously because they relate from a YEC perspective, or OEC, TE, even Mormon or moonie position.

And, as you say, most read and defend their perspective the same way they do in regard to country or race or ethniticity. Programmed learning. Enculturated.

I see nothing wrong in this. Much good, in fact.

The evil lies in priesthoods and the self-rightness of orthodoxy.

Jesus said, "Ye traverse the earth far and wide to "save" one proseltyte, and after indoctrination, he's worst off the course of the actual meaning of scripture."



What would Grace be without our human faults. Indeed, Those that are the gaurdians of the church of reason have a difficult task. Change is a scary thing and has a double edge sword. Sometimes our indoctrination of others has detrimental effects.


So, to me, a behavioralist interpretor, TE is most useful in synergizing the scientific atheism with the irrational metaphysical Christian dialogue. Here, both parties meet a rationale' that disturbs yets supports there own.

I think TE is more fertile soil than YEC not because I think we are right about everything we say but because it is tempered with a certain humiliy. I think that is what YEC's lack in certain area's at times not that all YEC's are the same. TE's I think are cautious about what they say is true. It isn't my purpose to judge those in either camp but to point out thing that might need to be considered in both camps.

I have said things in a certain way to create perspective. In dealing with the problems that I have been trying to resolve for both camps. And while doing so a Paradigm Has risen and I still can't believe my eyes. It is a paradigm that I think people need to consider but it is so new it flips traditional views and this causes problems not with the text itself from the hebrew but with people who don't look at the text in such a manner. TE's I think for the most part would find it most intriguing and would I think help deep thiestic Views in some of its problems. I'm not saying it's new or right. But I haven't seen it anywhere so I don't know what to think.

peace Kophy

[kofh2u]

Yes this is very true, We at times are our worst enemy. It is the natural way things work. If it woks any different it is devine Intervention. Our lord is most merciful and for obvious reasons.



What would Grace be without our human faults. Indeed, Those that are the gaurdians of the church of reason have a difficult task. Change is a scary thing and has a double edge sword. Sometimes our indoctrination of others has detrimental effects.



I think TE is more fertile soil than YEC not because I think we are right about everything we say but because it is tempered with a certain humiliy. I think that is what YEC's lack in certain area's at times not that all YEC's are the same. TE's I think are cautious about what they say is true. It isn't my purpose to judge those in either camp but to point out thing that might need to be considered in both camps.

I have said things in a certain way to create perspective. In dealing with the problems that I have been trying to resolve for both camps. And while doing so a Paradigm Has risen and I still can't believe my eyes. It is a paradigm that I think people need to consider but it is so new it flips traditional views and this causes problems not with the text itself fr

om the hebrew but with people who don't look at the text in such a manner. TE's I think for the most part would find it most intriguing and would I think help deep thiestic Views in some of its problems. I'm not saying it's new or right. But I haven't seen it anywhere so I don't know what to think.

peace Kophy

I feel that all the talk proves more and more that the same basic ideas are clearly understood. That, different ways for different people end with the same elementary conclusions. And, if you are so right about your own particular take, someone can really disturb you, either because there are weaknesses in it or their own really is very competitive.

So my conclusion is that "you," (not you, personally), you should basically shut up.

Yes, I must confess. I do try to tell people to reconsider the importance of on going Sunday schol lessons. When Christianity was a child, 2000 years back, it thought childishly, but now is the time to put childish things away.

I mean, we have had 50 years of middle east problems. They are getting more dangerous for the world. We have enemies, 1 billion Moslems, who spring from the same OT roots. We have the richest Christians ever. We have a virtiual land of milk and honey, both in the USA and Israel. We have 1.44 billion Christians. There are 144,000 Christian US Army soldiers standing for law and order as a middle eastern police force. The Israel government seems able to maintain law and order.

Now, with that scnario, it seems that the only thing missing is action. Peace marches ala Martin Luther King Jr, massive on-going Christians demands for peace. Christian soldiers marching endlessly, in peace, tourism and economic rewards ready to pay each man in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank accoding to his works, hospitality, taxi, restaurant, excursions, etc.

The time seems right to love God, to pilgrimage to the Promised Land, and the time seems right to love your Islamic enemy, patronizing him and bolstering his economy.

But, the time seems right for Christ to make peace by his spirit in this way, for we are the body of Christ, the church which eats the bread of his flesh and drinks wine to augment it.

Isa. 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to bring forth (a new country) in one day? or
shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as (had) Zion travailed (in the United Nation approval), she brought forth her children (from the ends of the earth).

Isa. 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth (this nation, Israel), and not
cause to bring forth (my prophecies)? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth (this one prediction), and shut the womb (from those prophecies remaining)? saith thy God.

Isa. 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:

Isa. 66:11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her
consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance
of her glory.

Isa. 66:12 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river (of peacemakers), and the glory of the (Christian) Gentiles like a flowing stream (of tourism): then shall ye suck (the economic gains), ye shall be borne upon her sides (of historical sites), and be dandled (as the Holy People of the Book) upon her knees.

They are rady over there:
To be inspired and inspire others!
1st Class Arrangements
? The gorgeous 5 Star David Citadel Hotel overlooking the Old City
? Delicious meals, including Israel's famous lavish breakfast buffets

[Lion]

Maudman I want to talk about something you mentioned here. You said

I think TE is more fertile soil than YEC not because I think we are right about everything we say but because it is tempered with a certain humiliy.

I want to bring out some differences between theological evolution and young earth creationists. It is my understanding that the TE’s think that God started evolution going and essentially took a hands off policy and let the earth evolve.

That is not the idea that is presented in the first few chapters of Genesis God is presented as a “hands on” God who made everything and left nothing to chance. He cared so much about his creation that he sent is own son to die in our place that believing that he died for our sins wins eternal life for us.

The other aspect aspect of the situation is the fact that god has appointed a time when he will judge the world one of the standards he will judge on is 0ur worship of the creator.

Rev. 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Rev. 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

[kofh2u]

KOFHY:
Lion, I realize that you would lynch me if Jesus hadn't granted us all a special non-blasphemy dispensation, but I do have response to what you say.

Lion:
I want to bring out some differences between theological evolution and young earth creationists. It is my understanding that the TE’s think that God started evolution going and essentially took a hands off policy and let the earth evolve.

KOFHY:
Not in my understanding.

God works through unbelievably beutiful and incomprehensible processes that we have come to both take for granted and underestimate, namely His Nstural Laws:

Rom. 1:20 For, from the creation of the (material Universe which we know as the) world, the invisible things of him, (in pantheistic expression, as in the hand of God behind all natural phenomenon), are clearly seen, (empirically, by the rational application of the methods of our science), being understood (pantheistically, God in his natural laws), by (a progression of theories concerning) the things that are made, (and by our on-going observation of the natural laws appropriate to them), even his (theistic), eternal, (transcendent) power and Godhead (in Trinity, Theistic God, Pantheistic God, and Immanent God); so that (even the atheists), they are without excuse:

Lion:
That is not the idea that is presented in the first few chapters of Genesis God is presented as a “hands on” God who made everything and left nothing to chance.

KOFHY:
Did you forget, "Let us"... the Spirit of God which moved across the face of the deep Ithis in this creation), ... the Natural Laws...

Lion:
The other aspect of the situation is the fact that god has appointed a time when he will judge the world one of the standards he will judge on is 0ur worship of the creator.

KOFHY:
Hmmm....

I'm not sure.

Matt. 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Matt. 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come,
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:

Matt. 25:35 For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Matt. 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

[maudman]

Maudman I want to talk about something you mentioned here. You said

I think TE is more fertile soil than YEC not because I think we are right about everything we say but because it is tempered with a certain humiliy.

I want to bring out some differences between theological evolution and young earth creationists. It is my understanding that the TE’s think that God started evolution going and essentially took a hands off policy and let the earth evolve.

That is not the idea that is presented in the first few chapters of Genesis God is presented as a “hands on” God who made everything and left nothing to chance. He cared so much about his creation that he sent is own son to die in our place that believing that he died for our sins wins eternal life for us.

The other aspect aspect of the situation is the fact that god has appointed a time when he will judge the world one of the standards he will judge on is 0ur worship of the creator.

Rev. 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Rev. 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Hello Lion.

You are quite right about your observation about the first chapters of Genesis. Lion that is what it is. The first chapters of Genesis is about God creating and I would agree with YEC’s about this. Yes I have state before I think God is a hand’s on God. But just how Hands on we don’t exactly know. But I don’t necessarily associate the first chapters of Genesis with evolution. I will try to explain a little why, and it has to do with the Hebrew, translations and other verses of scripture.

First let’s look at a particular word in the Hebrew. (hayah) this word in most all translations is translated in the GEN 1:2 as (was)

Webster’s bible
King James
2. And the earth ‘was’ without form, and void;

Darby’s translation
American standard
2. And the earth ‘was’ waste and void;

YGB Young’s translation
2. The earth hath existed waste and void,

Now here’s the problem. That word (hayah) doesn’t mean “was” as a preexisting state of condition void or without form it means (to became or became) It had become without form and void and could be a references of a state of spiritual denigration.


Romanized hayah
Pronounced haw-yaw

a primitive root [compare HSN1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.


This verse should be translated “And the Earth became without form and void” What it is trying to say is that something had cause this without form and Void. So Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 the earth or the land which is what it means. The word earth “”never”” meant Globe, that’s what we see it as because we now know it is a globe it comes from the Hebrew word (erets) which basically meant the Land or dirt as far as they new it existed they were all members of the flat earth society. You should also keep this in mind when you read the bible because Earth didn’t mean what we generally say it means today.
Now lets look at Jeremiah 4

23. I beheld the earth, and lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.
24. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25. I beheld, and lo, [there was] no man, and all the fowls of the heavens had fled.
26. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place [was] a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, [and] by his fierce anger.

Here God is likening the fall of Judah to the 2nd verses of Genesis 1. So we can have a better understanding that Gen 2 had become that way not it’s original created state. Also in the book of Job Yahweh say’s he doesn’t create in vain and the words “”without form” Hebrew (Tohuw) adverbially means in vain

Romanized tohuw
Pronounced to'-hoo

from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:

KJV--confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

Now lets go to KJV and the Webster’s Version and look at what it say’s about what is the first man mentioned 6th day



Gen 1:
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Now what does it say. It say’s to be fruitful and multiply and “WHAT” (REPLENISH>REPLENISH<REPLENISH>REPLENISH. Before you can replenish something it had to have been filled with or inhabit at some period prior.

Lion God is creating but it is in the form of a RENEWING the planet because it became corrupted. These are just a few things YEC’s should consider. Some of the newer versions have put in fill for replenished but most all early versions have replenish which to me shows newer translations aren’t necessarily better. Many newer translation are gear towards religious beliefs than the truth.

Peace Lion I hope this has been informative for you.

[Lion]

Maudman, I have heard this argued forever. Frankly I don’t know for sure. I used to think that God reated the earth in its orbit on the first day of the cretion week but now I’m not so sure. Perhaps it was here long before and God began working on it to put life on it in Gen 1:1. I don’t know.

I liked the reference in Jer 4. That is what the earth wil be like at the second coming of Christ

I’m a YEC myself and I really believe the story of the flood and I believe the world will be destroyed by fire.

2Pet. 3:3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
2Pet. 3:4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
2Pet. 3:5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
2Pet. 3:6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
2Pet. 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2Pet. 3:8 ¶ But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
2Pet. 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

I notice Kofhy simply can't resist dumping his freudian junk. I ignore him when he puts that tripe in a post

[Lion]

MAUDMAN
This verse should be translated “And the Earth became without form and void” What it is trying to say is that something had cause this without form and Void.
LION
That’s where we have an argument. There is no BECAME in the Hebrew text my exhaustive dictionary says eretz tohu bohu. (the) earth (was) formless (and) void. Really earth formless void.
MAUDMAN
So Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 the earth or the land which is what it means. The word earth “”never”” meant Globe, that’s what we see it as because we now know it is a globe it comes from the Hebrew word (erets) which basically meant the Land or dirt as far as they new it existed they were all members of the flat earth society. You should also keep this in mind when you read the bible because Earth didn’t mean what we generally say it means today.
LION
Exhaustive dictionary time again. Strong’s translates eretz in a number of ways.
erets [75d]; a prim. root; earth, land:—common(m)(1), countries(16), country(44), countryside(1), distance*(3), dust(m)(1), earth(656), earth’s(1), fail*(m)(1), floor(m)(1), ground(120), land(1582), Land(2), lands(60), open(1), other*(m)(2), piece(m)(1), plateau*(1), region(m)(1), territories(1), wild(m)(1), world(3).

The fact that we know the eath as a globe is irrelevant. That wasn’t determined for a long time..
MAUDMAN
Now lets look at Jeremiah 4

23. I beheld the earth, and lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.
24. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25. I beheld, and lo, [there was] no man, and all the fowls of the heavens had fled.
26. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place [was] a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, [and] by his fierce anger.

Here God is likening the fall of Judah to the 2nd verses of Genesis 1. So we can have a better understanding that Gen 2 had become that way not it’s original created state.
Lion
I don’t think that was what is meant at all. You seem to have some idea of a ruin before the Bible story begins, a sort of pre-Edenic ruin. I don’t accept that. The Bible begins at Gen 1:1 We can’t go any further back than that. I agree with you that Jer 4 was talking about what the earth would be like when Christ returns.
MAUDMAN
Gen 1:
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Now what does it say. It say’s to be fruitful and multiply and “WHAT” (REPLENISH>REPLENISH<REPLENISH>REPLENISH. Before you can replenish something it had to have been filled with or inhabit at some period prior.

Lion God is creating but it is in the form of a RENEWING the planet because it became corrupted. These are just a few things YEC’s should consider. Some of the newer versions have put in fill for replenished but most all early versions have replenish which to me shows newer translations aren’t necessarily better. Many newer translation are gear towards religious beliefs than the truth.
LION
I looked up Strong’s exhaustive doctionary for the Gen 1:28 and here is what I found:
mala [569d]; a prim. root; to be full, to fill:—accomplished(1), aloud(1), armed(m)(1), become full(1), been completed(1), come(m)(1), complete(3), completed(9), completion(1), confirm(1), consecrate*(3), consecrated*(4), covered(m)(1), dedicated(1), drenched(m)(1), drew(m)(1), ended(1), endowed(1), expired(1), fill(39), filled(77), filling(5), fills(1), finished(1), fulfill(6), fulfilled(10), full(37), fully(8), fulness(1), gave in full(1), given fully(1), gratified(1), live(m)(1), massed(1), messengers(m)(1), mount*(1), mounted(m)(1), ordain*(4), ordained*(4), ordination*(1), overflowing*(1), overflows*(1), passed(m)(1), presume*(1), refresh(m)(1), required(m)(2), satisfied(1), satisfy(2), set(1), settings(m)(2), space(1).

Nowhere do I find the word replenish. Plenty of place to fill but nowhere replenish.

So I have to conclude that you had to invent a meaning to fit your theory.

[maudman]

2. Wha'arets haytah tohuw wabohuw . Wchoshek`al- pney thowm . Wruwach 'Elohiym mrachepet `al- pneyhamayim.

The word is HAYTAH. That is what is in your bible. English translated (was) and means.

Strong's Ref. # 1961

Romanized hayah
Pronounced haw-yaw

a primitive root [compare HSN1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

When you go to your bible and you read and the (earth was without form and void) the word (was) is transliterated from the word HAYAH which is Romanized and it means (to become or became or come to pass).

Ask yourself Why!

And this isn’t my research this is Scofield’s So ask yourself why? If you don’t see in your text from your Hebrew the word HAYTAH how did it Get there. The above is a transliterated version of your bible GEN 1: 2.


The word Earth how would it have been used.

Strong's Ref. # 776

Romanized 'erets
Pronounced eh'-rets

from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or, partitively, a land):

KJV--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

In the beginning of languages many words are used from a more basic form to a more complex form of meaning. The meaning you showed as is all the ones I showed should be understood that way not the reverse.

Complex and variations of the use of one word that came to be there definition wasn’t happening all at once. (erets) as many others had simple basic meanings and then grew to encompass variations of meanings. And these are to be understood from the peoples themselves not necessarily as we use them. As their civilization grew the word might also in variations of meanings. Its first meaning was dirt or land. Why because they didn’t know much more than that.


The word replenished.

Strong's Ref. # 4390

Romanized male'
Pronounced maw-lay'

or mala' (Esth.7v5) {maw-law'}; a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):

KJV--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full(-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-]flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-]full, + have wholly.

If you will look it also means to replenish.

Now you say that it can’t mean replenished then how do you explain that its in the Gideon, king James and Websters translation in conjunction to the man Created on the 6th day.

All I’m doing is showing you that when scholars sat down and interpreted things they were writing what they believed and that interpretations of text is important and these things are core to OEC doctrine.

Lion it doesn’t matter what the Hebrew says for the most part. The fact is that these words were in your bible centuries before you or I even had a means of peering into the text as Hebrew. And it was what was in peoples bibles and their still there today and it say’s replenished. But people have been saying different and that’s what OEC did it said it doesn’t matter about the Hebrew its what written in a way we are suppose to understand.

These things may or may not express my views their just peoples views of what’s written. No need for Hebrew when the contradiction is in English. The word “”fill”” started being used as evolution became more accepted term. To show continuity to evolution. People started retranslating to fit the science.

These things aren’t my research just observations of research.

Peace lion.

[Lion]

Maudman you said a mouthful when you sad this:

All I’m doing is showing you that when scholars sat down and interpreted things they were writing what they believed and that interpretations of text is important and these things are core to OEC doctrine.
-------------
Lion
I agree that when the scholars sat down to translate the scriptures they had a certain amount of Roman Catholic baggage in their beliefs. As an example, take the word HELL. Catholic teaching about hell was, and still is, that Hell is eternal fire some undfined place in the universe where the souls of the damned roast eternally. I choose not to believe that.

But when the scholars came to this text, they said, Aha, here is where Christ talks about hell fire.

Matt. 18:9 “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

In English, it sounds like Christ is seconding the opinion of the translators, but what does it really say?

Matt. 18:9 “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into firey geenna.

And what was geenna? It was a canyon where all sorts of garbage was dumped. Dead animals and sometimes crimnals were dumped and fires were always burning. So what was Christ really sayng? It is better to lose some body part than to die and be thrown in the garbage dump.
-------------
Maudman
Lion it doesn’t matter what the Hebrew says for the most part. The fact is that these words were in your bible centuries before you or I even had a means of peering into the text as Hebrew. And it was what was in peoples bibles and their still there today and it say’s replenished. But people have been saying different and that’s what OEC did it said it doesn’t matter about the Hebrew its what written in a way we are suppose to understand.
____________
Lion
I beg to differ wth you. Our undestanding of what the Bible REALLY SAYS makes the difference between salvation and being lost. You can really and sincerly believe something that is wrong and still be lost. God won’t repeal the law of gravity just you sincerly think you can fly. Sincerity doesn’t count.

The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for. But it is up to us to study and know what the Bible really says, and knowiing what the original says, regardless of whether it fits our evolutionary ideas.

The real question is whether theological evolution fits the general theme of the scriptures. I say it doesnt fit.
------------
Maudman
These things may or may not express my views their just peoples views of what’s written. No need for Hebrew when the contradiction is in English. The word “”fill”” started being used as evolution became more accepted term. To show continuity to evolution. People started retranslating to fit the science.
------------
Lion
IMO science has adopted evolution as a theory of origins. That is not true science where you can verify by experiment. Evolution is a theory, not provable by experiment. The Bible is a story of how the world came to be. It is not provable, any more than evoluton is. But because of the nature of the book and its claim to inspiration I choose to accept its story.

[maudman]

Lion
I agree that when the scholars sat down to translate the scriptures they had a certain amount of Roman Catholic baggage in their beliefs. As an example, take the word HELL. Catholic teaching about hell was, and still is, that Hell is eternal fire some undfined place in the universe where the souls of the damned roast eternally. I choose not to believe that.


I would agree that most scholars would have had a lot of excess baggage. There were actually two camps that were entrenched in the production of what we call bibles today. One was the Catholic Church and the other was Martin Luther’s. It was Martin Luther’s threat to mass produce the scriptures that spawned what we have today. When he threatened both camps went to work. It was the invention of the printing press that gave rise to the mass production of the scriptures as we see them. Although the Catholic Church was the first to finally produce their version of it, Martin’s camp wasn’t far behind.

These things demonstrate something that gets overlooked. That scripture was the providences of the wealthy and the religious elite and had always been. Martin luther was trying to break the strangle hold that those in such places had on the poor because they didn’t have the information. It also tell that if the lay people couldn’t read especially cause the language that was needed to decipher such scriptures were in a language that only was taught to those of such aristocracy.

I would disagree that our salvation depends on the scripture cause Our birth had nothing to do with it (Abraham) and for the 1300 years after the new covenant there was no way for most to believe except through faith. Which eyes hath not seen nor hear hath heard. And the gentiles never read the old testaments so how could they truly understand the new. The Roman solior had more faith then any in Israel his God was Pagan.

Peace Lion

[kofh2u]

Hello mr maudy,

What say below is very true, but even more true in the days of Moses and much more true in the time of Jesus.

"That scripture was the providences of the wealthy and the religious elite and had always been. Martin luther was trying to break the strangle hold that those in such places had on the poor because they didn’t have the information. It also true that if the lay people couldn’t read..."

Moses had the Kohanim priesthood to read out Genesis from memory.

These priests use a coding system of cuing the information, numerical data, and the verses tnemselves on their hands. A vistage of that priestly secret is found today in the synagogue services performed by lay priests whose name is Cohen, or Kahn, or such. The "Hand Blessi" is secret and the congregation is forbidden to watch. They use the shawls to cover their heads.
But, since the Torah was canonized @ 900 BC, these men were put to pasture, just for the reasons you suggest. Once written and readable by the powerful leaders in the community, the temple and the tithes became an exclusive club and religious business. nThe kohanim were no longer used to "sing out" in a dramatic Play-like presentation. They were put to pasture.

Jesus resurrected this oral language presentation, because he had found the "pearl of the kingdom of great value." He gathered his "fishermen" of men, taught them the Hand Mnemonics, and sent them in pairs to present small and individual presentations as advertisement for the major presentations before crowds of thousands.

The free donations were abundant, no seats at the temple required, all invited. Twelve players were needed, and a "master director" who understood the entire hidden manna.

How do I know?

Because I can do it also. The organizational instructions are incorporated just beneath the surface of the literary text, as a contrivance related to that organization.

Really. I found the pearl, too. Jesus said he would give the hidden manna


Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,...To him that overcometh, ...
... will I give to eat of the hidden manna,...
...and will give him a white "stone," (a piece of paper), and in the stone a new name written, (one of the twelve fruits from the Biological Tree of [animal and plant kongdom] Life: Rev 22:3), which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

[maudman]

Hello mr maudy,

What say below is very true, but even more true in the days of Moses and much more true in the time of Jesus.

"That scripture was the providences of the wealthy and the religious elite and had always been. Martin luther was trying to break the strangle hold that those in such places had on the poor because they didn’t have the information. It also true that if the lay people couldn’t read..."

Moses had the Kohanim priesthood to read out Genesis from memory.

These priests use a coding system of cuing the information, numerical data, and the verses tnemselves on their hands. A vistage of that priestly secret is found today in the synagogue services performed by lay priests whose name is Cohen, or Kahn, or such. The "Hand Blessi" is secret and the congregation is forbidden to watch. They use the shawls to cover their heads.
But, since the Torah was canonized @ 900 BC, these men were put to pasture, just for the reasons you suggest. Once written and readable by the powerful leaders in the community, the temple and the tithes became an exclusive club and religious business. nThe kohanim were no longer used to "sing out" in a dramatic Play-like presentation. They were put to pasture.

Jesus resurrected this oral language presentation, because he had found the "pearl of the kingdom of great value." He gathered his "fishermen" of men, taught them the Hand Mnemonics, and sent them in pairs to present small and individual presentations as advertisement for the major presentations before crowds of thousands.

The free donations were abundant, no seats at the temple required, all invited. Twelve players were needed, and a "master director" who understood the entire hidden manna.

How do I know?

Because I can do it also. The organizational instructions are incorporated just beneath the surface of the literary text, as a contrivance related to that organization.

Really. I found the pearl, too. Jesus said he would give the hidden manna


Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,...To him that overcometh, ...
... will I give to eat of the hidden manna,...
...and will give him a white "stone," (a piece of paper), and in the stone a new name written, (one of the twelve fruits from the Biological Tree of [animal and plant kongdom] Life: Rev 22:3), which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Hello Kophy

yes what you say is true also Kophy. The hidden manna, hands in the fan fold fashion. The Holy Spirit burning out the natural man and replacing his will with that of the fathers will. Burning out the old man with the new creature in Christ. Most don't understand those things you are saying because they have no real understanding of Israels culture.

But then again many modern day Israelites have lost many of the thing that your saying. Although many know of them many have lost their real significance. The world has consumed Both Christian and Jewish cultures. Mystery babylon is doing a number on many of the faith today.

Paul definitly understood the importance of the laying on of the hands. Most will say that those things don't mean much anymore but they do. Most don't understand the the early christians were Israelites and they didn't abandon the torah but in fact were Zealous to do it. Many of the Feast were celebrated in the spirit of the messiah which replaced the animal sacrifices. You can see the riff that starts to develope early on the church because of gentile conversions. But paul said he that was circumsized was a debtor to do the whole law. His example is a testimony to early Israelite Christians. And Christ never Gave the impression that those thing were useless and their isn't anything that say's the apostles thought different except in the sacrifices. Christ was celebrated as the sacrifice.

peace Kophy

[kofh2u]

hello mr maudy,
You are definitely in the right "Christian" state of mind. I say this in reference to 1Co13:

1Cor. 13:4 (Altruism), charity, suffereth long (IN MEDITATIONS), and is kind (IN ITS ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS); charity, (Altruism), envieth not (BY RESISTING ENCULTURATION; charity, (Altruism), vaunteth not itself (BUT IS COMPASSIONATE), is not puffed up (BUT IS NATURAL, SPONTANEOUS AND SIMPLE),

1Cor. 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly (BUT IS CREATIVE), seeketh not her own (IN A MORE EFFICIENT VIEW OF REALITY), is not easily provoked (IT HAS A
BIG BROTHER ATTITUDE), thinketh not evil (BUT DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL);

1Cor. 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity (BUT IS UNHOSTILE AND OPEN-MINDED IN HUMOR), but rejoiceth in the truth (THAT IS PROBLEM CENTERED);

1Cor. 13:7 Beareth all things (IN A DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE), believeth all things (AS REGARDS THE PEAK MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE), hopeth all things (THROUGH SELF-CENTERED AUTONOMY), endureth all things (IN A CONTINUED FRESHNESS OF APPRECIATION).

I recognize these 15 characteristics in your even handed efforts to maintain your own stable convictions while finding common ground with all. That is a sign of well balanced sanity, as the secular community might describe it.

One of the amazing things about Scripture is its incomparable ability to accomodate all views, as you so endeavor, all at one and the same time.

The twelve mainstream American denominational churches are each different in their veiws, and yet unanimous in their conclusion, i.e.; Christ is Lord. See in this, as I do, a greater revelation than the sum of the 66 parts of the books of the Scripture?

I point this out, that all should not miss it, this point of tolerating one another's interpretation, to include my own brackets, I might add.

In our discussions, here at Tweb, there is the numerical diversity of interpretations. The clear message is that True Christianity is like Twelve Manner of Fruit emanating from scripture, the Tree of Life, that grows on either side of the river of Old and New Testament understandings that flows down the street of the New Jerusalem, the leaves of its pages which are medicine for heling ourselves, our relationship with other Christian thinkers, our interaction with our neighbors and supposed enemiesand the Nations of the world.



The bracketed interpretations applied to elucidate the author's understanding of 1Co13 come from an analogy with Abraham Maslow's: Fifteen (15) Characteristics of a Sane Person,

The fiften characteristics are compared here with 1Co13:4-9;13)
.

[Lion]

Maudman: Lion here
I want to explore something you made a point of emphasising in a previous post.

You were referring to the command God gave to the animals and man.

Gen. 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Gen. 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I know that Hebrew has many possible meanings to a given word, depending on sentence structure, but I have to question your emphasis on the use of replenish rather than fill.

I agree that the Hebrew word is male, strong’s word 4390. My exhaustive dictionary which gives all the word usage wherever it occurs, simply doesn’t include the word replenish. The closest I can come to it is refresh, which is stretching the meaning quite a bit to get to replenish. All the other possible meanings are something to fill.

4390. aElDm male or
aDlDm mala [569d]; a prim. root; to be full, to fill:—accomplished(1), aloud(1), armed(m)(1), become full(1), been completed(1), come(m)(1), complete(3), completed(9), completion(1), confirm(1), consecrate*(3), consecrated*(4), covered(m)(1), dedicated(1), drenched(m)(1), drew(m)(1), ended(1), endowed(1), expired(1), fill(39), filled(77), filling(5), fills(1), finished(1), fulfill(6), fulfilled(10), full(37), fully(8), fulness(1), gave in full(1), given fully(1), gratified(1), live(m)(1), massed(1), messengers(m)(1), mount*(1), mounted(m)(1), ordain*(4), ordained*(4), ordination*(1), overflowing*(1), overflows*(1), passed(m)(1), presume*(1), refresh(m)(1), required(m)(2), satisfied(1), satisfy(2), set(1), settings(m)(2), space(1).

So, in conclusion, the meaning you want to give it, to replenish something already existing doesn’t fit. In my opinion you are straining a definition to make it apply to evolution when it changes the meaning of what God did.

[Richbee]

Early Genesis to me seems apocalyptic in nature. Please see http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/ba/BA_index.htm.

I have been so curious to have input by people who know something of ANE culture. Is it fair to demand a literal interpretation of Genesis? Would the hearers demanded it or seen the symbolic nature of it? The woman created at man's side (being equal with the man), the talking snake, the Tree of Life, (which is also mentioned in the apocalyptic book of Revelation) among other symbolic aspects, leads me to believe that the book is to be taken symbolically.

But if it is to be taken symbolically, then what of certain teachings like the Fall? I believe these can be answered.

I would like those who believe in a non-literal Adam to defend their position here.

How do you address:

1) The Fall

2) The Geneologies

3) When do you take up non-symbolic history?


Quick Question:

Jesus did speak of and believe in a literal Noah, and the flood.

Sola Scriptura?

Did Jesus mention Adam?

Did Jesus believe in the literal, phsyical Adam, as a man in history?

And, yes, I would say, when Matthew and Luke mention the Geneolgies, this was stated as a fact.

[rogero]

Quick Question:

Jesus did speak of and believe in a literal Noah, and the flood.



He spoke of Noah and the flood, although the "literal" aspect is in some question. Do you know the answer, Richbee?

Have you ever heard of either of these concepts: kenosis and/or accomodation?



Sola Scriptura?



That's Martin Luther's terminology, and I'm a Lutheran, but I do understand historical context -- do you?



Did Jesus mention Adam?



Yes, and the same answer as for Noah.



Did Jesus believe in the literal, phsyical Adam, as a man in history?



Dunno. Do you proport to know what Jesus of Nazareth believed about Adam? If so, that's seems a tad arrogant and presumptive to me.



And, yes, I would say, when Matthew and Luke mention the Geneolgies, this was stated as a fact.

I'm glad you stated this as "I would say", because neither you nor me, nor anyone else on God's green Earth knows for sure how the evangelists meant the geneologies nor what theological significance their literalness/figurativeness has for the redemptive work of the Logos Christ.

R

[kofh2u]

Hello maudy:

The Jews know about these things I mention, but they only know that the general ideas still have some thin thread of tradition attached to them. None can say for sure that what I have told you is true or untrue. None have any explanation of there own which is rational, either.

But, they will admit that in their synagogues, on various
occasions, non-rabbi, lay members, present the "Hand Blessing" service
before the congregation. The congregation is forbidden to look and must cover their heads with the shawls. Think about the significance of just this ritual. Hands, secret ritual, hidden from view.

First, no one IS to know, apparently. This "performance" is not to be seen.

Second, since no one has a clue, entertaining what I have to say is very dangerous to those who hold power over the congregation. They have no other hypothesis for the ritual, but they will not let me explain it, either.

Three, this idea of a "secret manna "as expressed in Revelation 2:17, for the Christians, and the well known Secret Doctrine of the Jews, their Kabbalah, suggests that what I am talking about transcends whether I have the meaning, part of the meaning, of some clear "proof" of what it is about. There IS something!
There IS something hidden, and it seems important as we read
in Revelation 10:7, "the mystery of God, should be finished."

A fourth interesting observation, one that the Jews will confirm, is their Passover Tradition of hiding three pieces of matzo, (note the implied Trinity) and that matzo IS bread or manna.
This isthe game like ritual of Afikomon.
The kids search for this Afikomon, the hidden matzo of our Lord's Last Supper. Hmmmmm...

Five, though few if any Christians or Jews seem willing to review the
supporting evidence, there is very conclusive evidence to confirm my own deduction concerning this Hidden Afikomon of Kabbalah, very
appropriately called in Revelation 2:17, "bread," or "manna" in Hebrew:
..."I give to eat of the hidden manna, "...Revelation 2:17

Six, there is archeological confirmation to which I can point. Coupled to this, is the concrete innuendo of written documentation that has survived.
It explicitly supports my theories.

Seven, and last for now, I believe I have an understanding of how this is Hand Blessing was/could be used, and what it means to us, today.
Not the least of the secret, for sure, for it is sort of a key, and the doors it opens are where the real treasures lie, IMO.

So, in this, it seems very much the key given to Peter.

And, I ask you this, if the Pope IS Peter in spirit, where is his key? What has he to compare with the key I can elucidate and use?

Ignoring the emblems which are sewn upon the Pope's shoulders, he does lack a key, or at least, an explanation of that key given to Peter. Why is it not unavailable to
us all, and why has it been withheld, all these ages? Such action or inaction belies there IS a key in his possession, or ought we accuse the Pope of hiding the
manna, himself?
Why?
Why ought it be hid?
If such a key is available, doesn't it open the gates the hold us out:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;... bound and locked...
Isa. 61:1,2

Maudy:
yes what you say is true also Kophy. The hidden manna, hands in the fan fold fashion. The Holy Spirit burning out the natural man and replacing his will with that of the fathers will. Burning out the old man with the new creature in Christ. Most don't understand those things you are saying because they have no real understanding of Israels culture.

KOFHY:
The Jews know more than they will admit because they have been
programmed by their Rabbi to protect the Religion, not the Truth.
It has to do with human nature. The example of this behavior will be/is duplicated by the Christian ministers, the priests, and the members of the denominational churches, our modern Pharisees, who we see here daily.

Maudy:
But then again many modern day Israelites have lost many of the thing that your saying. Although many know of them many have lost their real significance. The world has consumed Both Christian and Jewish cultures.
Mystery babylon is doing a number on many of the faith today.

KOFHY:
Exactly.
First, the waywardness of the Jews is responsible, akin to the pagan
social behavior here today, in our supposed Christian World. They began to feed into the neighboring social behaviors, and talked Judaism while they walked paganistic secularism.

The Jews were chosen just for this.
A Bad Example.
Both the Jews, who ought be first to repent now, and recognize the truth that I say, then the Christians, after the Jews, last. zI mean, the Jews ought in hindsight see that they have been misled by their rabbi.

Maudy:
Paul definitly understood the importance of the laying on of the hands.
Most will say that those things don't mean much anymore but they do.

KOFHY:
There is much that I have learned about the power in the hands. Not mystical weirdo stuff, either. For example, the bible lends itself to a memory system using the hands, the fingers, and the 22 bones of its skeletal form. The 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet supports the idea that the inordinate repetitious use of numbers, 12 and seven, is related
to the twelve digits of the four (like the Four Winds?) fingers, and the seven bones in the grasp of the palm, the wheel of Ezekiel.

If you would like to see a graphic that has come down from antiquity
which illustrates the secret of these Hand Blessings, I can email it to you, but I can not PM it as a graphic. Let me know, my email is
kofh@gis.net

[maudman]

Maudman: Lion here
I want to explore something you made a point of emphasising in a previous post.

You were referring to the command God gave to the animals and man.

Gen. 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Gen. 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I know that Hebrew has many possible meanings to a given word, depending on sentence structure, but I have to question your emphasis on the use of replenish rather than fill.

I agree that the Hebrew word is male, strong’s word 4390. My exhaustive dictionary which gives all the word usage wherever it occurs, simply doesn’t include the word replenish. The closest I can come to it is refresh, which is stretching the meaning quite a bit to get to replenish. All the other possible meanings are something to fill.

4390. aElDm male or
aDlDm mala [569d]; a prim. root; to be full, to fill:—accomplished(1), aloud(1), armed(m)(1), become full(1), been completed(1), come(m)(1), complete(3), completed(9), completion(1), confirm(1), consecrate*(3), consecrated*(4), covered(m)(1), dedicated(1), drenched(m)(1), drew(m)(1), ended(1), endowed(1), expired(1), fill(39), filled(77), filling(5), fills(1), finished(1), fulfill(6), fulfilled(10), full(37), fully(8), fulness(1), gave in full(1), given fully(1), gratified(1), live(m)(1), massed(1), messengers(m)(1), mount*(1), mounted(m)(1), ordain*(4), ordained*(4), ordination*(1), overflowing*(1), overflows*(1), passed(m)(1), presume*(1), refresh(m)(1), required(m)(2), satisfied(1), satisfy(2), set(1), settings(m)(2), space(1).

So, in conclusion, the meaning you want to give it, to replenish something already existing doesn’t fit. In my opinion you are straining a definition to make it apply to evolution when it changes the meaning of what God did.

Hello lion

Well refresh is the same thing only a different word. I saw that in your dictionary and have been waiting to see if you noticed it. Mine say's replenished not refresh but in any case it means to redo what ever the previous action it is appended to. God said be fruitful and multiply and replenish is what it say's in the transaltion. To Re-populate, But this is a problem to some TE's So your not alone Lion.

It also say's the same thing concerning noah and flood.

In the beginning in Genesis the Earth is covered with water and God causes dry land to appear. If you don't consider that a metaphor, I do not consider it a metaphor.

So as far as the bible is concerned the Earth was covered water. in Gen 1 : 3 So any attempt to use science for validation for the flood of Noah would be impossible unless you can determine that the world has been flooded twice by water. Even if scienctific data say's the Earth was at one time covered with water. It still wouldn't answer whether Noahs flood was Global in scale. But there are scriptures that say that the flood had sides.

So Flooding and replenishing are what I believe is closer to the truth.

Peace Lion

[Richbee]

He spoke of Noah and the flood, although the "literal" aspect is in some question. Do you know the answer, Richbee?

No, that is why I asked the question.

Dunno. Do you proport to know what Jesus of Nazareth believed about Adam? If so, that's seems a tad arrogant and presumptive to me.

Actually, my question still stands, but thanks anyway!

[Richbee]

Here's (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=447911&postcount=19) another gem from the Qophy archives. Makes you want to place your order immediately for the Freudian Bible with the Kofh Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA -- does it not? :pot: :dizzy: :shrug: :lolo:

... Of course, if you want your free copy, just be one of the 144,000 "true" Christians who happen to be on a peace march in Jerusalem at the time when God ordains, and David Judah Layb (aka Kofh2u) will hand one to you personally!


I was seriously wondering what was up with these scripture quotes.

Is there really a Freudian Bible? Kofh Publishing?

[kofh2u]

Richbee brings up an example of the use of the hidden manna as illustrated in Matthew 1:1-19.

A number of points can be listed to support that these 19 verses do not have the seemingly genealogical significance that they suggest, and, for the sake of my argument, could have another purpose, (and do, IMO).

First, the list is debatably incorrect. Jews will authoritatively point out that the listing has errors/omissions.

Second, it is NOT a listing of 14 generations in three sets, the last being only 13.

Third, we know Luke 3 does not agree with matthew.

However, in Both Matthew and Luke, we actually have sets of seven names, suggesting a ready mnemonic organization.

What we actually have here is (1), proof that Jesus was NOT in the line of David, (at least by means of human genetics), and (2), these listings were more or less off the cuff, perhaps impromptude "examples" of what and how Jesus used the "fan in his hand."

Paul supports what I say in his early dismissal of genealogy as unimportant and unnecessary to the work ahead for the early church. So, if recognizably incorrect and easily dismissed by Paul, why else were the two listings so prominent?

Not to disprove the messiah ben David.

Perhaps, to support Jesus as messiah ben Joseph.

But, IMO, to include the kabbalah of the "Seven Doubles" for Jews then and now, because the Jew Tradition requires it be so of their "prophet" Elijah, returned.

[Lion]

Hello Maudman:
You said
It also say's the same thing concerning Noah and flood.

In the beginning in Genesis the Earth is covered with water and God causes dry land to appear. If you don't consider that a metaphor, I do not consider it a metaphor.

So as far as the bible is concerned the Earth was covered water. in Gen 1 : 3 So any attempt to use science for validation for the flood of Noah would be impossible unless you can determine that the world has been flooded twice by water. Even if scienctific data say's the Earth was at one time covered with water. It still wouldn't answer whether Noahs flood was Global in scale. But there are scriptures that say that the flood had sides.

So Flooding and replenishing are what I believe is closer to the truth.
--------------
Lion
Iv’e done a lot of study on what the earth must have been like before the flood. Without going into detail, I don’t beleive there were any high mountains such as we have now. Adam and Eve wore no clothes until after sin and this is why I think that way. But that is not defining replenishing versus filling. Replenishing means replacing the supply where filling means supplying an empty space. If that word is important to your evolutionary thinking it is pretty shaky support for your theology.

I’m glad to see you admit the possbility of a flood. The flood is one of the foundation stones of Christian belief. Christ mentioned it repeatedly, and 2 Peter mentioned that scoffers would deny the flood ever existed.

I see evidences of the flood all around me. But that depends on whether you believe the story or not. If one doesn’t believe the story it is easy to say it was e