Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and being Joint Heirs with Christ.
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
-
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.
why would the lack of need for farming cause you to conclude there were no animals in the garden? is that the only purpose of the other living souls? labor? why'd God bother filling the earth & sea with them?
where'd God get the pelts He made the tunics for the man and the woman from?
i'm trying to imagine your scenario, where God brings every living soul on earth to Adam and he names them one by one, then God hurries them out saying 'out, out! no dogs allowed!' -- it just doesn't click.
where'd God get the pelts He made the tunics for the man and the woman from?
i'm trying to imagine your scenario, where God brings every living soul on earth to Adam and he names them one by one, then God hurries them out saying 'out, out! no dogs allowed!' -- it just doesn't click.
He actually does this before He gave animals as food. He told Noah to bring different numbers of 'clean' and 'unclean' animals on the ark -- and then after the ark landed, He told Noah that all the animals, with no distinction of clean/unclean, would be food for him.
so, i don't think the idea of clean/unclean is primarily a distinction for eating. some people think that it must be a distinction for what's acceptable as sacrifice, since Noah when he landed offered from the 'clean' animals. i wonder whether what the wicked were doing with the Nephilim, which things brought about the flood, may have something to do with it, tho?
so, i don't think the idea of clean/unclean is primarily a distinction for eating. some people think that it must be a distinction for what's acceptable as sacrifice, since Noah when he landed offered from the 'clean' animals. i wonder whether what the wicked were doing with the Nephilim, which things brought about the flood, may have something to do with it, tho?
-
1
- Show all
You know, I still go back to the One who created our flesh, and created the animals and follow His advice. Turns out scavengers (why people aren't amazed at how well they were separated, I don't understand) are bad for you. They do process and store what they eat differently and by our eating of them we ingest and are made well or ingest and are made sick.
We have to take what is written and draw logical conclusions from it.
It was God who planted the Garden of Eden for mankind. And within it He provided everything for food -- fruits, vegetables, and herbs. He also made Adam the steward of that garden/orchard. That automatically excluded the need for farming (which came about after the curse on mankind). That is when hard labor (including toiling oxen) would be required.
That is not what I suggested or implied. It was God's good pleasure to populate the earth with a huge variety of animals, birds, and marine creatures. But they were not given the Garden of Eden. That was strictly was God and man. It is now called Paradise, and it is also strictly for God and man.
This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. That issue came up AFTER the Fall.
Why would you conclude that all the animals came into the Garden of Eden to be named? Imagine hundreds of thousands of creatures trampling through that garden/orchard and destroying everything in their wake. The logical conclusion is that the naming of the creatures would have been OUTSIDE Eden.
Also, the other creatures are called "living creatures", not "living souls": And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen 1:24) It was only Adam who became a living soul, since only human beings would have souls and spirits.
It was God who planted the Garden of Eden for mankind. And within it He provided everything for food -- fruits, vegetables, and herbs. He also made Adam the steward of that garden/orchard. That automatically excluded the need for farming (which came about after the curse on mankind). That is when hard labor (including toiling oxen) would be required.
That is not what I suggested or implied. It was God's good pleasure to populate the earth with a huge variety of animals, birds, and marine creatures. But they were not given the Garden of Eden. That was strictly was God and man. It is now called Paradise, and it is also strictly for God and man.
This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. That issue came up AFTER the Fall.
Why would you conclude that all the animals came into the Garden of Eden to be named? Imagine hundreds of thousands of creatures trampling through that garden/orchard and destroying everything in their wake. The logical conclusion is that the naming of the creatures would have been OUTSIDE Eden.
Also, the other creatures are called "living creatures", not "living souls": And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen 1:24) It was only Adam who became a living soul, since only human beings would have souls and spirits.
- We have to take what is written and draw logical conclusions from it.
- yup
- It was God's good pleasure to populate the earth with a huge variety of animals, birds, and marine creatures.
- yup. that's what i asked if you have an explanation for?
- you said there was 'no need' for them to be in the garden since Adam didn't need to use them for labor. that implies there is no other reason for animals to co-exist with Adam except for him to use them to perform labor.
- do you personally see any use for non-human living souls to share this planet with you except for you to use for food and to help you perform chores?
- yup. that's what i asked if you have an explanation for?
- But they were not given the Garden of Eden. That was strictly was God and man. It is now called Paradise, and it is also strictly for God and man.
- um, where is that written?
- on what basis is this your 'logical conclusion' ?
- This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. That issue came up AFTER the Fall.
- ((in re: where did God get the animal hide to make tunics for Adam & Woman?))
- it actually has everything to do with the topic at hand:
- did God have to call a recess for His court, go get a lamb, slay it and come back to the garden?
- everything in the text of Genesis 3 suggests the trial and judgement take place in the garden.
- logical conclusion is that there was at least one animal present apart from the serpent
- Why would you conclude that all the animals came into the Garden of Eden to be named?
- because Genesis 2:8 & 15 puts man in the garden, and 2:18-19 has God bringing him "all the animals"
- nothing in the text suggests Adam was anywhere other than in the garden when this took place
- everything in the text indicates Adam was in the garden when this takes place
- the text does not say God brought 'an example of each animal' -- it says "all"
- draw a logical conclusion from what the text actually says.
- because Genesis 2:8 & 15 puts man in the garden, and 2:18-19 has God bringing him "all the animals"
- Imagine hundreds of thousands of creatures trampling through that garden/orchard and destroying everything in their wake.
- on what basis do you imagine these animals would have 'trampled' and 'destroyed' the garden?
- you think God, who brought them, could not control them?
- you think they are all witless and destructive everywhere they go?
- you think they have no respect for God?
- you think they have no respect for Adam?
- are forests and gardens today obliterated by every animal that passes through them?
- or is it man who tends to ruin every place he passes through?
- on what basis do you imagine these animals would have 'trampled' and 'destroyed' the garden?
- The logical conclusion is that the naming of the creatures would have been OUTSIDE Eden.
- disagree.
- the Biblical text in no way that i can see supports this at all.
- the text of Genesis in fact overwhelmingly indicates this took place in Eden, where Adam was
- Adam wasn't 'brought to all' -- all the animals were brought to Adam
- Genesis 2 extremely clearly locates Adam in Eden when this took place
- your conclusion is built on false premises that the presence of animals destroys their own natural habitat
- your conclusion is built on false premises that even while there was no sin in the world, God would be unable to prevent His own created souls, which He had called good, from wrecking the environment He Himself made for them
- disagree.
- Also, the other creatures are called "living creatures", not "living souls": And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen 1:24)
- FALSE
- look it up.
- you're basing this on the KJV translation abrogating the original Hebrew of the scripture
- FALSE
- It was only Adam who became a living soul, since only human beings would have souls and spirits.
- FALSE
- Genesis 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:28 & 2:19 -- God calls animals "souls" - nephesh
- Ecclesiastes 3:21, 12:7 -- God says animals have spirits
- Ecclesiastes 3:19 -- God says animals and men have the same breath/spirit
- Genesis 7:15, 7:22 -- God says animals and men both have "the breath of life"
- FALSE
-
1
- Show all
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle 929 (beast, animal, cattle) and creeping thing, and beast 2416 (wild animal) of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast 2416 (unclean beast) of the earth after his kind, and cattle 929 after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. (notice man formed alone here, also not created)
Genesis 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.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast 2416 (animals and man) 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.
Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle 929 (opposed to wild beasts), and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast 2416 (wild animals) of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
This is where I got it. I went to the Hebrew and looked up the words and then found their exact definitions. YOU have the exact same ability to do this as I have. Its all online. Nothing hidden YET but coming, (I have found a couple changes that are very suspect (Kenites) so I suggest you buy some old reference books now before they too are gone and truth will not be able to be found). God says it will be so, so you can count on it. The Hebrew language (Gods) is a very much more exacting language. Just check out 929 and 2416 and you will see.
God didn't have a man to till the soil (having created "man and woman" back in Chapter 1). He also needed a "bloodline" through which the Promised seed would come. You will notice that God brought animals and man in to see what Adam would name them. Just sayin. You can't base your knowledge of truth on a translation no matter how good it is. It is only to be found in the original texts. Translations are good for a surface read to arrive at the general plan of God but if you are seeking deeper truths you will need to go to GODS words. I hope this helps. If not now maybe someday.