The Revelation of Adam

[serpentslayer]

This is the Revelation of Adam.

Adam was given the Truth (Commandment), and he was responsible for it (Gen 2:15-17); but, when he told Eve the Commandment, he added the lie that they could not touch it and he did not tell her the name of the forbidden tree. By this act, Adam earned the reputation of being the devil because he told the first lie, the reputation of being a serpent because he spoke with a forked tongue, one spekaing both Truth (don't eat) and Lie (don't touch) at once, and the reputation of being subtle because Eve had no reason to doubt what he said, so she beleived what he said. Thus Eve was deceived from the very Beginning, and her testimony of what she thought was the Truth is the proof she had been deceived because it contains an untruth (don't touch), but Eve is not the first liar, the devil is (Jn 8:44).

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

when he told Eve the Commandment, he added the lie that they could not touch it and he did not tell her the name of the forbidden tree.

It's possible that the command not to touch was not a lie, but simply unmentioned in the earlier narrative. For example, one gospel will record one thing that was said or one person that is present. From another gospel we will learn that another thing was said in addition to that other thing and another person was present in addition to the other person. This doesn't mean any of the gospel writers are liars.

I pointed out the same thing in regard to genealogies in another thread. In Matthew's genealogy, we see that Joram was the father of Uzziah (if I remember correctly), but we can find from another geneaology in the Bible that they aren't direct descendants and Joram had other children.

So even though it makes for some great Sunday school lessons on the dangers of adding to God's Word, I'm not sure we can say for certain that the command not to touch wasn't part of the original command.

The Bible doesn't say that Adam didn't tell her the name of the tree. That's an assumption you are reading into the text.

By this act, Adam earned the reputation of being the devil because he told the first lie, the reputation of being a serpent because he spoke with a forked tongue, one spekaing both Truth (don't eat) and Lie (don't touch) at once, and the reputation of being subtle because Eve had no reason to doubt what he said, so she beleived what he said.

These are all assumptions you are reading into the text. Based on what?

Thus Eve was deceived from the very Beginning, and her testimony of what she thought was the Truth is the proof she had been deceived because it contains an untruth (don't touch), but Eve is not the first liar, the devil is (Jn 8:44).

This rests upon a precarious reading of her relating the command "don't touch". By the way, we aren't told that Adam told her not to touch it, that's another assumption you are reading into the text. It only says that she said they were not to touch it. So at best, all we can say is SHE is the one who lied.

The fact that Satan is said to be the first liar is actually a good reason to assume that Eve didn't lie about the command not to touch. This isn't even to mention the fact that the narrative itself assumes that the Serpent and Adam are two different persons: cf. God's judgment in Gen. 3:14-19

This form of interpretive gymnastics built head to toe on assumptions read into the text is a good example of how cults get started.

(P.S. Why would Adam even give her the command to not eat (or touch, as you assume) if he is only going to later convince her to eat it??)

 

[mpaper345]

Satan is the first liar because he lied to the angels that followed him,telling them that they are alright if they do their own thing,like he told Eve she would be alright if she did her own thing.

Kind of like the 1960's,do your own thing,thinking they are alright,but marked the beginning of the last decade before Jesus takes over the world,and caused an attitude of selfishness and arrogance that has never been seen before in the history of mankind.

11There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
12There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
13There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
14There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men(Proverbs 30:11-14).

I'm sure that if God told Adam that he could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,that they could not touch it,for why would they want to touch it unless they were tempted by it,which they should not think.

It is like God saying it is alright to kiss a woman that you are not married to,but not to fornicate,when it is wrong to kiss a woman,and to kiss a woman can tempt a person to go further.

God is not going to allow them to touch the fruit,for they are not supposed to have anything to do with that tree,and it might tempt them to go further.

If God told them they are not to eat of that tree,then it is common sense that they cannot touch it,for they are not to have anything to do with that tree,and why would God allow them to touch it,when they are not supposed to have anything to do with that tree.
Their mind should not be on that tree,and they should not think they want to touch it,for they are not to have anything to do with that tree.

God did not say you can fondle a woman,but not fornicate if you are not married,when you are not to have anything to do with that woman sexually unless you are married.

God is not going to tell them they can touch the tree but not eat of it,because they are not supposed to have anything to do with that tree.

Matt

 

[angelos]

so why was the tree there in the first place?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

so why was the tree there in the first place?

Can I just say that I know someone will chime in with "To give us free will" so let me beat them to the punch at least: to give us free will.

 

[angelos]

man already had free will before then as can be seen by that mankind chose to eat of it's fruit.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

man already had free will before then as can be seen by that mankind chose to eat of it's fruit.

Right, but I mean that (according to some) the *option* must be there in order for free will to be present. So we need to have the possibility to sin in order to have free will. The tree gave us that option.

But not all persons who believe in free will (I'm using the term very loosely to avoid an overly complicated discussion on the various types) believe that we need that option or possibility. For example, the philosopher David Hunt (not to be confused with the quasi-theologian Dave Hunt) doesn't believe we need the option. Nor does William Lane Craig (except of course when he is contradicting himself).

By the way, I do not want to turn this into a free will discussion. If anyone wants that they can take it up with me in the thread that is discussing the free-will defense or they can just send me a private message and I'll give them my email. Sorry if this ends up getting off topic.

 

[angelos]

how do you need the option of sin to have free will?

 

[mpaper345]

God gave angels and mankind a choice because God wants angels and people to dwell with Him for all eternity that made the choice to live for God,because then it is true love.

God told them they could eat of any tree they wanted to,but to leave that one tree alone.

God put the tree of knowledge in the garden,because God gave them a choice,to live for Him,or to do their own thing,because it is based on true love,so someone has to make the choice to live for God to be true love,which if they do not have a choice but to always live for God,then it is robotic love,which is not really love.

If God created the angels without a choice,then the angels would worship God because they have no choice but to worship God,and it would be not true love.

If God did not make man with a choice,then they would only follow God because they have no choice but to follow God,and it would not be true love.

It is like someone programming their computer to say I love you,but it does not really love you.

If God did not create angels and mankind with a choice,then they would not really love God,but would be like a computer that says I love you,but does not really love you,but has no choice but to say I love you.

God put the tree of knowledge in the garden because He gave Adam and Eve a choice,and if they left the tree alone,they made the choice to obey God and love Him,which is true love.

Matt

 

[Israel]

so why was the tree there in the first place?

The tree is the commandment! To obey or not to obey, life or death.

 

[serpentslayer]

You must understand Paradise, which is the Garden Of Eden. The Tree of Life is the two trees in the center of the Garden, even the forbidden one. And the Tree of Life was the seal of God's promise to Adam of perpetual life for obedience to the Commandment. As long as Adam did not sin, he would be allowed to eat from the Tree of Life; but, once he sinned, he had to driven out of the Garden, and so, he began to die. The forbidden tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, spoke of one's conscience: as long as Adam did not eat from the forbidden tree he conscience told him he was doing good; however, once he ate, his conscience immediatley told him that he was guilty of sin. So, the Commandment was given as a test to Adam, to see if he would beleive what God said. And the test had to be given so that God would have a just way to judge His creation, if it be the case that Adam would willing sin. We, today, are judged the same way, because the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[abbulous]

I'm confused. what point are you trying to make about Adam? and does a forked tongue have to do with anything?

 

[serpentslayer]

The point is that all born of a man and a woman are the children of the devil because Adam is the Devil. For this reason, the Savior, Jesus Christ, could be born of woman, but not a man. The whole world, then, is a world full of the children of the devil, by the flesh; but, by the Spirit of God one can overcome the lusts of the flesh.

A second point is this: never trust a man (or woman) for the truth, but God alone. For if one knows the Truth, one can never be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the would-be deceiver. If this fact were not true, then the Bible is powerless against the serpents of this world.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The point is that all born of a man and a woman are the children of the devil because Adam is the Devil. For this reason, the Savior, Jesus Christ, could be born of woman, but not a man. The whole world, then, is a world full of the children of the devil, by the flesh; but, by the Spirit of God one can overcome the lusts of the flesh.

A second point is this: never trust a man (or woman) for the truth, but God alone. For if one knows the Truth, one can never be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the would-be deceiver. If this fact were not true, then the Bible is powerless against the serpents of this world.

Except your haven't been capable of demonstrating yet that Adam is the Devil. So everything that you try to build on top of that theory can be ignored.

But I guess it does lend itself to optimism to think that one day we may find the devil gene inside of the male sperm and eradicate it.

 

[KayCee]

I'm confused. what point are you trying to make about Adam? and does a forked tongue have to do with anything?

Hi Abbulous,

I'm a little confused myself. I thought that by now, most people were aware of the recent findings in the Mesopotamian hinterlands. Antique parchments, several thousand years old, written in ancient Hebrew, have thrown new light on the Book of Genesis. Although translation of the documents are still ongoing, here is the gist of the new textual codicils:

Apparently a serpent was not the cause of Adam and Eve's troubles during their sojourn in the Garden of Eden. The problems emanated from the evil propensities of the soul-sucking Vampire Apple.

The translation of the ancient Mesopotamian scrolls indicates that neither Adam nor Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. Instead, they were bitten by the sinister Vampire Apple !

When I became aware of this, I was overwhelmed with the realization that my primordial parents have been proven innocent and they (and we as well) are now free from all taint of original sin. (Who would want to eat that nasty-looking apple, anyway?)

If you want more info on this remarkable series of events, check out my thread here in the Bible Discussion forum. The title of the thread is: "Beware the Vampire Apple."

- KayCee

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Hi Abbulous,

I'm a little confused myself. I thought that by now, most people were aware of the recent findings in the Mesopotamian hinterlands. Antique parchments, several thousand years old, written in ancient Hebrew, have thrown new light on the Book of Genesis. Although translation of the documents are still ongoing, here is the gist of the new textual codicils:

Apparently a serpent was not the cause of Adam and Eve's troubles during their sojourn in the Garden of Eden. The problems emanated from the evil propensities of the soul-sucking Vampire Apple.

The translation of the ancient Mesopotamian scrolls indicates that neither Adam nor Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. Instead, they were bitten by the sinister Vampire Apple !

When I became aware of this, I was overwhelmed with the realization that my primordial parents have been proven innocent and they (and we as well) are now free from all taint of original sin. (Who would want to eat that nasty-looking apple, anyway?)

If you want more info on this remarkable series of events, check out my thread here in the Bible Discussion forum. The title of the thread is: "Beware the Vampire Apple."

- KayCee

While searching through an old stack of papers on my desk I discovered an ancient document that upon closer inspection showed itself to be a palimpsest. With the help of some tincture and ultraviolate light I've determined that the contents of the original document were written by the same author of this Hebrew scroll in the "Mesopotamian hinterlands," it said "Just kidding."

With the help of a pear I've determined that this addendum was written about 5 minutes and thirty seconds after the previous document. Looks like we can safely go back to eating all sorts of apples.

 

[sunshine_debbie]

It's possible that the command not to touch was not a lie, but simply unmentioned in the earlier narrative. For example, one gospel will record one thing that was said or one person that is present. From another gospel we will learn that another thing was said in addition to that other thing and another person was present in addition to the other person. This doesn't mean any of the gospel writers are liars.

I pointed out the same thing in regard to genealogies in another thread. In Matthew's genealogy, we see that Joram was the father of Uzziah (if I remember correctly), but we can find from another geneaology in the Bible that they aren't direct descendants and Joram had other children.

So even though it makes for some great Sunday school lessons on the dangers of adding to God's Word, I'm not sure we can say for certain that the command not to touch wasn't part of the original command.

The Bible doesn't say that Adam didn't tell her the name of the tree. That's an assumption you are reading into the text.

These are all assumptIions you are reading into the text. Based on what?



This rests upon a precarious reading of her relating the command "don't touch". By the way, we aren't told that Adam told her not to touch it, that's another assumption you are reading into the text. It only says that she said they were not to touch it. So at best, all we can say is SHE is the one who lied.

The fact that Satan is said to be the first liar is actually a good reason to assume that Eve didn't lie about the command not to touch. This isn't even to mention the fact that the narrative itself assumes that the Serpent and Adam are two different persons: cf. God's judgment in Gen. 3:14-19

This form of interpretive gymnastics built head to toe on assumptions read into the text is a good example of how cults get started.

(P.S. Why would Adam even give her the command to not eat (or touch, as you assume) if he is only going to later convince her to eat it??)

I am sorry to make this so long with repeating your post, but you are so right. I used to teach Sunday School, and there are many things that even Biblical Materials that you get from Christian Bookstores, will change, just a little here and there and all of a sudden, people are misinterpreting things all over. And then it gets told to one person and then another and then we have a mess.

If you knew how many children I had to tell that Jonah was NOT swallowed by a whale. You would laugh. But in the light of things, its not really funny.

You have to read the word as literally as you possibly can. Dont add, dont subtract and worst of all dont guess. If you dont know, its ok not to know. When we get to Heaven all of our questions will be answered.

Debbie

 

[sunshine_debbie]

The point is that all born of a man and a woman are the children of the devil because Adam is the Devil. For this reason, the Savior, Jesus Christ, could be born of woman, but not a man. The whole world, then, is a world full of the children of the devil, by the flesh; but, by the Spirit of God one can overcome the lusts of the flesh.

A second point is this: never trust a man (or woman) for the truth, but God alone. For if one knows the Truth, one can never be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the would-be deceiver. If this fact were not true, then the Bible is powerless against the serpents of this world.

I am pretty sure that Adam is not the devil. The devil is Lucifer the angel who was thrown out of heaven. Where would you get the idea that Adam is in any way the devil. Adam is a human being, therefore, he can not be the devil, no matter what he eats or doesnt eat, or what he touches or doesnt touch. But I will happily go through Genesis again and see if I can try to understand where you are coming from.

Debbie

 

[serpentslayer]

It's possible that the command not to touch was not a lie, but simply unmentioned in the earlier narrative. For example, one gospel will record one thing that was said or one person that is present. From another gospel we will learn that another thing was said in addition to that other thing and another person was present in addition to the other person. This doesn't mean any of the gospel writers are liars.

I pointed out the same thing in regard to genealogies in another thread. In Matthew's genealogy, we see that Joram was the father of Uzziah (if I remember correctly), but we can find from another geneaology in the Bible that they aren't direct descendants and Joram had other children.

So even though it makes for some great Sunday school lessons on the dangers of adding to God's Word, I'm not sure we can say for certain that the command not to touch wasn't part of the original command.

The Bible doesn't say that Adam didn't tell her the name of the tree. That's an assumption you are reading into the text.



These are all assumptions you are reading into the text. Based on what?



This rests upon a precarious reading of her relating the command "don't touch". By the way, we aren't told that Adam told her not to touch it, that's another assumption you are reading into the text. It only says that she said they were not to touch it. So at best, all we can say is SHE is the one who lied.

The fact that Satan is said to be the first liar is actually a good reason to assume that Eve didn't lie about the command not to touch. This isn't even to mention the fact that the narrative itself assumes that the Serpent and Adam are two different persons: cf. God's judgment in Gen. 3:14-19

This form of interpretive gymnastics built head to toe on assumptions read into the text is a good example of how cults get started.

(P.S. Why would Adam even give her the command to not eat (or touch, as you assume) if he is only going to later convince her to eat it??)

The only assumption made in this interpretation is that only the Word of God can be trusted for the TRUTH; therefore, Gen 2:16-17 is quite explicit in what the Lord God commanded Adam, and HE said nothing about not touching it. But Adam added the lie 'don't touch' as a means to help convince her to eat first. Once Eve said that touching or eating would cause death, Adam took her to the center of the Garden for the first time, reached out and touched the fruit (but did not die as Eve as said), then told her that not only could she eat it freely and live, but it would give her knowledge. Was not Eve surprised to see that the tree and its fruit were pleasent to the eyes (she ahd never seen it before), good for food (she thought it wouldl cause death), and able to make one wise (she did not know its name)?

What you do not seem to understand is what the Image and Likeness of the Lord appear as; therefore, you do not fully understand the creation of Adam. Ez 1:26-28 fully describes both these attributes: and, if Gen 1 is the complete accounting of all God created and made, then Adam is the annointed cherub (Ez28). Was not satan transformed into an angel of light? what then was he before he was transformed? or what was he made of?

If Adam is not the Devil, then how was the LORD just in condemning the serpent without first giving him a trial? Is not the judgement of the serpent the curse of sin we are all born under, for it cannot be found in the judgement of Adam, which is the curse of the body.

Adam was created body, soul, and spirit; but, as soon as he ate the forbidden fruit he died spiritually because the spirit left him. For this reason we are all born dead in spirit. Then, at the age of 930, Adam died physically. What is left is the destruction of his soul in the Lake of Fire.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

The only assumption made in this interpretation is that only the Word of God can be trusted for the TRUTH;

Allow me to point out some other assumptions:

HE said nothing about not touching it.

That's an assumption.

But Adam added the lie 'don't touch' as a means to help convince her to eat first.

That's an assumption.

Once Eve said that touching or eating would cause death, Adam took her to the center of the Garden for the first time, reached out and touched the fruit (but did not die as Eve as said)

That's an assumption.

Was not Eve surprised to see that the tree and its fruit were pleasent to the eyes (she ahd never seen it before), good for food (she thought it wouldl cause death), and able to make one wise

That's an assumption. (We don't know that she was surprised.)

(she did not know its name)

That's an assumption.

if Gen 1 is the complete accounting of all God created and made, then Adam is the annointed cherub (Ez28).

That's an assumption.

Was not satan transformed into an angel of light? what then was he before he was transformed? or what was he made of?

That's an assumption. (Scripture nowhere says Satan was transformed into an angel of light. Rather it says he disguises himself as an angel of light: 2 Cor. 11:14.)

If Adam is not the Devil, then how was the LORD just in condemning the serpent without first giving him a trial?

Not sure what you mean. You mean a test? But anyway, this is just another assumption: the assumption that there was no trial. (A lot of your assumptions are based off of what's called the "argument from silence fallacy." This is where you assume that something is not present, or in your extreme case, even present, simply because it isn't mentioned. So for example if you ask "What did you do Sunday?" and I say "took a nap" and later in the day you over hear me say "I went to the beach on Sunday" you assume that I COULDN'T have gone to the beach because, after all, I didn't mention going to the beach earlier.)

Is not the judgement of the serpent the curse of sin we are all born under, for it cannot be found in the judgement of Adam, which is the curse of the body.

That's an assumption. Scripture nowhere calls the judgment of the serpent the "curse of sin" nor does it call Adam's curse "the curse of the body."

Almost every sentence you write is an assumption or builds off an assumption. None of this can be found in the text of Scripture. Not only is there absolutely no positive evidence in support of your theory, but there is tons of negative evidence against your theory. I already mentioned some of this negative evidence last time, but we can add to it. For instance, God says to Adam "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife..." but under your theory he should have said to Eve, "Because you have listened to the voice of your husband..." There is also the fact that a separate curse is given to the serpent than is given to Adam. Under your theory, there should have only been one curse, since the serpent and Adam are the same person. We could go on and on...

I'm reminded of a quote that says something like "Don't try to read between the lines of Scripture until you've learned to read the lines themselves." I suggest you find some way to take off the colored spectacles through which you are reading Scripture and start from square one.