Two questions

[Hungry]

Sometimes things are just too simple or painful for us to accept. Read Genesis under the premise it states and determine if it makes more sense. God is translated from elohim, meaning gods. I believe there is Jehovah but He may not always be represented by “God”. When it states Lord God, it says Jehovah elohim meaning Self Existent One of the Gods. Or God of gods. If you take it at face value, more things fall into place.

Maybe the actual story isn’t as elaborate as some propose. Perhaps it’s just like it’s written, Adam was created to tend the garden and he screwed up.

I even think the story is more allegorical than anything. Regardless it’s not that scripture doesn’t support it. It’s more like accepted interpretation doesn't. Love (agape) doesn’t mean some emotional attraction, it means more of a dutiful obligation. When you see some sci-fi movie where man creates some ai that is scentient then has some sort of moral dilemma to handle. That is agape, and is closer to what the Bible supports.

 

[pottersclay]

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

Your thoughts??

 

[seed_time_harvest]

no, the consequence was the *knowledge* of sin nature, and the revocation of permission to eat of the tree of life.

So then we delight In the law of GOD after the Inward man but we see another law In our flesh warring against the law of our minds because of the KNOWLEDGE of sin learned from being disobedient to GOD eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) In our flesh and bringing us Into captivity to the law of sin because of the knowledge of sin which Is In our flesh.

Would I be right saying mankind’s knowledge of sin Is what caused the sin nature?

I guess man just didn’t know how bad the consequences of disobedience would be.

 

[posthuman]

God punished Adam and Eve for being deceived by the devil

Adam was not deceived
(1 Timothy 2:14)

 

[azamzimtoti]

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, .

Adam was not deceived
(1 Timothy 2:14)

True, but even worse he listened to woman.

 

[Didymous]

Adam died spiritually? That is not scriptural. That is a definition given to it by man to appease himself. i.e. "the day you eat of it you will surely die."

so is it then the day the he will die, or is it the day where he will SURELY die? Let us appeal to scripture:

Genesis 3:22, 23 KJV


22 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:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So in verse 22 we see clearly that if God had NOT cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, they could have both lived forever AND known good from evil.

in Revelation, Jesus says "...and I will give to him permission to eat from the tree of life..." i.e. humanity restored to its original condition, where "the former things will be remembered no more," i.e. we will have no KNOWLEDGE of the former things, which are of course contemporary to us.

We can then conclude, that the death was caused by the revocation of permission to eat of the tree of life, NOT by the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. There is no wriggle room.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, so your conclusion is erroneous.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

This is somewhat in error, as Christians we are eating of the tree of life and drinking of the water of life as Jesus said:

John 7:38-39 Let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, 'From within him will flow rivers of living water.'

Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Yet all Christians have physically died just as Adam did.

What I said is not in error. In Revelations, talking about our promise, Christ says "...and I will give Him permission to eat from the tree of life." Jesus is *not* the tree of life. Obviously i cannot say that with any proof. But it is not scriptural to call Him so, unless metaphorically/allegorically.

 

[azamzimtoti]

What I said is not in error. In Revelations, talking about our promise, Christ says "...and I will give Him permission to eat from the tree of life." Jesus is *not* the tree of life. Obviously i cannot say that with any proof. But it is not scriptural to call Him so, unless metaphorically/allegorically.

I never said Jesus is the tree of life - the Holy Spirit is represented by the tree of life and living water.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

I never said Jesus is the tree of life - the Holy Spirit is represented by the tree of life and living water.

fair enough, I still feel the tree is literal, though. Genesis 3:22-23 (paraphrased) Behold! Man has become like one of us, knowing the difference between good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and eat from the tree of life and live forever, Therefore God banished them from the garden and made them to til the land whence the came.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, so your conclusion is erroneous.

No. Your comprehension of what I said is what is erroneous! Good to see you again though brother.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

You were wrong on a certain point which was fundamental to other points of your rhetoric.
What you said was a direct contradiction to scripture.

I pointed this out to you concisely and without puffy elaboration. I am sorry that you do not appreciate my being succinct.

Something was lacking; I saw it, and gave it to you, without undue fuss.

I disagree. You interpreted something I said, like brother didymous, erroneously. That does not mean I was in error.

Edit: furthermore, what you quoted was not even central to my point, so you didnt even give the time to understand anything. simply shut down and dismiss. lol. cognitive dissonance 101.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Now, lest he reach out his hand and eat from the tree of life and live forever, Therefore God banished them from the garden and made them to til the land whence the came.

This is in narrative form, he would never have been able to "reach out his hand" anymore than an unsaved person can reach out and "grab" the Holy Spirit.

 

[Didymous]

No. Your comprehension of what I said is what is erroneous! Good to see you again though brother.

God to see you, as well!

 

[DarnellPistachio]

This is in narrative form, he would never have been able to "reach out his hand" anymore than an unsaved person can reach out and "grab" the Holy Spirit.

Okay, so what you are saying is that God gave Adam and eve permission to eat of all the trees of the garden, including the tree of life, but similarly commanded them NOT to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but that only those two trees are allegorical? or are all of the trees allegorical and Adam and Eve were to eat nothing at all? slippery slope methinks.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

So then we delight In the law of GOD after the Inward man but we see another law In our flesh warring against the law of our minds because of the KNOWLEDGE of sin learned from being disobedient to GOD eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) In our flesh and bringing us Into captivity to the law of sin because of the knowledge of sin which Is In our flesh.

Would I be right saying mankind’s knowledge of sin Is what caused the sin nature?

I guess man just didn’t know how bad the consequences of disobedience would be.

I apologize I cannot properly respond. Can you please elaborate or try to be more clear, as your post seems to be ripe with sustenance.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Okay, so what you are saying is that God gave Adam and eve permission to eat of all the trees of the garden, including the tree of life, but similarly commanded them NOT to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but that only those two trees are allegorical? or are all of the trees allegorical and Adam and Eve were to eat nothing at all? slippery slope methinks.

The trees are symbolic IMO, if we look at the book of Revelation the city has 12 gates, 12 foundations, (12 apostles). All figurative symbolical language. It does not mean there is reality behind these figures/symbols.

 

[Didymous]

No. Your comprehension of what I said is what is erroneous! Good to see you again though brother.

The reason I wrote your conclusion is erroneous is this: If they hadn't eaten from that tree of knowledge of good and evil, then it follows they wouldn't have thought of eating from the tree of life. I do see the support for your contention, however.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

The trees are symbolic IMO, if we look at the book of Revelation the city has 12 gates, 12 foundations, (12 apostles). All figurative symbolical language. It does not mean there is reality behind these figures/symbols.

does the book of revelation tell you that the gates and foundations are symbolic? because it tells you who the seven candles are. It tells you who the "two" witnesses are. It doesn't leave as much to mystery as the secular world believes it does. I am not trying to tell you how to interpret scripture, obviously. But try reading creation story literally. see what you come up with through prayer. for example, the firmament (which houses all the stars, sun and moon, where birds fly) separates the waters above the firmament, from the waters below the firmament. The firmament is stretched out and beaten like molten glass. Creation has some awesome little nuggets that modern science(s) outright lie(s) about.

 

[DarnellPistachio]

The reason I wrote your conclusion is erroneous is this: If they hadn't eaten from that tree of knowledge of good and evil, then it follows they wouldn't have thought of eating from the tree of life. I do see the support for your contention, however.

Does it not describe (and I could be wrong) them having been eating from the tree of life already? im in a rush but will check in a bit.

 

[azamzimtoti]

does the book of revelation tell you that the gates and foundations are symbolic?

Yes it does, we see symbolism used by Jesus all the time.

(Mat 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden.)

We Christians are now that city, built on the foundation of the Apostles.

(Eph 2:20 because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.)

because it tells you who the seven candles are.

I agree in these instances it does.

It tells you who the "two" witnesses are. It doesn't leave as much to mystery as the secular world believes it does. I am not trying to tell you how to interpret scripture, obviously. But try reading creation story literally. see what you come up with through prayer. for example, the firmament (which houses all the stars, sun and moon, where birds fly) separates the waters above the firmament, from the waters below the firmament. The firmament is stretched out and beaten like molten glass. Creation has some awesome little nuggets that modern science(s) outright lie(s) about.

There is both symbolism and literalism in the Genesis creation story.

I would suggest getting a copy of Beyond Creation Science:

http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Book_Chapters[/quote][/QUOTE]