10 BRIDEMAIDS

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,688
29,025
113
@Truthnightmare to explain why I say this succinctly wrecks Bullinger's position, he says that God means
for us to interpret 'eat of the tree' as 'have sex with'
and to interpret 'tree' as a person throughout Genesis 3.

If this is the case God then God is instructing Adam to commit beastiality with ever animal in the garden.

Or God is completely inconsistent in His speech and nothing in the Bible is possible to interpret.

QED
Oh my .:eek:. How far the great "scholars" have fallen!

Did you come across anything saying Bullinger believed men were angels before being born?

And/or that they would be angels again at the end of this age? I saw nothing of the sort...

Though it is a Mormon belief. Was Bullinger an LDS?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,696
13,514
113
Did you come across anything saying Bullinger believed men were angels before being born?

And/or that they would be angels again at the end of this age? I saw nothing of the sort...

Though it is a Mormon belief. Was Bullinger an LDS?
i didn't, but maybe i just didn't look enough.
not LDS, he was an Anglican theologian noted for scholarship at the end of the 1800s / early 1900s. most of the criticism of his positions i found were centered around his beliefs about the cessation of existence on physical death.

weirdly he was also a flat earther... o_O
while at the same time saying Biblical interpretation should be undertaken like science..???
that seems ironic, to me.

i have seen that weird sexual interpretation of Genesis 3 pop up a few times here, but never knew it came from Bullinger ((if he really was the first one)) - i did know that it certainly isn't an interpretation with any historical weight, really easy to poke really big holes in, and i while i am not surprised it came from that time period ((around the same time as JWs, Mormons, Pentecostalism and lots of other weirdness appeared)) i am honestly surprised it's not American in origin! here in the US anyone with any crazy idea can create their own church and probably get tens of thousands of other crazy people to join them if for no other reason than it's a novel idea. freedom has its costs, i guess.

@Truthnightmare thank you for cluing me in to where that comes from! i never knew.

i have not looked deeply enough into Bullinger to understand what his other views are. i imagine he's much like most men, getting some things right and other things wrong. i keep thinking i've heard my pastor mention him having some esoteric view that he agreed with, but maybe i am just imagining things. possibly having to do with numerology, given what Truthnightmare shared earlier.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,688
29,025
113
i've heard my pastor mention him having some esoteric view that he agreed with, but maybe i am just imagining things.
Yes, Bullinger varied from traditional beliefs in a few things that are not necessarily wrong just because
they buck the trend, such as adhering to a Wednesday crucifixion instead of Friday, and I agree with that
.:)

Ah! And he predated Mormonism ;)
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
i didn't, but maybe i just didn't look enough.
not LDS, he was an Anglican theologian noted for scholarship at the end of the 1800s / early 1900s. most of the criticism of his positions i found were centered around his beliefs about the cessation of existence on physical death.

weirdly he was also a flat earther... o_O
while at the same time saying Biblical interpretation should be undertaken like science..???
that seems ironic, to me.

i have seen that weird sexual interpretation of Genesis 3 pop up a few times here, but never knew it came from Bullinger ((if he really was the first one)) - i did know that it certainly isn't an interpretation with any historical weight, really easy to poke really big holes in, and i while i am not surprised it came from that time period ((around the same time as JWs, Mormons, Pentecostalism and lots of other weirdness appeared)) i am honestly surprised it's not American in origin! here in the US anyone with any crazy idea can create their own church and probably get tens of thousands of other crazy people to join them if for no other reason than it's a novel idea. freedom has its costs, i guess.

@Truthnightmare thank you for cluing me in to where that comes from! i never knew.
i have not looked deeply enough into Bullinger to understand what his other views are. i imagine he's much like most men, getting some things right and other things wrong. i keep thinking i've heard my pastor mention him having some esoteric view that he agreed with, but maybe i am just imagining things. possibly having to do with numerology, given what Truthnightmare shared earlier.
I don’t believe the mindset came from Bullinger, but he did agree with the evaluation, of the evidence laid forth.But could it be possible that the sources you have heard or spoke to didn’t give you a full explanation of why this is believed?
God's command to Adam:
Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (KJV)​
Eve's dialogue with the serpent (satan) regarding what God had commanded her:
Gen 3:1-6
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (KJV)​
Eve makes a statement in [Gen 3:3] "neither shall ye touch it", that is not recorded as being said by God to Adam in [Gen 2:17]. That does not necessarily mean that God did not say that to Adam, for God walked with Adam and had direct daily conversation with him. It is not unreasonable that God stated many things to Adam that are not mentioned in the handful of exchanges between them recorded in the Bible. But I feel there is more to it than a simple omission of a particular conversational exchange.

I cannot however, document my position with a particular Scripture, as very little of God's conversations with Adam and Eve are recorded in Scripture. Join me as I reason, then you must make your own mind up as to what you will believe to be the case, for some things just are not written, but God did give us common sense and reasoning abilities and why not expect that He would wish us to utilize them here?
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
Oh my .:eek:. How far the great "scholars" have fallen!

Did you come across anything saying Bullinger believed men were angels before being born?

And/or that they would be angels again at the end of this age? I saw nothing of the sort...

Though it is a Mormon belief. Was Bullinger an LDS?
he was also a keen astrologist he was yuk.
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
@Truthnightmare to explain why i say this succinctly wrecks Bullinger's position, he says that God means for us to interpret 'eat of the tree' as 'have sex with' and to interpret 'tree' as a person throughout Genesis 3.

If this is the case God then God is instructing Adam to commit beastiality with every animal in the garden before He gives him a wife.

Or God is completely inconsistent in His speech and nothing in the Bible is possible to interpret.

QED
Oh no, not all posthuman,

No, that is not at all what the Scripture implies. In fact it declares that animals are not "help meets" for Adam: "...and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

The below Scripture speaks of two separate subjects, and it simply lists, in order, the events in the Garden.
First was Adam, he was alone.
Then God made DOMESTIC animals, but Adam was still alone.
Then God made Eve for Adam and it was all downhill for him from there.​
Just kidding.

Eve was the help meet for Adam, the animals were made for Adam to use, but they were not companions to him, though he had the dominion over them.

Eve was the last "thing" formed and made by God in the Garden. It was necessary, for chronology's sake, to mention the animals before closing the creation narrative. It would have been inaccurate to mention the animals after mentioning Eve, because they came before her. It would have been inaccurate to mention the animals before Adam, because he came before them. The only logical place to mention them is in-between Adam and Eve. Adam was formed, but he was never meant to be alone, thus Adam was to have a help (companion) meet (adequate) for him. The animals in the Garden were not a failed attempt on God's part to find a help meet for Adam. God knew exactly what Adam needed.

The placement of the statements about the "help meet" that was lacking, and which was to come, simply declares God's intention that Adam was to have a mate. You notice that the "help meet" was mentioned both before the animals and after the animals indicating that the animals were never the intended "help meet." Or else God erred, which of course is a ridiculous premise.

The confuse arises because God had to fit the animals into the creation order after Adam, but before Eve. The Scripture is saying the animals were not the help meet to come.

Consider the offset verses as parenthetical (one subject placed in the middle of another subject).
Gen 2:18-23
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. KJV


I agree that the way that this is worded in the English from the Hebrew can seem confusing, but remember that often times what is clear and concise in one language looses some clarity when it is transferred into another language.

I assure you that God was on top of the events in the Garden, and that He did not supposed to mate Adam with a cow or a sparrow before He 'realized that this wouldn't work.'
In Leviticus 18 and 20 we see that interspecies sexual activity (bestiality) is forbidden​
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
he was everything that is awful about the Anglican church especially the 19th century Anglican church yuk.
I definitely don’t agree with all of Bullingers assertions… But I’m not willing to say he was “everything” of anything… The stars were to be for signs… The Zodiac was shown in things as the Sphinx head of woman (Virgo) September, body of a lion (Leo) beginning to end of the Zodiac.. Even the wise men followed a star… These things existed long before Bullinger was born.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
I definitely don’t agree with all of Bullingers assertions… But I’m not willing to say he was “everything” of anything… The stars were to be for signs… The Zodiac was shown in things as the Sphinx head of woman (Virgo) September, body of a lion (Leo) beginning to end of the Zodiac.. Even the wise men followed a star… These things existed long before Bullinger was born.
don't blame me if you get all muddled up and confused ...
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
don't blame me if you get all muddled up and confused ...
Why would I blame you for anything, you have never burdened me… Also

1 Corinthians 14:33
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

If I ever felt truly confused, I would go to the Lord in prayer, not to a forum to cast blame.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
Why would I blame you for anything, you have never burdened me… Also

1 Corinthians 14:33
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

If I ever felt truly confused, I would go to the Lord in prayer, not to a forum to cast blame.
God is not the Author of confusion ... Bullinger certainly was.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
59,688
29,025
113
God is not the Author of confusion ... Bullinger certainly was.
And so is @Truthnightmare, claiming men/humanity pre-existed their physical presence
on Earth, being angels before they were born and will be again at the end of this age. **
He has also asserted that animals were created between Adam and Eve when the text plainly states otherwise.


** That's a Mormon belief.
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
God is not the Author of confusion ... Bullinger certainly was.
I’m the book of James, we read
James 3
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

How could Bullinger be the author of confusion, when confusion has been on the earth before Bullinger was born.

But it’s your prerogative.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,696
13,514
113
Oh no, not all posthuman,

No, that is not at all what the Scripture implies. In fact it declares that animals are not "help meets" for Adam: "...and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."

The below Scripture speaks of two separate subjects, and it simply lists, in order, the events in the Garden.
First was Adam, he was alone.​
Then God made DOMESTIC animals, but Adam was still alone.​
Then God made Eve for Adam and it was all downhill for him from there.​
Just kidding.

Eve was the help meet for Adam, the animals were made for Adam to use, but they were not companions to him, though he had the dominion over them.

Eve was the last "thing" formed and made by God in the Garden. It was necessary, for chronology's sake, to mention the animals before closing the creation narrative. It would have been inaccurate to mention the animals after mentioning Eve, because they came before her. It would have been inaccurate to mention the animals before Adam, because he came before them. The only logical place to mention them is in-between Adam and Eve. Adam was formed, but he was never meant to be alone, thus Adam was to have a help (companion) meet (adequate) for him. The animals in the Garden were not a failed attempt on God's part to find a help meet for Adam. God knew exactly what Adam needed.

The placement of the statements about the "help meet" that was lacking, and which was to come, simply declares God's intention that Adam was to have a mate. You notice that the "help meet" was mentioned both before the animals and after the animals indicating that the animals were never the intended "help meet." Or else God erred, which of course is a ridiculous premise.

The confuse arises because God had to fit the animals into the creation order after Adam, but before Eve. The Scripture is saying the animals were not the help meet to come.

Consider the offset verses as parenthetical (one subject placed in the middle of another subject).
Gen 2:18-23​
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.​
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.​
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;​
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.​
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. KJV​
I agree that the way that this is worded in the English from the Hebrew can seem confusing, but remember that often times what is clear and concise in one language looses some clarity when it is transferred into another language.​
I assure you that God was on top of the events in the Garden, and that He did not supposed to mate Adam with a cow or a sparrow before He 'realized that this wouldn't work.'​
In Leviticus 18 and 20 we see that interspecies sexual activity (bestiality) is forbidden​
The contradiction is in Bullinger's interpretation of "eat of the tree" which he states by fiat in his "companion Bible" commentary.

quote:

neither shall ye touch it. This sentence is added. Compare Genesis 2:18 , Genesis 2:17 . There is another word in this verse we need to consider, and it is the word "touch". God's command to Eve was; "neither shall ye touch it. "The Hebrew word for "touch" is # H5060 in the Strong's dictionary is ( Naga, a prime root, prop. to touch, i.e., lay the hand upon ( for the purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman), to reach) , So we see that the warning to Adam and Eve specifically, was to stay away from Satan called both the "serpent", and the "tree of good and evil". The fruit of that tree was not to be taken; and we know that the "fruit" as the results of a sexual relationship between any man and woman is a child. God's command was that Eve "not touch (lay with Satan)." So, we see that the order by God is that Eve not have sexual union with Satan .
 
Aug 27, 2023
823
211
43
The contradiction is in Bullinger's interpretation of "eat of the tree" which he states by fiat in his "companion Bible" commentary.

quote:

neither shall ye touch it. This sentence is added. Compare Genesis 2:18 , Genesis 2:17 . There is another word in this verse we need to consider, and it is the word "touch". God's command to Eve was; "neither shall ye touch it. "The Hebrew word for "touch" is # H5060 in the Strong's dictionary is ( Naga, a prime root, prop. to touch, i.e., lay the hand upon ( for the purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman), to reach) , So we see that the warning to Adam and Eve specifically, was to stay away from Satan called both the "serpent", and the "tree of good and evil". The fruit of that tree was not to be taken; and we know that the "fruit" as the results of a sexual relationship between any man and woman is a child. God's command was that Eve "not touch (lay with Satan)." So, we see that the order by God is that Eve not have sexual union with Satan .
I’m with you…. Can you elaborate a little more?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,696
13,514
113
The contradiction is in Bullinger's interpretation of "eat of the tree" which he states by fiat in his "companion Bible" commentary.

quote:

neither shall ye touch it. This sentence is added. Compare Genesis 2:18 , Genesis 2:17 . There is another word in this verse we need to consider, and it is the word "touch". God's command to Eve was; "neither shall ye touch it. "The Hebrew word for "touch" is # H5060 in the Strong's dictionary is ( Naga, a prime root, prop. to touch, i.e., lay the hand upon ( for the purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman), to reach) , So we see that the warning to Adam and Eve specifically, was to stay away from Satan called both the "serpent", and the "tree of good and evil". The fruit of that tree was not to be taken; and we know that the "fruit" as the results of a sexual relationship between any man and woman is a child. God's command was that Eve "not touch (lay with Satan)." So, we see that the order by God is that Eve not have sexual union with Satan .
since Bullinger is explicit that "eat of the tree" = have sex with, and God also instructs both the man and his wife to freely "eat of the tree" with anything and everything that could by any stretch of the imagination be called a tree, Satan being the soul exception to their "appetite," Bullinger's position necessarily has God suggesting they enjoin in adulterous promiscuity with every other living soul they can find. which at that time amounts exactly to animals.

hence beastiality, as much as they can possibly manage to fit into their schedules, "freely"
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,696
13,514
113
hence beastiality, as much as they can possibly manage to fit into their schedules, "freely"
Or i guess if you insist there are lots of other humans around, God instructs them to engage in just plain old rampant adultery.

"freely eat"

Hmm.