The Revelation of Adam

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I'd like to add a few things just to put this to rest, if possible.

Gen 2:16-17 is quite explicit in what the Lord God commanded Adam, and HE said nothing about not touching it.

An explicit statement is one where the fact or thought is expressed rather than implied. If Scripture explicitly states the things you say they do, please quote the verses.

For example, which verse says that God said nothing about touching the fruit or tree?

Which verse says Eve was surprised?

Which verse says Adam is the serpent?

Which verse says Adam is the anointed Cherub?

Which verse say the Serpent wasn't "given a trial"?

... etc. I think you get the point.

Now let's look at the narrative as it should have been written, if what you're saying is correct:

“Adam said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden AND you shall not touch it’? I mean, because I know I said God said that, but now I'm not so sure.” And the woman said to Adam, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’*Don't you remember telling me that?” But Adam said to the woman, “Oh, right, right. Well I just remembered God didn't say that.You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she was really surprised. Then she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her (DUH!), and he ate... ” (Genesis 3:1–7)

 

[giantone]

Adam was the first picture of Christ in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 15:45 *And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 *Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 *The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Adam knew the commandment of God and the result of eating from the forbidden tree, Adam knew when he saw Eve had eaten the fruit she wouldn't be able to remain with him and would die. He loved Eve and didn't want to be away from her so he ate the fruit knowing completely what he was doing. That is why sin came into the world through the man, he knew exactly what he was doing, Eve didn't, she was tricked. Jesus is the second Adam, he loved us so much he took sin upon himself knowing full well He would die.

 

[serpentslayer]

Allow me to point out some other assumptions:



That's an assumption.



That's an assumption.



That's an assumption.



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



That's an assumption.



That's an assumption.



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.)



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.)



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.

Fact: Angel creation is not mentioned in Gen 1, but you beleive they exist anyway. It seems that you have made an assumption of your own from the very Beginning. So, if only GOd is True, then, because Adam was the only creation of GOD having HIS IMAGE and HIS LIKENESS, Adam must aslo be that 'annointed cherub which covereth' (Ez 28:14), whom is Lucifer (Is 14:12-20).

Fact Adam is the only being created when the Lord spoke the Commandment to him. (Gen 2:4-18)

Fact: There is a serpent in the Garden even before our "parents' sinned, who has evil intentions; therefore, inquity, which is sinful thinking, is already in Paradise.

Fact: the devil, who is also the serpent, satan, and others in scriptures (Rev 20:2), is the father of the lie (Jn 8:44); therefore, he told the first one (definition).

Fact: Eve was deceived by the subtlety of the serpent (Gen 3:13; 2Cor 11:3)

Fact: a liar is one who knows the Truth, but changes it.

Fact: THe Commandment was to not eat the Fruit from the Forbidden Tree, else die (Gen 2:16-17)
(eating from alll the other trees was permissible but not commanded)

Assumption: Adam told Eve the Truth, name and all; then, because she knew the Truth (don't eat), but spoke a lie (don't touch, Gen 2:3), even before the serpent told her the lie that she could eat and live (Gen 3:4), she told the first lie. But this contradicts the fact that the devil told the first lie; therefore, the assumption is wrong (deductive reasoning), so Adam did not tell Eve the Truth. Any questions?

Your tone and your words seemed rather harsh; but, i understand how this all may sound. I will not be contentious about anything because we all have the right to believe what we would. I believe the Bible (KJV), and I believe that which i can prove by IT. BUt keep in mind, young man, if that which i say is the Truth, then know that you are not struggling with flesh and blood, for the Truth comes only by the Spirit. In this regard then, i must admit that i am only a messenger: and my duty is done when one hears. Only the Spirit can open ones eyes to the Truth.


Where is the subtlety of the serpent by which he deceived Eve, according to your understanding?
How is it that there is a subtle serpent in the Garden, even before sin? Does this no say that something has already gone terribly wrong. Consider: if it were not for Gen 3, the rest of the Bible need not be written.

 

[Daedalus]

so why was the tree there in the first place?

What if it was put there to glorify God?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Fact: Angel creation is not mentioned in Gen 1, but you beleive they exist anyway. It seems that you have made an assumption of your own from the very Beginning.

The Bible doesn't tell us when angels were created, but it does tell us they exist. So I'm not making any assumptions since I never said anything about when they were created, and it's no assumption on my part to say they exist.

So, if only GOd is True, then, because Adam was the only creation of GOD having HIS IMAGE and HIS LIKENESS, Adam must aslo be that 'annointed cherub which covereth' (Ez 28:14), whom is Lucifer (Is 14:12-20).

This makes no sense. On the one hand, it's based on an extreme literalism of what it means for something to be 'like' another thing. You're assuming that if man in made in the likeness of God, then nothing else can have any likeness to God (e.g. If the Bible says that God is like a shield, then that means a shield is man because only man is like God). But if you're going to be so woodenly literalistic, then how do you explain the fact that Ezekiel 28 says that it is talking about the king of Tyre?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you work out the passage in a consistent form of literalism or you give it some room to breath. If you give it some room to breath, then your argument that Adam is the Cherub falls apart. If you consistently apply your wooden literalism, then your argument that Ezekiel 28 is about Adam falls apart because it says it is about the king of Tyre, and Adam was not the king of Tyre when Ezekiel was written.

Fact Adam is the only being created when the Lord spoke the Commandment to him. (Gen 2:4-18)

Not sure what you mean by "being". Technically, the term can be applied to animals. If this is how you are applying the term, then it's based on a confusion of the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. I'll not bother explaining this unless I'm sure this is where you're coming from.

On the other hand, by "being" you could mean person (and angels and demons qualify as persons technically). If this is what you are saying, then it's just another assumption you are reading into the text. Please quote explicitly where the text says that no angels existed yet or where it says Adam was the only being.

On the other hand, if by "being" you mean "human" then your point is irrelevant. We all agree that Adam was the first human being.

Fact: There is a serpent in the Garden even before our "parents' sinned, who has evil intentions; therefore, inquity, which is sinful thinking, is already in Paradise.

Yes, but this is an irrelevant fact. It doesn't add to your thesis.

Fact: the devil, who is also the serpent, satan, and others in scriptures (Rev 20:2), is the father of the lie (Jn 8:44); therefore, he told the first one (definition).

Yes. But again, this doesn't add anything to your thesis.

Fact: Eve was deceived by the subtlety of the serpent (Gen 3:13; 2Cor 11:3)

Again, irrelevant.

Fact: a liar is one who knows the Truth, but changes it.

Well, to be precise we would add some qualifications. But either way, this is doesn't add to your thesis.

Fact: THe Commandment was to not eat the Fruit from the Forbidden Tree, else die (Gen 2:16-17)
(eating from alll the other trees was permissible but not commanded)

Irrelevant.

Assumption: Adam told Eve the Truth, name and all; then, because she knew the Truth (don't eat), but spoke a lie (don't touch, Gen 2:3), even before the serpent told her the lie that she could eat and live (Gen 3:4), she told the first lie.

Your right. This is YOUR assumption. YOU are assuming that the command "don't touch" wasn't original. I've already pointed this out. Twice. You haven't done anything to address it. At this point, you're just repeating yourself.

But this contradicts the fact that the devil told the first lie; therefore, the assumption is wrong (deductive reasoning), so Adam did not tell Eve the Truth. Any questions?

Yes. Why are you reading your own assumptions into the text and then pretending like they are my assumptions and then trying to weave out a contradiction by imposing your assumptions into mine? Don't blame me for your incoherent theory.

Your tone and your words seemed rather harsh

Well I didn't intend for them to be. I freely admit that I made light of your theory in my last post. But it wasn't supposed to be offensive, it was simply a demonstration of how incoherent your theory makes the narrative.

I believe the Bible (KJV), and I believe that which i can prove by IT.

Then prove that Adam is the devil.

BUt keep in mind, young man, if that which i say is the Truth, then know that you are not struggling with flesh and blood, for the Truth comes only by the Spirit. In this regard then, i must admit that i am only a messenger: and my duty is done when one hears. Only the Spirit can open ones eyes to the Truth.

Well I could just throw this right back at you, so your warning falls flat. And who else in the history of the Christian church has held to your theory?

Where is the subtlety of the serpent by which he deceived Eve, according to your understanding?

Well that would involve me getting into some of how the Hebrew is to be translated. I don't feel like getting into all of it, and I don't think it's very relevant, but basically, I think Satan's "question" is actually a statement as Ephraim A. Speiser argues. Satan says "Even though you shall not eat of any of the trees..." and Eve cuts him off, correcting his misstatement (not answering his question). The subtlety was the deliberate misstatement to draw her into the conversation, in which she posed as an authority on the issue. I believe Geerhardus Vos discusses this in his Biblical Theology.

How is it that there is a subtle serpent in the Garden, even before sin? Does this no say that something has already gone terribly wrong. Consider: if it were not for Gen 3, the rest of the Bible need not be written.

The fact that sin was present does not necessitate that sin was present *in humanity*. That's another assumption on your part.

Unfortunately, you've spent a lot of time laying out "facts" that do absolutely nothing to support your case. Your time would be better spent, in my opinion, pointing to those facts which actually have something to do with your thesis... or else just realizing that there are none and leaving it alone.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I should add that what I mean when I asked "And who else in the history of the Christian church has held to your theory?" is that, in addition to the fact that your theory doesn't make any sense, it also has the problem that virtually no one in the history of Christianity has accepted it. It's seems very implausible to me that God has been hiding this "fact" that you think is so obvious for ... 6000 years?

 

[angelos]

Fact: Angel creation is not mentioned in Gen 1, but you beleive they exist anyway. It seems that you have made an assumption of your own from the very Beginning. So, if only GOd is True, then, because Adam was the only creation of GOD having HIS IMAGE and HIS LIKENESS, Adam must aslo be that 'annointed cherub which covereth' (Ez 28:14), whom is Lucifer (Is 14:12-20).

Fact Adam is the only being created when the Lord spoke the Commandment to him. (Gen 2:4-18)

Fact: There is a serpent in the Garden even before our "parents' sinned, who has evil intentions; therefore, inquity, which is sinful thinking, is already in Paradise.

Fact: the devil, who is also the serpent, satan, and others in scriptures (Rev 20:2), is the father of the lie (Jn 8:44); therefore, he told the first one (definition).

Fact: Eve was deceived by the subtlety of the serpent (Gen 3:13; 2Cor 11:3)

Fact: a liar is one who knows the Truth, but changes it.

Fact: THe Commandment was to not eat the Fruit from the Forbidden Tree, else die (Gen 2:16-17)
(eating from alll the other trees was permissible but not commanded)

Assumption: Adam told Eve the Truth, name and all; then, because she knew the Truth (don't eat), but spoke a lie (don't touch, Gen 2:3), even before the serpent told her the lie that she could eat and live (Gen 3:4), she told the first lie. But this contradicts the fact that the devil told the first lie; therefore, the assumption is wrong (deductive reasoning), so Adam did not tell Eve the Truth. Any questions?

Your tone and your words seemed rather harsh; but, i understand how this all may sound. I will not be contentious about anything because we all have the right to believe what we would. I believe the Bible (KJV), and I believe that which i can prove by IT. BUt keep in mind, young man, if that which i say is the Truth, then know that you are not struggling with flesh and blood, for the Truth comes only by the Spirit. In this regard then, i must admit that i am only a messenger: and my duty is done when one hears. Only the Spirit can open ones eyes to the Truth.


Where is the subtlety of the serpent by which he deceived Eve, according to your understanding?
How is it that there is a subtle serpent in the Garden, even before sin? Does this no say that something has already gone terribly wrong. Consider: if it were not for Gen 3, the rest of the Bible need not be written.

THAT'S A LIE... adam isn't the serpent he and eve are the tree's someone else told me this and they used the KJV authorized bible too so how can you be correct and them wrong if you are both talking about what the holy spirit led you to say and believe after all God is not a liar.

 

[Israel]

THAT'S A LIE... adam isn't the serpent he and eve are the tree's someone else told me this and they used the KJV authorized bible too so how can you be correct and them wrong if you are both talking about what the holy spirit led you to say and believe after all God is not a liar.

I agree that Adam is not the serpent, but I don't that he and Eve are the trees. Think about it. How do we know good from evil?

Romans 3:20

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

What is sin?

1 John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is the transgression of the law and knowledge of that transgression comes by the law.
But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Matthew 19:13-23

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The first thing to notice is that Jesus says that those such as children is the kingdom of heaven. Not that children get a free pass, as even Jesus had to grow in spirit and tested as we all have to be. It is the mind of a child that is important here. A child doesn't worry about whether their parents are feeding them beef pork. or going to church on a saturday or a sunday. They simply have love and faith in their parents to provide! We also see that to enter into eternal life, we keep the commandments. But now the test of faith comes into play. Jesus tells him to sell what he has and give to the poor to have treasure in heaven. This is an example for the spirit man! The flesh died with Jesus as we live now after the spirit. What are we to sell then?

Galatians 1:13-16

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

We are not to be concerned with the outward appearance, but of the inner man! It is the spirit that quickens!

So we now have the law. The outward appearance which brings knowledge of sin and death; and the spirit of the law of Christ, the inner man which brings life!

Romans 7:7-11

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Remember, everything was GOOD until the LORD God gave the commandment not to eat! Sin was dead!

Isaiah 66:15-17

For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

16For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Paul profited exceedingly in the "Jews religion". But in that, he persecuted the church of God! Now if the law were given to the jews by the voice of God and Paul can sell his profits out of that religion, we should be just as eager to do the same in ours. Please, confer not with flesh and blood!

 

[Consumed]

But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


two distinct different trees, it is written - fact

 

[Israel]

But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


two distinct different trees, it is written - fact

Then what is the tree of life?

 

[Israel]

But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


two distinct different trees, it is written - fact

This view is how the world sees it; the carnal man. So let's look at it in Genesis.

3:22-24

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This is a garden with many different entry points to it and yet only the east is gaurded Cherubims and a FLAMING SWORD WHICH TURNED EVERY WAY to keep the way of the tree of life.
God's wrath in judgement of the world is by fire and his word is a two edged sword! Ever notice, that no matter how far-fetched it may be about a belief in the Bible, that person can come up with atleast a twist form of scripture to support it? Even today, that flaming sword is turning every way! But what of this so called other tree? Is it not also in the midst of the garden as well? Is this tree also protected?

Now let's look at Isaiah again.

66:16-17

For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Trying to understand it as it is written with the eyes of a wordly man, how can all these people in all of these gardens be eating swines flesh and the abomination and the mouse BEHIND ONE TREE IN THE MIDST? And there were TWO trees. What happened to the other one? Do you believe that this is about eating pork? Now let's compare Genesis and Isaiah with what Jesus said

Matthew 7:13-15

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Outwardly, they have a form of goodliness, but inwardly, they lead to destruction.

Genesis 3:6

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.

This is the law! Outwardly, the letter having a form of Godliness, brings wrath! But that same tree in the spirit, which speaks of the righteousness of God, brings life!

 

[Consumed]

Lets start and end with that God made Adam in His likeness and image.

enough said

 

[Consumed]

This view is how the world sees it; the carnal man. So let's look at it in Genesis.

3:22-24

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This is a garden with many different entry points to it and yet only the east is gaurded Cherubims and a FLAMING SWORD WHICH TURNED EVERY WAY to keep the way of the tree of life.
God's wrath in judgement of the world is by fire and his word is a two edged sword! Ever notice, that no matter how far-fetched it may be about a belief in the Bible, that person can come up with atleast a twist form of scripture to support it? Even today, that flaming sword is turning every way! But what of this so called other tree? Is it not also in the midst of the garden as well? Is this tree also protected?

Now let's look at Isaiah again.

66:16-17

For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Trying to understand it as it is written with the eyes of a wordly man, how can all these people in all of these gardens be eating swines flesh and the abomination and the mouse BEHIND ONE TREE IN THE MIDST? And there were TWO trees. What happened to the other one? Do you believe that this is about eating pork? Now let's compare Genesis and Isaiah with what Jesus said

Matthew 7:13-15

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Outwardly, they have a form of goodliness, but inwardly, they lead to destruction.

Genesis 3:6

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.

This is the law! Outwardly, the letter having a form of Godliness, brings wrath! But that same tree in the spirit, which speaks of the righteousness of God, brings life!

the way you interpret it has merit yet we can also see it as the tree of life still being guarded from til Jesus' resurrection removed the angel from the east, tree of knowledge had been eaten from, sin and the works of evil had begun as a cancer. Isa 66 you quoted still had man eating from good and evil, (we been feasting on it since adam) they chose evil, paid the price for their sins. Carnal reasoning will say "im a good person, i did this that the other, law showed us our sin in thinking so.
just a way of looking at it from a different perspective, its all about Jesus, He is the tree of life, bread of life, the fountain that gives living water to dried out souls..
good post, i'll pray and meditate on your way of looking at it from your perspective
God bless

 

[Consumed]

Then what is the tree of life?

Jesus Christ

 

[nisha_philips]

well whatevr when God created Adam n Eve he had given them enuf commonsense to choose d ryt thng wed Adam added an xtra thng while sayin (he lied) to eve. eve chose to listen to d serpent . so all i wnt to say though d serpent decieved man was no fool enuf

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


two distinct different trees, it is written - fact

At first you say that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are the same tree.... then you say they are two different trees.

So I'm not sure if you're just joking around or if you forgot to add the word "not" into your first sentence, but as it is it makes no sense. Although I agree that they are two different trees.

This is a garden with many different entry points to it and yet only the east is gaurded Cherubims and a FLAMING SWORD WHICH TURNED EVERY WAY to keep the way of the tree of life.

Looks like you are trying way to hard to read between the lines of the text, just like Serpentslayer. As I recall, we aren't told there are "many different entry points" and there may be nothing more significant to the fact that it was at the east than that Adam and Eve were put out to the east. There may be nothing more significant to the fact that it "turned every way" than to say that there was no way to get around it.

I might as well emphasize the word "FLAMING" and then go on a wild rabbit trail through Scripture emphasizing everywhere the word "FLAMING" occurs and trying to build all sorts of new theological conclusions. At some point, all this gets absurd.

For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Unfortunately, part of the problem here is that you are relying solely on a KJV reading to build up your theory. This is why it's good to always refer to more than one translation. I had a Bible teacher that used to say "ALL translation is interpretation." Notice that in the KJV the word "tree" is italicized. That means it's not in the original text, they are adding it in, it is their interpretation. Every other version I consulted left out the word "tree" and simply said they followed "one in the midst" (although two said "idol"): NASB, NIV, ESV, ASV, NLT, NKJV.

Trying to understand it as it is written with the eyes of a wordly man, how can all these people in all of these gardens be eating swines flesh and the abomination and the mouse BEHIND ONE TREE IN THE MIDST? And there were TWO trees. What happened to the other one? Do you believe that this is about eating pork?

The problem is you're trying to understand the entire passage based on a word that isn't in the text.

I think the passage is pretty simple: God is going to judge those who are practicing pagan rituals. These pagan rituals took place in gardens (65:3), apparently around something, a pagan priest or an idol.

The fact that these pagan rituals took place in gardens has no hidden meaning or allusions as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to go searching for one.

This is the law! Outwardly, the letter having a form of Godliness, brings wrath! But that same tree in the spirit, which speaks of the righteousness of God, brings life!

Not sure what you mean here. You mean to say that the tree of knowledge represents the law? If that's the case, I'd say your theory has about as much merit as Serpentslayer's theory that Adam is the devil and you would both be working with the same basic methodology: read assumptions into the text, make tendentious relationships between unrelated passages based on nothing more than similar words etc... But maybe I've just missed your point.

I'm tempted to come up with my own new and exciting interpretation of Scripture. But I don't have a lot of time to put into it so here is my attempt to build a new theology with interpretive gymnastics, because it's oh-so-exciting to uncover the hidden meaning of Scripture and play connect the dots where no one else has done before, in five seconds:

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. ” (1 Peter 5:8)

“And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” ” (Revelation 5:5)

So like, basically, this theory says that the lion of Judah is Jesus, right? And then Peter says that the devil is like a lion, right? So Jesus is the devil. And since Serpentslayer has proven beyond all doubt that Adam is the devil, Jesus is Adam. Then if I had time I'd throw in other neat stuff about how Paul is just playing around when he talks about the first man and the second man. It means something like Adam was at first a devil but then he became a savior and his story is basically the story of how we all start off as devils but we have the power to transform ourselves into saviors by roaring.

 

[elite-sky]

hey im about to post the two arguments of gods existence ok and the only reason why i am doing this is to show people the real difference between atheists and christians beliefs. i myself am a christian and the argument for gods existence is virtually impossible to prove but we all know that our god loves us and with out a doubt he exists the following cosmological argument attempts to prove that god is real and the following teleogical argument attempts to prove otherwise, this is how complicated it is us as christian to tell atheists about god

so here they are...

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.
Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.
Strengths of the argument

The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.
Weaknesses of the argument

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused

This one is the opposite

The Teleological Argument is also known as the "argument from design." Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.
A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker Argument, which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer since we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work, there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total that they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.
Paley's argument is as follows:

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

Strengths of the argument

This argument is simple to understand and has merit, since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."​

I think the teleological argument carries weight because it is consistent with Scripture. The Bible states that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things with which we will resonate. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the truth is still there.
Additionally, evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't.
Weaknesses of the argument

The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon an analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.

tell me what you guys think.. cheers

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

hey im about to post the two arguments of gods existence ok and the only reason why i am doing this is to show people the real difference between atheists and christians beliefs. i myself am a christian and the argument for gods existence is virtually impossible to prove but we all know that our god loves us and with out a doubt he exists the following cosmological argument attempts to prove that god is real and the following teleogical argument attempts to prove otherwise, this is how complicated it is us as christian to tell atheists about god

so here they are...

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist. It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things. This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
The Cosmological Argument takes several forms but is basically represented below.
Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.
Strengths of the argument

The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.
Weaknesses of the argument

One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Also, by definition, God is uncaused

This one is the opposite

The Teleological Argument is also known as the "argument from design." Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern.
A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker Argument, which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer since we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work, there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total that they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.
Paley's argument is as follows:

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

Strengths of the argument

This argument is simple to understand and has merit, since humans are designers by nature and it is natural to think in terms of things having purpose. It is also consistent with Rom. 1:20:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."​

I think the teleological argument carries weight because it is consistent with Scripture. The Bible states that we are made in God's image. Therefore, there are certain things with which we will resonate. Even though the unbeliever suppresses the truth of God in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), the truth is still there.
Additionally, evolutionists have difficulty accounting for apparent design in objects like the eye, the heart, and the brain where many different parts come together to form the whole. These individual parts have no purpose except in the function of the whole. How can evolution account for these detailed congruent occurrences? So far, it can't.
Weaknesses of the argument

The idea that the universe is designed is subjective. Different observations in the natural world can produce different theories to account for their existence. Also, this proof is built upon an analogy. If we find things in the universe that are chaotic, then by analogy, that would imply there is no designer.

tell me what you guys think.. cheers

This would be a good thing to start a thread on. Do that and I'll share my two.

 

[elite-sky]

yeah its an interesting one

 

[angelos]

I agree that Adam is not the serpent, but I don't that he and Eve are the trees. Think about it. How do we know good from evil?

Romans 3:20

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

What is sin?

1 John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is the transgression of the law and knowledge of that transgression comes by the law.
But what people need to understand is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life is one and the same!

Matthew 19:13-23

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The first thing to notice is that Jesus says that those such as children is the kingdom of heaven. Not that children get a free pass, as even Jesus had to grow in spirit and tested as we all have to be. It is the mind of a child that is important here. A child doesn't worry about whether their parents are feeding them beef pork. or going to church on a saturday or a sunday. They simply have love and faith in their parents to provide! We also see that to enter into eternal life, we keep the commandments. But now the test of faith comes into play. Jesus tells him to sell what he has and give to the poor to have treasure in heaven. This is an example for the spirit man! The flesh died with Jesus as we live now after the spirit. What are we to sell then?

Galatians 1:13-16

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

We are not to be concerned with the outward appearance, but of the inner man! It is the spirit that quickens!

So we now have the law. The outward appearance which brings knowledge of sin and death; and the spirit of the law of Christ, the inner man which brings life!

Romans 7:7-11

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Remember, everything was GOOD until the LORD God gave the commandment not to eat! Sin was dead!

Isaiah 66:15-17

For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

16For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. 17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Paul profited exceedingly in the "Jews religion". But in that, he persecuted the church of God! Now if the law were given to the jews by the voice of God and Paul can sell his profits out of that religion, we should be just as eager to do the same in ours. Please, confer not with flesh and blood!

I was comparing one crackpot theory that claims to be led by the spirit to another and asking how they can conflict i think bother are nonsense personally