Stonesoffire: Genesis study

[stonesoffire]

In post 298, I capitalized He and it makes it as if I said "how God was formed". Adam, how "Adam was formed".

 

[stonesoffire]

stonesoffire;2953561]I totally agree that the thread is confusing. I said I had no idea what everyone is talking about. I was trying to keep to the OP and stunned thoughts on darkness. Nobody was actually addressing what she said.

hang on...I did address her op and I asked good questions...which were not directly answered and in fact, were evaded with half answers with the op suggesting she did not quite understand the questions...now seriously, I am plain spoken and not mysterious when I ask questions...go back and check...others also asked questions with the same result and a few were just ignored.

please also remember that the op said not many would agree with her right in her initial post and I also addressed that and asked why...she calls this a study but in the body of the thread, says she just wants to discuss...1) so discuss 2) answer questions properly and don't be evasive 3) source material should be properly linked to...otherwise, it's not a discussion and it never was a study IMO

For stunned to understand why I might differ and come up with a different conclusion, I felt I needed to start at the beginning to see if I saw what she said about DARKNESS.

You can speak truth Lauren, but not in a sarcastic and rude manner. Or you can do your own study and show exactly why you are saying what you believe.

I am not being rude, but do admit to a certain amount of sarcastic humor....but I am not mocking people...however the content and at times conclusions are uproarious if it were not for the fact that the actual word of God is being subjected to this drivel...now go ahead and call me rude for saying drivel...but that is your opinion...I call drivel when I see it

I am in a manner, studying right along by offering counter information...hello...this is a discussion forum and I am never a yes yes woman at the best of times...again, what is being presented is NOT biblical and is counter productive to anyone wishing to grow in the Lord or in search of truth...I have a good foundation...and I build on it...this op is nonsense and the so called wisdom is demonic...again, not calling the op demonic...but what is being presented is demonic

a proper study would contain enough material for people to add to knowledge or conclude what they believe...but again, this is not a proper study and NOT even based on the Bible to begin with!!

I wonder at times how how many really believe Jesus is coming back by our behavior.

it's not my behavior in question here because in reality, you don't know how I behave...this is a forum and while opinions may pass for fact in some circles? they do not form the basis of my faith nor do they make a suitable foundation for anyone IMO

I don't say anything here that I haven't seen elsewhere. Plus I've read a lot of Jewish teachings from different Rabbis but in particular, those of the Nazarene sect.

oh my lands...do you suppose I am ignorant of those things? why do you think I am so opposed? do I sound like I don't have a clue?

There are three ways that the scriptures are studied in Jewish thought. Literal, historical, and allegorical. What Jonteel, stunned, and I are seeking is the allegorical. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But, it's accepted in Jewish faith. What I seek to see is how Jesus is shown through the writings. Just the fact alone that God is pure, wholly Light, no darkness, all good, tells me that darkness would be hell. Any place where He is not, and where devils torment one is hell.

ha...go find out what the Essene's were waiting for and how they totally missed it all wrapped in the One called Jesus. It is believe they are the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls...and no...there is NO evidence that Jesus had any interaction with them and a small possibility that John may have had some but ONLY because he lived in the desert

read the Bible...does it say darkness is hell? gee whiz popular mechanics! no it does not

it's not a question of this being everyone's cup of tea...but it surely is a cup of poison if one goes into it with an eye to combining this teaching from ancient Jewish mystics and current Jewish teachers who try to marry the Bible with tradition while saying they are the real Christians since they are also Jews...you cannot be holding on to your Jewishness and trying to prove to non-believing Jews that you are also a Christian or a fulfilled Jew..it doesn't work

maybe you have seen some of the Sabbath Keepers etc on these forums? they want to keep the law...but only the parts they can...which, of course, is not keeping it at all since the law is one...same goes for this op...you cannot take these ancient scripts ... especially since no understanding of what they are exactly has been acknowledged, other than oh goody...some more mysterious goose bumpy things I can gain knowledge from and understand and have knowledge superior to others...that's gobble de gook....God is not in the business of handing out mysterious packages of esoteric wisdom...He has revealed what He wants us to know in His word and we are told not to add or subtract to it...Revelation...and while some hold that means only Revelation, it's just pretty good sense to make it a practice...period

so calling me rude is more an objection to what I present as a counter to the postulations of the op

Well, it's your opinion Lauren. Your mannerisms are rude.

 

[Magenta]

That's a point I hadn't considered...!
However, they were told to multiply before the fall, so what would this multiplication be without bodies?

The revealed written Word explicitly says that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and he was told after the fall that he would return to dust (in death, which was the warned of consequence for eating of the forbidden tree). How could this be seen as Adam being a spirit being, and not physical? The word Adam actually refers to the fact that man was made of the earth, being red. I take dust to mean the elements of the earth.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
*
"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the
ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

I am not sure of the source of the following:

It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, or from Akkadian adamu meaning "to make". According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a wordplay on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) "earth").

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Okay, SOF, sounds good!

 

[pottersclay]

A.......where are we on this thread....where is the discussion at.....to confusing which all the he said she said stuff.
Would like to contribute if I can.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

SOF, I think you are gone from here now but just wanted to say I understood what you were saying about the 1st and 2nd accounts....I'm looking into it now.

Also understood what you were saying about Moses and Elijah (seeming to have the form of a body, but not like Adams body after the fall).

 

[LaurenTM]

Well, it's your opinion Lauren. Your mannerisms are rude.

and your ignorance of scripture is inexcusable

you have not addressed my concerns regarding the extra-biblical revelations you present as your interpretation of scripture and have resorted to personal attack by calling me rude

that's a lame thing to do as any decent debater will point out to you

thing is, I think you CANNOT answer and therefore grow angry at me

 

[pottersclay]

and your ignorance of scripture is inexcusable

you have not addressed my concerns regarding the extra-biblical revelations you present as your interpretation of scripture and have resorted to personal attack by calling me rude

that's a lame thing to do as any decent debater will point out to you

thing is, I think you CANNOT answer and therefore grow angry at me

That's lame sof.....that's lame.

 

[Ariel82]

To be honest I don't think she is trying to debate.

They just want to explore their beliefs and ideas and discuss what they believe with one another.

However, having a private conversation in public....Stunned seems okay with comments from others, but it appears stonefire prefers a private conversation. Pm is probably a good option for them.

However now I am left with the question...if the extrabiblical sources you have contradict the Bible...which one do you believe?

 

[Bladerunner]

No, I do not know it is false, as it is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of what is being communicated. To say there was something wrong with the women not being pretty enough is a bit off... there is something wrong with people in general. The thoughts of their hearts being only evil all the time and all. The wisest of men took seven hundred wives and several hundred concubines for himself and they did exactly as God said they would: they turned him away from God to worship false idols. Marriage outside one's faith has always been viewed similarly to adultery, since marriage is so often used as a picture of God's faithfulness to us. He does not want people who know Him to marry people who do not know Him. That is evident throughout the whole of Scripture. Poor Hosea had to marry a prostitute to show the people how God saw their unfaithfulness.

Wow....I did not see that coming......... The Seithite theory has been debunk for many years now...... Thought you knew.

As far as the women being pretty comment being said, there was no intention of disparaging women in general....

Under the Seithite theory, the Angels came down to the women of that group and no other daughters on earth.... The scripture states that the Sons of God" saw that the daughters of men were fair (Pretty), thus the question.......

Why only Seithite women????????

 

[Willie-T]

Wow....I did not see that coming......... The Seithite theory has been debunk for many years now...... Thought you knew.

As far as the women being pretty comment being said, there was no intention of disparaging women in general....

Under the Seithite theory, the Angels came down to the women of that group and no other daughters on earth.... The scripture states that the Sons of God" saw that the daughters of men were fair (Pretty), thus the question.......

Why only Seithite women????????

If you are going to try to act like you are imparting some pearl of great wisdom, at least SPELL IT CORRECTLY. LOL

 

[Bladerunner]

If you are going to try to act like you are imparting some pearl of great wisdom, at least SPELL IT CORRECTLY. LOL

Willie-T....why the caustic comments "some pearl of great wisdom".... That was the spelling I had and Here is another version.

Hope this suites you better my friend. "Seihites".

 

[BeyondET]

If you are going to try to act like you are imparting some pearl of great wisdom, at least SPELL IT CORRECTLY. LOL

lol... To funny....

 

[Magenta]

Wow....I did not see that coming......... The Seithite theory has been debunk for many years now...... Thought you knew.

As far as the women being pretty comment being said, there was no intention of disparaging women in general....

Under the Seithite theory, the Angels came down to the women of that group and no other daughters on earth.... The scripture states that the Sons of God" saw that the daughters of men were fair (Pretty), thus the question.......

Why only Seithite women????????

I am not sure which theory you are promoting here. You say that under the Seithite theory, the angels of God chose the daughters of men, but where does it say no other women were chosen, or why would it even need to? Angels having sex with female human beings is all one view promotes, while another view claims that the sons of God and daughters of men are all human beings.

As to you assuming I knew something we have never spoken of before, I cannot help you with that, though I could suggest you stop assuming things about people you really have no idea of. Suggesting these things to people does not generally generate any positive result, though. It is as if saying, oh, I thought you knew, is a kind of put down, like it is something everyone should know as if it were widely accepted, and if you don't know or accept this view then you are stupid or some such similar thing.

I simply disagree with the idea that angels were having sexual intercourse with women. There is nothing in Scriptures to suggest that angels even have gender let alone that they can manifest as fully functioning human beings of their own free will to copulate with human beings. Nor is there anything wrong with this view, neither had it been debunked.

 

[stonesoffire]

Am looking at the word darkness now and these are the scriptures that use the same word as in Genesis. Posting for anyone who might be interested. Those in Exodus I thought especially interesting. And a new thought ...darkness is seen metaphorically too, in the Hebrew, as a realm or dominion.

Gen_1:2 Andthe earthH776 wasH1961 without form,H8414 and void;H922 and darknessH2822 wasuponH5921 the faceH6440 of the deep.H8415 And the SpiritH7307 of GodH430movedH7363 uponH5921 the faceH6440 of the waters.H4325


Gen_1:4 AndGodH430 sawH7200 (H853) the light,H216 thatH3588 it was good:H2896 and GodH430dividedH914 H996 the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness.H2822


Gen_1:5 AndGodH430 calledH7121 the lightH216 Day,H3117 and the darknessH2822 hecalledH7121 Night.H3915 And the eveningH6153 and the morningH1242 wereH1961 thefirstH259 day.H3117


Gen_1:18 Andto ruleH4910 over the dayH3117 and over the night,H3915 and to divideH914 H996the lightH216 fromH996 the darkness:H2822 and GodH430 sawH7200 thatH3588 it wasgood.H2896


Exo_10:21 Andthe LORDH3068 saidH559 untoH413 Moses,H4872 Stretch outH5186 thine handH3027towardH5921 heaven,H8064 that there may beH1961 darknessH2822 overH5921 thelandH776 of Egypt,H4714 even darknessH2822 which may be felt.H4959


Exo_10:22 AndMosesH4872 stretched forthH5186 (H853) his handH3027 towardH5921 heaven;H8064and there wasH1961 a thickH653 darknessH2822 in allH3605 the landH776 ofEgyptH4714 threeH7969 days:H3117


Exo_14:20 Andit cameH935 betweenH996 the campH4264 of the EgyptiansH4714 and the campH4264of Israel;H3478 and it wasH1961 a cloudH6051 and darknessH2822 to them, but itgave lightH215 (H853) by nightH3915 to these: so that the oneH2088 came not nearH7126H3808 the otherH2088 allH3605 the night.H3915


Deu_4:11 Andye came nearH7126 and stoodH5975 underH8478 the mountain;H2022 and themountainH2022 burnedH1197 with fireH784 untoH5704 the midstH3820 ofheaven,H8064 with darkness,H2822 clouds,H6051 and thick darkness.H6205


Deu_5:23 Andit came to pass,H1961 when ye heardH8085 (H853) the voiceH6963 out of themidstH4480 H8432 of the darkness,H2822 (for the mountainH2022 did burnH1197with fire,)H784 that ye came nearH7126 untoH413 me, even allH3605 theheadsH7218 of your tribes,H7626 and your elders;H2205


Jos_2:5 And itcame to passH1961 about the time of shuttingH5462 of the gate,H8179 when it wasdark,H2822 that the menH376 went out:H3318 whitherH575 the menH376 wentH1980 IwotH3045 not:H3808 pursueH7291 afterH310 them quickly;H4118 forH3588 ye shallovertakeH5381 them.


1Sa_2:9 Hewill keepH8104 the feetH7272 of his saints,H2623 and the wickedH7563 shall besilentH1826 in darkness;H2822 forH3588 by strengthH3581 shall noH3808 manH376prevail.H1396


2Sa_22:12 Andhe madeH7896 darknessH2822 pavilionsH5521 round aboutH5439 him, darkH2841waters,H4325 and thick cloudsH5645 of the skies.H7834


2Sa_22:29 ForH3588 thouH859 art my lamp,H5216 O LORD:H3068 and the LORDH3068 willlightenH5050 my darkness.H2822


Job_3:4 LetthatH1931 dayH3117 beH1961 darkness;H2822 let notH408 GodH433 regardH1875 itfrom above,H4480 H4605 neitherH408 let the lightH5105 shineH3313 uponH5921 it.


Job_3:5 LetdarknessH2822 and the shadow of deathH6757 stainH1350 it; let a cloudH6053dwellH7931 uponH5921 it; let the blacknessH3650 of the dayH3117 terrifyH1204it.


Job_5:14 TheymeetH6298 with darknessH2822 in the daytime,H3119 and gropeH4959 in thenoondayH6672 as in the night.H3915


Job_10:21 BeforeH2962 I goH1980 whence I shall notH3808 return,H7725 even toH413 thelandH776 of darknessH2822 and the shadow of death;H6757


Job_12:22 HediscoverethH1540 deep thingsH6013 out ofH4480 darkness,H2822 and bringethoutH3318 to lightH216 the shadow of death.H6757


Job_12:25 TheygropeH4959 in the darkH2822 withoutH3808 light,H216 and he maketh them tostaggerH8582 like a drunkenH7910 man.


Job_15:22 HebelievethH539 notH3808 that he shall returnH7725 out ofH4480 darkness,H2822 andheH1931 is waited forH6822 ofH413 the sword.H2719


Job_15:23 HeH1931 wandereth abroadH5074 for bread,H3899 saying, WhereH346 is it? heknowethH3045 thatH3588 the dayH3117 of darknessH2822 is readyH3559 at hishand.H3027


Job_15:30 Heshall notH3808 departH5493 out ofH4480 darkness;H2822 the flameH7957 shall dryupH3001 his branches,H3127 and by the breathH7307 of his mouthH6310 shall he goaway.H5493


Job_17:12 TheychangeH7760 the nightH3915 into day:H3117 the lightH216 is shortH7138becauseH4480 H6440 of darkness.H2822


Job_17:13 IfH518 I wait,H6960 the graveH7585 is mine house:H1004 I have madeH7502 mybedH3326 in the darkness.H2822


Job_18:18 Heshall be drivenH1920 from lightH4480 H216 intoH413 darkness,H2822 andchasedH5074 out of the world.H4480 H8398


Job_19:8 Hehath fenced upH1443 my wayH734 that I cannotH3808 pass,H5674 and he hathsetH7760 darknessH2822 inH5921 my paths.H5410


Job_20:26 AllH3605 darknessH2822 shall be hidH2934 in his secret places:H6845 a fireH784notH3808 blownH5301 shall consumeH398 him; it shall go illH7489 with him thatis leftH8300 in his tabernacle.H168


Job_22:11 OrH176 darkness,H2822 that thou canst notH3808 see;H7200 and abundanceH8229 ofwatersH4325 coverH3680 thee.


Job_23:17 BecauseH3588 I was notH3808 cut offH6789 beforeH4480 H6440 the darkness,H2822neither hath he coveredH3680 the darknessH652 from my face.H4480 H6440


Job_24:16 Inthe darkH2822 they dig throughH2864 houses,H1004 which they had markedH2856 forthemselves in the daytime:H3119 they knowH3045 notH3808 the light.H216


Job_26:10 Hehath compassedH2328 H5921 the watersH6440 H4325 with bounds,H2706 untilH5704the dayH216 and nightH2822 come to an end.H8503


Job_28:3 HesettethH7760 an endH7093 to darkness,H2822 and searcheth outH2713 H1931allH3605 perfection:H8503 the stonesH68 of darkness,H652 and the shadow ofdeath.H6757


Job_29:3 Whenhis candleH5216 shinedH1984 uponH5921 my head,H7218 and when by his lightH216 IwalkedH1980 through darkness;H2822


Job_34:22 There is noH369 darkness,H2822 norH369 shadow of death,H6757 whereH8033 theworkersH6466 of iniquityH205 may hide themselves.H5641


Job_37:19 TeachH3045 us whatH4100 we shall sayH559 unto him; for we cannotH3808orderH6186 our speech by reasonH4480 H6440 of darkness.H2822


Job_38:19 WhereH335 H2088 is the wayH1870 where lightH216 dwelleth?H7931 and as fordarkness,H2822 whereH335 H2088 is the placeH4725 thereof,

 

[stonesoffire]

Theres many more but am having trouble posting them.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Shmuel Asher, who has a doctorate in ancient Hebrew biblical theology, agrees that the dark being first spoken of is evil. He has studied the Hebrew words extensively.

I am listening to some of his speaking on it.
So I'm not alone in my crazy!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

The other thing I am getting from listening to Shmuel, is (and I have yet to see if this is exactly how he translates it but it did come into my mind while listening) is that when He called the light, day: everlasting/clear, and called the darkness, night: a period of time (which is one of the Hebrew definitions) - this is like saying He called the light glorious and everlasting and He called the night temporary, not forever.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

D

The other thing I am getting from listening to Shmuel, is (and I have yet to see if this is exactly how he translates it but it did come into my mind while listening) is that when He called the light, day: everlasting/clear, and called the darkness, night: a period of time (which is one of the Hebrew definitions) - this is like saying He called the light glorious and everlasting and He called the night temporary, not forever.

Actually dont have my notes in front of me so I have to look up which of the two had a possible definition of a period of time, so I can't say yet what I said above, in my excitement.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Eeww...his website is bizarre...his radio talk was okay but his website I have no words for...