The Revelation of Adam

Credo_ut_Intelligam · May 29, 2010

All of that is really irrelevant and I'm not sure why you bring it up? What's your point?

As I already said, my only point was what he meant by "flesh." I used an example of how the word "flesh" can be used while not making sense in the way he used it. So I wanted to know in what sense he was using it. The fact that it has other theological meanings that don't fit the sense of the term that I used is really irrelevant. Lots of words have more than two senses to them. I don't think it's reasonable that I go through all the senses or use the theological sense to make my point when any one will do just as well. The fact that I didn't use the words "what do you mean by flesh" is really irrelevant since I did say "Not sure what you mean... So what do you mean?"

Both indicate that I don't know what he means and both indicate that I want him to explain what he means.

Seriously, what's the point your getting at?

Credo_ut_Intelligam · May 29, 2010

Israel said:

I'm sorry, but your entire method of communication is utterly foreign to me. Perhaps part of the porblem are these scattered sentences. You throw out one sentence and it's not clear how it relates to anything else. So I ask you for clarification and then you throw out another sentence and it's unclear how it relates to any of the previous ones.

You then say one or two sentences and quote a bunch of Bible verses. But it's not clear what *your* point is so it's also not clear what you think the point of the Bible verse is. At least it isn't clear to me.

You mean we have gotten wrapped up in following personalities like Apollos and Paul?

If that's what you mean, why didn't you just say that instead of "The image of Christianity is dead"?

If I've still misunderstood you, could you please try to explain yourself more clearly (preferably by stringing three or four sentences together without excessive metaphors)?

Do you think Jesus was/is a literal person?

Do you think God is a literal person?

As for whether things like the "mark of the beast" are literal, I really don't care. I don't think it's too important (my own opinion is that it probably isn't).

To repent means you recognize you've done something wrong and to turn away from it.

A belief is a mental state about (I believe the technical term is intensionality (not intention)) the the world, reality, or other mental states.

In Jesus means in his person and his work (his actions).

Being saved means being regenerated, being justified, adopted, sanctified, and eventually glorified. If you want to know what all of that means, I simply suggest you pick up a theological dictionary or a systematic theology. Or you could just pick up a Bible.

He is the Almighty God, God the Son.

Not all Christians get their theological beliefs from the Bible. Not all Christians read or study the Bible to the same degree. Not all Christians understand the Bible. etc. Many different answers.

The moral law.

Jesus followed the same law that the Jews followed. This included the ceremonial aspects of the law, which I don't think Paul had in mind in Romans 2.

Not from what I can see. I'm sure there are such persons, but I have no idea who they are or how many they are and I have my suspicions that if they are not following the true gospel the are not preaching the true gospel and vice versa.

charisenexcelcis · May 29, 2010

Credo_ut_Intelligam said:

My point is curiousity, because your knowledge is like swiss cheese. There are these erudite refences you make, followed by some odd gap in your knowledge. I have seen this sometimes in a self-educated man, but never one who had a professional education. It's like you have just recieved a large quantity of information and it hasn't had time to "cure". It's like the whole troll thing, where you reference Wikepedia. Who googles to find out about trolls? The same thing with this. If you knew the technical way that flesh is used in discussing human ontology, particualrly within Christian scholarly circles, your question probably would have been expressed quite differently. The same thing with the "believe into" thing. i was surprised that you didn't bring that out as a bridging idea. It was obvious that you know a lot of Greek vocabulary (though not the sarx/soma thing), you know almost no grammar.

Credo_ut_Intelligam · May 29, 2010

charisenexcelcis said:

lol, full of holes, eh?

I'm often accused of over analyzing things, but maybe you're the one over analyzing in this case?

Well we all hear the word "troll" thrown around, but I had never heard exactly what it was (had you?). So when you used the word I was curious and looked it up.

After all, if I'm going to defend myself from being trollish it seems wise to know exactly what constitutes a troll doesn't it?

Well believe it or not, I am aware of the theological issues surrounding "flesh." The fact that I didn't use an example you would have used doesn't say much to me. But if you want to use it as the basis of psychologizing me, you're more than welcome to do so (although I really do find it kind of funny).

Again, I don't see the relevance of the "believe into". Someone (I forget who now) said there was a difference between the sentences "believe in" and "believe". They were speaking English. If I can argue against the point in English (although it really didn't occur to me to consider it from the Greek) then that's perfectly sufficient and seems best since we are, after all, speaking English.

I never claimed to be an expert on Greek (or Hebrew, although Schwagga seems to think I made the claim). When I use Greek I usually appeal to some other authority as you can see by perusing my posts where I've done so. You asked me in private what my experience has been with Greek and I told you, did I claim to be an expert there? In fact, I've never claimed to be an expert in anything. And I don't see that it's relevant whether I actually am an expert in anything. As I said with Schwagga, I'm not interested in or impressed with self-appeals to authority. People can weigh what I say based on the reason I give for the position I take. If it seems reasonable to them, good. If not they can give the reasons why and I can then weigh those reasons. etc. And like I said in another thread, I'm not interested in focusing on the person. As far as possible (and as far as I'm consistent) I prefer to stick to the arguments, not psychologize.

Of course, you're free to do your own psychologizing and hypothesizing about authority and credentials. But I'd point out that it's really not relevant.

serpentslayer · May 30, 2010

Credo_ut_Intelligam said:

God only put two types of 'seed' upon the earth, male and female.

Since you are convinced the devil (Lucifer) is not Adam, consider Isaiah 14:12-20, which deals directly with him. v16 refers to him as a man, and v17 says he is responsible for the earth becoming as a wilderness. But according to Gen 3:18, it was because of Adam that the earth became cursed to overgrow as a wilderness. V19 says that he will be cast out of his grave. Now, if he is angel, but not a man, then, first, why call him a man, and second, why is he being buried?

Credo_ut_Intelligam · May 30, 2010

serpentslayer said:

Isaiah says it's about the king of Babylon, not Adam and not Satan.

Because it is a man, the king of Babylon, just like the text says. Although I take the language of "making the world like a desert" to be typical hyperbole (you would too, wouldn't you? I mean the world isn't really a desert is it?).

You're getting back to your assumptions. The Bible never says all the world was a garden. For all we know it was already a wilderness over most of the earth and, thus, part of the dominion mandate would have been expanding the garden. Adam's curse was that it would be hard work, work he could never fully accomplish.

It doesn't seem necessary to understand him as being in a tomb and then being cast out of it. Only that he is dead and his body is not laid in its tomb.

He isn't an angel at all. "Lucifer" just means "light-bearer," probably referring to Venus (morning star). It's a Latin translation. There is no reason to take it as referring to an angel or to Satan and there is no indication that it is one of Satan's names.

serpentslayer · May 31, 2010

It has been said that The Revelation of Adam has not been proved, but, rather, it has been disproved. I reject this claim and say that all that is necessary to prove it is true, is to prove that Adam was the only one who could have told that lie. AS i have said, Eve's testimony is the proof, because it contains untruth, but she is not the first liar. I, too, at the first, did not see the simplicity of it, and, because it went against all i had ever been taught or read about since my youth, i required much more evidence. This is the case for all of us, so i understand the resistance: and ceratinly, i could write all the evidence or make better reasoning of the interpretation; however, i have not felt the 'inclination' to do so, and i beleive that those who are diligently seeking the Truth, and are doing so by the Word of God solely, the Holy Spirit will guide them into the same Truth's He has shown me. This is not to say that i am not willing to reason with anyone about this subject or any other biblical topic, because i would that all should know the truth. I am no biblical scholar or theologian, but i am a mathematician according to men, and as a mathematicain i know quite well what i logical proof is, and how to make one.
(For those of you who would believe there is a God if it could be proved only by the irrefutable logic of men, please read Rene Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy, because he proves there it.)

So, then, i would say this to the reader: Please doubt what i say (have i not said that i am a child of the devil, and as such, a liar as well); but, just to make sure you have not been deceived in your beliefs, search the scriptures well: for if what i say is true, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose but the blinders of your eyes.

P.S.
Since death came by the forbidden tree, and it was Adam's tree to care for, and in light of JOB (Satan had no power to kill unless God granted it to him), how is that the devil had the power of death (Heb 2:14)

Credo_ut_Intelligam · May 31, 2010

As I’ve said to others, once a conversation gets to the point that a person merely repeats their past assertions without giving any more evidence I’m happy to continue to repeat my past responses to those.

You claim that Adam is the Devil. This is because the Devil is the Father of Lies and Adam told the first lie. How do we know this? Because Eve said the tree was not to be touched. The command not to touch is not mentioned in Gen. 2.17. Thus, the command not to touch is a lie. Eve must have heard this lie from Adam.

But there are two fatal problems to this line of reasoning. First, Scripture does not say that Adam told Eve not to touch the fruit. At best, we can only deduce that *if* the command not to touch is a lie, it started with Eve. Now, you say that "all that is necessary to prove [Adam is the Devil], is to prove that Adam was the only one who could have told that lie." But this is precisely what you cannot do. Therefore, you can give no demonstration of your theory. The second problem your theory is this. The fact that Gen. 2.17 does not mention the stipulation "do not touch" does not mean that it was not part of the original command. Gen. 2.17 may only be recording an abbreviation or a summation of the command. We have proof of similarly abbreviated or summarized words from God. Namely, 1 Kings 21:17–19 records a prophecy of God about Ahab. Elijah is to deliver this prophecy. When Elijah delivers the prophecy to Ahab in 1 Kings 21:23–24 we find information in Elijah's retelling of the prophecy that is not recorded in the earlier narrative of God's giving the prophecy. And since this "additional" information is fulfilled in 2 Kings 9:30-37, we have no reason to think Elijah was lying or adding to the original words of God; rather, we have good reason to think that the "original" command recorded in 1 Kings 21:19-19 is actually just an abbreviation of the fuller prophecy that Elijah gives in verses 23-34.

Now, you say, "As i have said, Eve's testimony is the proof, because it contains untruth, but she is not the first liar." But there are several hurdles you will have to jump first.

1. In fact, you don't even know that this was a lie, as I've demonstrated on several occasions now.

2. If the Serpent's statement is to be understood in the same manner that I argued earlier, then Satan's "question" is actually a statement (as Ephraim A. Speiser and others argue). 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). If this is correct, then the first lie was not the idea "neither shall you touch it" (assuming that it even is a lie) but is actually Satan's statement "You shall not eat of any of the trees..." And if the first lie is not "neither shall you touch it" then your whole theory falls to pieces. (Although it's already in pieces.)

3. But let us assume, just to show how weak the theory truly is, that "neither shall you touch it" is a lie and that it is the first lie. How do you know that Eve is not the first liar? Perhaps she is the Devil. Maybe she had Multiple Personality Disorder and one of her personalities was the male figure, "The Adversary.” At least this MPD theory can make more sense out of the fact that the narrative in Gen. 3.6 tells us that Adam was with Eve. After all, if Adam is the Devil, then pointing out that Adam was with her is really superfluous. But if Eve was simply talking to herself because she was crazy, then we don't know for sure whether Adam was present or not. So it makes sense for the author of the narrative to inform us that he was in fact there.

You tell us that you “required much more evidence” to believe this theory you are promoting. Presumably, your received that evidence. Why don’t you share with us what that evidence is? Nothing you have provided thus far has been evidence for anything. All you have provided us with are assumptions that, for some reason, you think we should read into the text. You claim that you are capable of providing such evidence. Well, if you know that you didn’t accept this theory without much evidence, what makes you think we will accept this theory without much evidence? Why come here and waste our time with assumptions?

You suggest that you haven’t given this evidence because you believe the Holy Spirit will guide those who are seeking the truth to the knowledge that you are right. Let me ask you, how many people, in the history of Christianity, have believed that Adam is the Devil? I’ve asked you this before and you haven’t answered. I’m not aware of any. So it looks like you’re the first, to my knowledge. Thus, you would have us believe that you are the first truth seeker to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Doubtful, to put it mildly.

Now, you present to us a new argument which is meant to demonstrate that Adam is the Devil. You say Adam is the Devil because Adam had to care for the tree which causes death. Taking care of a tree that causes death is having power over death. But Satan is said to have power over death and, therefore, Adam is Satan.

First, I don’t buy the idea that tending a garden in which is a tree, the eating of which causes death, means you have power over death. The tree of life was also in the garden that Adam tended, but who would buy the claim that Adam had power over life simply because he tended a garden wherein the tree of life was? In addition, we have no reason to think there was anything inherit in the tree that caused death. The command and the tree may have been arbitrary. Nothing more than a test. What caused death is sin, not magical powers in a tree. If God had created a room full of beds and said “Don’t sleep on the king size bed,” sleeping on the king size bed would have caused death, not because the bed has the power to cause death, but because of the *law* that God gave. The law gave power to sin and sin caused death (1 Cor. 15.56). The bed didn’t cause death. The tree didn’t cause death. Sin caused death. Romans 5.12 tells us that death came into the world *through sin* not through a tree. The sin was nothing more than disobedience to the command.

Second, we should ask ourselves what it means when Scripture says that Satan has power over death. Looking after a tree doesn't seem like much power to me. But Scripture says that Satan accuses mankind of sin, of which the penalty is death. And I believe it is in this role, the role of the accuser, that Satan has power over death. After all, Jesus conquered death and Satan not by taking the tree from the care of Adam (or Satan), but by being subject to the law and then suffering the penalty of those breaking the law. By doing this, Jesus saved us from the curse of the law, the grounds on which Satan could accuse us.

charisenexcelcis · May 31, 2010

Credo_ut_Intelligam said:

I'm often accused of over analyzing things, but maybe you're the one over analyzing in this case?
Perhaps, we will see over time I suppose.

Well we all hear the word "troll" thrown around, but I had never heard exactly what it was (had you?). So when you used the word I was curious and looked it up.
No, actually I have seen and heard enough over the last five years.

After all, if I'm going to defend myself from being trollish it seems wise to know exactly what constitutes a troll doesn't it?
I have never accused you of being a troll.
Well believe it or not, I am aware of the theological issues surrounding "flesh." The fact that I didn't use an example you would have used doesn't say much to me. But if you want to use it as the basis of psychologizing me, you're more than welcome to do so (although I really do find it kind of funny).
I am glad you are amused. You are of interest to me because there is an aspect of your posting that is disturbing: a pattern of tearing down everyone's point of view but not committing yourself. For instance, you never gave an answer about the problem of pain. That is not the only one, but I am trying to figure out if you don't know or if you are taking your "devil's advocate" position too seriously.
Again, I don't see the relevance of the "believe into". Someone (I forget who now) said there was a difference between the sentences "believe in" and "believe". They were speaking English. If I can argue against the point in English (although it really didn't occur to me to consider it from the Greek) then that's perfectly sufficient and seems best since we are, after all, speaking English.
To believe into something is to enter into something. To believe in would be simply to be in. Believing into shows the act of faith bringing one into relationship with Christ. A good reference on understanding the Greek proposition is Metzger's "Lexical Aid for Students of New Testament Greek."

I never claimed to be an expert on Greek (or Hebrew, although Schwagga seems to think I made the claim). When I use Greek I usually appeal to some other authority as you can see by perusing my posts where I've done so. You asked me in private what my experience has been with Greek and I told you, did I claim to be an expert there? In fact, I've never claimed to be an expert in anything. And I don't see that it's relevant whether I actually am an expert in anything. As I said with Schwagga, I'm not interested in or impressed with self-appeals to authority. People can weigh what I say based on the reason I give for the position I take. If it seems reasonable to them, good. If not they can give the reasons why and I can then weigh those reasons. etc. And like I said in another thread, I'm not interested in focusing on the person. As far as possible (and as far as I'm consistent) I prefer to stick to the arguments, not psychologize.
As you said, people can weigh what you say based upon the reason you give for the position you take. That is exactly what I am doing.

Of course, you're free to do your own psychologizing and hypothesizing about authority and credentials. But I'd point out that it's really not relevant.

Actually, it is very relevant. Your motivations color your posts through and through.

serpentslayer · Jun 1, 2010

Your are right, that scripture does not say Adam lied to Eve, but that is the e nd of the matter. I will be glad to show you why i believe what i believe, but only on one condition: we agree not to be disagreeable about, because, all things considered, it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, HIS Diety or Majesty, HIS Atonning WorK, nor His Most RIghteous Blood, 'which 'cleanseth us from all sin'. So whether or not the thing be true, it has no power to deceive others about Christ.

Because there is much to consider, it is best that we proceed point by point, realizing that it might take some time unless you quit after our first disagreement. Of course, there are a few thing that we must first consider: 1) i accept only the KJV as the source of my interpretation. i do this for both biblical and historical reasons, which are not necessary to consider in this matter. It suffices to say that what i beleive can be proven by KJV. 2) it is my earnest belief that one who knows the Truth and believes in it can never be deceived about it, no matter how subtle the would-be deceiver. This is probably the most fundamental basis for the Bible, aside from it being The Source Truth. If this were not true, the the Bible is of no effect against evil.
3) the Truth is simple. History and prohesy have shown us that God reveals the mysteries within the Bible in His Times, making clear that which before was hidden or dark. Need i remind how the very keepers of the Law, who should have known Jesus, killed Him instead because of their blindness to the TRUTH?

Before i begin, i would like to set the record straight and address your last reply.

I never said that GOd told me anything, or that i saw a vision or had a dream; but, i did say i was a messenger. Since i beleive the thing is true, then, it must be from God because it is the Holy Spirit which teaches men. If i say the thing was from me, i would be glorified if and when the thing were found true. You call it a theory: and from your perspective it is; however, because i am convinced of it certainty, i believe it is the Truth.

The fact that the Bible never records Adam lying to his wife is not a fatal flaw, it is the End of this matter. The Bible does not tell us that Adam could walk either; so, can we not believe that he could? Just because God did not say a thing is true or false, does not mean that it cannot be. As reasonable men, it is possible to find greater truth in a simple set of truths, or to consider all the possible outcomes of a thing and, by reason, determine which is true. For example: since Eve spoke of a commandment, so it is obvious that someone told her something even thought the conversation is not recorded in scripture. By reason, it had to be either God or Adam, or, as you may believe it possible, some angel. And you said that the best we can do is say Eve started the lie; but, i say that is impossible because Jesus said that the devil told the first lie (Jn 8:44). And concerning the point you made about some

The second flaw is one you have induced on yourself because you do not seem to believe that you can believe in what is written quite simply on the page. With this type of skepticism, i doubt you could ever come to a knowldge of the Truth, seriously. You must make a stand to believe what is written even though while yet reading between the lines.

Concerning the hurdles:
1) If Gen 2:16-17 is the Truth in its entirety, then Eve's statement contains a falsehood, yes? Then, since I believe the Word of God as it is written, i can clearly see that Eve spoke untruth. You cannot see this because you doubt what you are reading, or are uncertain of its correctness.

2) I missed your earlier piece on this because of my ignorance with this website, but i will catch it tomorrow. For now, let me say this about his question. He posed it as either a true or false type question; but, in reality, it is true in one aspect, and false in another. Because one tree was excluded, it was true that they coudl not eat from every tree in the Garden; however, because all the trees were not excluded, it is false. The point of his question was merely to get her to regurigate what he had already told her, becasue he wanted tp prove her wrong, to help convince her to eat the fruit first. Eve did not 'cut him off', she answered the question in the simplest and most accurate manner: verbatim (but not from GOD, only accredited to GOD). Again, you seem not to be able to believe what you read. Do you think GOD wanted to keep us ingorant, even of how 'we' first fell from paradise? So why even tell us a story if not to get some moral lesson from it? The serpents comment is certainly a question, and, because that is all that it is, it had no power to deceive Eve or convince her of any lie.

3) Eve cannot be the liar as shown above; and, because the devil is also the serpent, and the serpent's seed and the woman's seed are distinct, it is impossible for Eve to be the devil. I am not sure where it is you get all these ideas, but it seems to me they might be the fiery darts of the devil.

I did not come here to waste anyones time, and what you call assumptions because you doubt what you read, i call facts because i do read them.
So, then, who is it that seems to like to add or diminsih from the Word? Remember: Deut 4:2, 18:22 ; Prov 30:5-6; Rev 22:18-19.

I did not mean to imply that the forbidden was the cause of death, as if there were something inherently bad with it. I said earlier that it was the Tree of Life also, as was the other tree in the center of the Garden, so certainly it was edible fruit. But, for Adam, and all of us, death entered into the world because of Adam's eating its fruit. Adam was given the Garden and all its trees to care for and benefit from. He was also the First Paster because GOd todl him the Law, and Eve was his congregation. Since death could only come by eating the fruit from that tree, in a sense had had the control over that death. If he chose, he could have told Eve nothing; but, then her blood would be on his hands. So, Adam really did have the power of death. Accusing someone of something does not necessarily kill them or give you power of death.

Now, point 1: I say that Gen 1 is the complete story of Creation and it lacks nothing, and that man's existance on the earth was focus of all God's WorK. As such, and because God did create and annoint a cherub to be over his creation, even one described as looking like the Lord Himself, this cherub must Adam. Comparing Gen 1:26-28 to Ez 1:26-28 to Ez 28:12-18 we see the same basic image and likeness: man and light, even colorful light. So, why do you think GEN is incomplete? If God wanted mystery, why tell us anything at all? But, instead, He was gracious and caring enough, and He knows our inquisitiveness, that He allows us to watch creation as if we were standing right next to Him when He gave His Commandments. I find it an awesome thing that He has done, in allowing us to be there.

serpentslayer · Jun 1, 2010

Credo_ut_Intelligam said:

Isaiah says it's about the king of Babylon, not Adam and not Satan.

Because it is a man, the king of Babylon, just like the text says. Although I take the language of "making the world like a desert" to be typical hyperbole (you would too, wouldn't you? I mean the world isn't really a desert is it?).

This is where you are getting yourself in trouble because you hold things to be literally evident. This is not always the cae in scripture, and often a stumbling block. Consider: Ez 28 gives a lamentation upon the King of Tyrus, where Tyrus was a real ancient post-flood city; however, it says the the King had been in teh Garden of Eden. Clearly, because the Garden was impossible to get back into after Adam was driven out, the literal King of Tyrus could never have been there. Then some interpretaion is necesary to determine who the scripture really applies to.

Credo_ut_Intelligam · Jun 1, 2010

Just like everyone else, I take some things to be literal and some things to be non-literal. There is no such thing as a person who just reads the Bible literally. We disagree as to where it should be literal and non-literal and the method of determining that.

I think it has become a stumbling block for you. For example, when you read of the king of Tyre (Ethbaal) "you were in Eden, the garden of God..." you take that literally and so you stumble over it. When you read "you were an anointed gaurdian cherub..." you take that literally and stumble over it.

Right, some interpretation is necessary, but not necessarily to figure out who the king of Tyre is. Why would we just assume that the king of Tyre must be non-literal and the garden literal? Why couldn't we assume that the king of Tyre is literal and the garden is figurative?

Don't you think looking at the context would be a good idea??

So what do we see when looking at the context? Ezekiel is proclaiming judgment against surrounding nations: Ammon, Moab and Seir, Edom, Philistia, Sidon etc... We have no reason and no indication in the text to think that Ezekiel is not talking about these actual nations and the actual people within these nations. Interpreting Philistia as the actual place of Philistia makes perfect sense and we would have no reason to allegorize it into something else. So we have judgment on all these nations and then when we get to Tyre you expect us to allegorize it. Ammon can be Ammon, Moab can be Moab, Edom can be Edom, Sidon can be Sidon, Egypt can be Egypt, but Tyre can't be Tyre?? Why? Presumably you will say because it speaks of the "garden" and other things.

But clearly Ezekiel is using exaggerated language in pronouncing judgment. For example, he says of Philistia that they have "never-ending enmity" and he says Assyria was a cedar (31:3) that was greater than and more beautiful than any in "the garden of God" (31:8). Clearly, "garden of God" is simply being used as an image of comparison or an image of description (Assyria wasn't actually a tree). Yet you expect us to take it literally when it speaks of the king of Tyre, for no other reason than that it fits your unfounded theory. But we can find the same exaggerated language of Tyre. For example, at the destruction of Tyre “the coastlands tremble... and the coastlands ... are dismayed...” (Ezekiel 26:18). But coast-lands are just pieces of land, they don't tremble and they don't have emotional states. This is common exaggerated imagery of prophetic judgment. Clearly, in other portions, Tyre means the actual city of Tyre: God says he "will bring up many nations against" it and that "They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers" (Eze 26.3–4). God will "bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers" (Eze. 26:7). Again we see the literal language mixed with the exaggerated: Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are literal (at least I think you would agree with that) but "king of kings" is an exaggerated title.

So we have no reason to make the king of Tyre someone other than the king of Tyre and we have good reason to think Tyre refers to the actual city, just like all the other city names refer to their respective cities, and the king of Tyre refers to the actual king, just like all the other rulers mentioned refers to the actual rulers. The imagery of being in the garden is obviously employed elsewhere figuratively (Assyria) so we have no reason to insist that it is literal here either.

mpaper345 · Jun 1, 2010

12Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more(Ezekiel 28:12-19).

It talks about the king of Tyrus as being in the garden of Eden,and being the anointed cherub,that was upon the holy mountain of God,and was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him who is Satan.

Matt

Credo_ut_Intelligam · Jun 1, 2010

It is a fatal flaw, because you cannot prove that Adam lied. Your entire theory rests upon the idea that Adam lied. Therefore, your entire theory rests upon an assumption that you can give no evidence for. You claim to be teaching what Scripture clearly teaches, yet the foundation of your system at this point is not based on Scripture, but an assumption.

Walking is natural to humans. It's an amoral and trivial action. But we don't just assume a person told a lie in the absence of evidence. Imagine if a lawyer constructed his case in the same manner. A man, Jones, is on trial for murder. Jones claims he went straight home after work and so he wasn't at the scene of the crime when it happened. The lawyer, Mr. Black, asserts to the jury that Jones has lied. Jones says "what evidence do you have that I'm lying?" Mr. Black replies "Why do we need evidence? We all assume you can walk. We all assume you can eat. We all assume you can sleep. Thus, it's reasonable to assume you lied about going straight home after work."

That's not reasonable although it may be possible. It is also possible that no one told Eve "do not touch," it's possible that she made that part up. And this latter theory has the advantage of parsimony. If you ask me what the Ten Commandments are and I say "Do not have ice-cream after dinner, do not wear white socks with a black suite, do not spit in the wind, always wash your hands before eating, ladies first, etc..." would it be reasonable to assume that my pastor lied to me about the Ten Commandments? No, because it's an unnecessary deduction for which you have no evidence. Multiplying entities needlessly. It's more parsimonious to either say I'm lying or to leave it at the fact that I'm misinformed without needlessly postulating the theory that my pastor is a liar to me.

First of all, you are confusing reason with possibility. Those aren't coterminous. Not all things that are possible are reasonable. And you keep forgetting that it is also possible that Eve made up the command and she is the liar.

That's the best we can do *if* we assume the command is a lie. But I pointed out that it isn't necessary to believe that "do not touch" is a lie. But if it is a lie, it would be unreasonable to assume without any evidence that the lie came from Adam. Thus, the most reasonable thing is to believe that the lie, if it is a lie, started with Eve, since we only see her propagating it.

If that tactic works for you, then it can work for me too: Your theory is impossible because Jesus said that the devil told the first lie. Of course, you'll just say "Yeah and Adam is the Devil" but then I can just play your same tactic: Eve is the Devil.

Furthermore, I already explained that even if "do not touch" is a lie and even if Eve told *that* lie *first* then it is still possible that the Devil is the first liar by saying "God has said you shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden." So it is not "impossible" as you claim.

This makes no sense to me. What is written "simply on the page" that I do not believe? How am I holding onto a type of skepticism that would prevent me from coming to a knowledge of the truth?

You've phrased this oddly. Do you mean to say this: "If Gen. 2:16-17 is not a summary of God's command, but the command in exhaustive detail..."?? If that is what you are saying, then I would say this is exactly what you don't get to assume. You want to assume it's an exhaustive and verbatim record of the command. I've already demonstrated why you can't make this assumption. If you want to jump the hurdle, you have to deal with the arguments.

Then by your method of reasoning Elijah was a liar. But the Scripture tells us that what he said came true, so he wasn't a liar. If Elijah wasn't a liar and your method of reasoning leads us to believe that he was a liar, then your method of reasoning is fallacious.

The reason I cannot see it is because I'm not buying into your presumptions upon the text. One of the reasons I'm not buying your presumption is because your entire method is fallacious.

This doesn't answer what I said. You just assume that it was a question, when it is possible that it is a statement. Now if you want to argue that it was a question, go ahead. But it should be clear by now that I'm not going to go along with your assumptions.

Why did he even tell her not to eat it in the first place? Why not just say "Hey Eve, you know the fruit on that tree is great and God told us to have at it so dig in."

There are three assumptions built into this. The first assumption is that my suggested reading of the text is wrong. Now if you want to say it is wrong because the KJV came straight from God, then your KJV-onlyism isn't irrelevant like you claim. The second assumption is that she was repeating "do not touch" from what she had heard. The third assumption is that the "do not touch" did not come from God.
.

If I were to believe your theory then it seems like maybe God did want us to be ignorant, because not only is it prima facie obvious that Adam and the Devil are two different persons, but God made it so confusing that no one until you has been able to figure out the truth.

It isn't necessary to see the "question" of Satan or the response of Eve as a lie. It's possible that Satan's second statement, "You shall not surely die" is the first lie.

Nothing you said above disproves my theory that Eve is the devil. But as for your remark that the woman's seed and the serpent's seed are distinct I would say you're right. This is a very strong argument against my Eve theory. However, I'm sure I could find ways to make it fit. For example, I said Eve had Multiple Personality Disorder. The language about the two different seeds really just means that there will be two different kinds of people coming from Eve. Some evil, following her evil persona and some normal, following her normal persona. So you see I can still find ways to make it possible, even though it is absurd and have tons of evidence against. Likewise, you can make your theory possible by twisting language and making lots of assumptions. But it's still absurd.

In addition, your appeal to the apparent distinctness between Eve and the Serpent in the narrative works against your theory since the narrative structure actually assumes there are three distinct entities: "The LORD God said to the serpent... To the woman he said... And to Adam he said,"

Fine, let me reissue the former challenge which you never answered: where does Scripture say that Adam lied to Eve? Where does Scripture say that the command "do not touch" is not original? Where does Scripture say that Adam is the Serpent? Please don't just blindly assert that you are believing these "facts" because you read them. Show me *where* you read them.

Again, this only makes sense (and even then it doesn't make much sense) if you assume that the tree itself has some magical ability to cause death. What caused death was sin, breaking the command of God. Consider this: what if God had only commanded Adam "do not hop on one foot." Would it make sense to say that Adam had control over death because he could break the command? Clearly that's absurd and any sense in which it is true is trite. For example, Eve also had power or "control" over death since she could also eat the fruit (and did).

The problem is your odd concept of "power of death." I think my interpretation fits the context of Hebrews and what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the Devil, I don't see how your sense gives him the "power of death" at all, at least not in any significant sense and definitely not in an enduring sense. Keep in mind that the name or title "Satan" simply means "adversary" or "slanderer." Kistemaker and Hendriksen agree with this analysis of the passage: "The result of Christ’s death is twofold: he conquered Satan and set his people free from the fear of death. Satan desired the destruction of God’s creation in general and man in particular. After the fall Satan had the power of death over Adam and his descendants and used death as a weapon against us. He had the privilege of coming before God in heaven to accuse the believers (see Zech. 3:1–2), and stood ready to execute the verdict pronounced upon the guilty and to destroy man, who was condemned to death. He, the murderer from the beginning (John 8:44), desired man’s death in the fullest sense of the word: physical death and spiritual death (separation from God). He wanted to serve as the angel of death by wielding the power of death" (Exposition of Hebrews). However, the Bible Knowledge Commentary takes a different interpretation of the passage: "In speaking of the devil as wielding the power of death, the writer meant that Satan uses people’s fear of death to enslave them to his will. Often people make wrong moral choices out of their intense desire for self-preservation. The readers were reminded that they were no longer subject to such slavery and that they could face death with the same confidence in God their Captain had." Either interpretation makes more sense than the one you've offered.

I see absolutely no way that anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Ezekiel saw Adam in Ezekiel 1:26-28. Just because men are made in the image and likeness of God does not mean that everytime we see the word "likeness" relating to God that it must be referring to man, especially to the particular man Adam. (After all, you would have to concede that the description could equally apply to every man since all men are made in the image of God.) We might as well conclude that if Adam is "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord" then when Ezekiel says that “The glory of the LORD dwelt on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud” (Exodus 24:16) that this is speaking about Adam! When Moses asked to see the Lord's glory he was asking to see Adam. When we read that the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle this means Adam filled the tabernacle. Ezekiel's language is explained by the fact that he was having a vision and didn't actually see God. I already dealt with the Tyre passage.

imoss · Jun 1, 2010

umm.... wow!

Credo_ut_Intelligam · Jun 1, 2010

imoss said:

Thanks for remind me. I forgot to add that a mere untruth is not sufficient for a lie (actually I meant to make that point from the beginning but kept forgetting as I went along). A lie is an untrue statement in which the person asserting it may or may not know it to be untrue and asserts it with the intent to deceive.

I can be mistaken about something without lying. For instance, if you ask me if I turned off the water before leaving for vacation I might say "yes" and be wrong about that without it counting as a lie so long as I believed it to be true and didn't tell you with the intent to deceive. So even if Eve made an untrue statement, it doesn't follow that she lied.

And I don't think that prior to the fall persons would have known everything perfectly such that they could not have made mistakes or untrue statements.

serpentslayer · Jun 2, 2010

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)[/quote]

This response it out of sequence, so please forgive me.

Your are absolutely correct, the Bible does not say Eve was surprised; however, one can infer from the scriptures (Gen 3: ) that Eve had just aquired knowledge that she did not have before. Consider: if she had seen the tree before, why is she just now realizing that the tree and its fruit are pleasant to the eyes? and if she had known the name of the tree, why is she just reallizing that the tree was a tree of knowledge?

Some Truth's in scripture can only be found by rightly-dividing the Word. If everything was so cut and dry, them all we would have to do is simply read and obey. No to offend, but there is the Milk of the Word, and there is the Meat (Heb 5:12-14, 6:1-2). The milk is the cut-and-dry, clearly uttered and understood principles, and the Meat is for those have become wise to the scriptures and who have sought the know deeper Truth's of God, even to understand its many mysteries. But babies in the Word need the milk first, and need to diligently study in order to come of age to handle the meat (Is 28:9-10).

Your narrative is not even close, and it is obvious that you do not understand anything i have said. It seems to me that yu do not have a source which you call the true Word of God; but, instead, believe you can deceifer the Truth from amongst all the bibles and writings of men. This is where you and i differ and can never come to any agreement about anything. Must we first define the word 'it'. 9 years ago i decided to take a stand of faith and accept only one source of Truth, which is the KJV. It is a very simple thing to show how bibles disagee, even on fundamental doctrinal issues. So, in Light of the story of Babel, where confusion of language cause the people to disperse according to their new language, i saw how many bible translations had the same effect, and decided that this was not of God, so i thought it best to stand on one source. This is not to say that one cannot learn Truth from other bibles because God is not limited like that. Most bibles get the Milk right, but their meat is tainted, even so slightly. God said do not add nor subtact from His Word: you do both in your arguments. I am not trying to offend you, especially since we believe in the same God. I have tried to find comon ground with you, but you do not acknowledge it. Do you believe that Jesus is the Lord from Heaven?

Since you are sure i am wrong, and since you are a bright young man, take this up with me using te KJV. It is very hard, if not impossible, to climb a mountain which has a slippery slope (smooth): the climbing is much easier if it has cracks, crevices and rough spots.

imoss · Jun 2, 2010

Credo, you have been led to some very strange doctrine evident not only in this thread but in others. You likely disagree because you have bought into these "theories". Always question... ALWAYS question and dont add to the Bible, its quite alright as written and if you dont understand it, dont make it something its not (or subscribe to others who have done this) just to lend human understanding to something that is from God. There will come a day where understanding of all of these matters will be known. That day is not today. My perception of your posts is they came from someone I wrongly assumed you to be a non-christian. You need to prayerfully consider what you hold as truth and why you seem to be "fighting" a very lonely "fight".

serpentslayer · Jun 2, 2010

Wow! Layer upon layer. I do not know where to start because we seem to be going around in circles. i ijust responded to a prior reply, so all this repeating is probably my fault.
I've made my 'argument' clear and concise. According to was is written, Adam was the only one who was told the Truth because he was the only one created at the time. And, because Jesus assures us the the devil told the first lie, and Eve's testimony is partly untrue (against what the LORD told Adam), she is not lying by telling the untruth (by definition a liar must both know the truth and willingly pervert it), but simply regurigitating what she was told. It is not rocket science to list the possible suspects for telling her the 'untruth' she spoke, but it is certain that one is the devil (title). You cannot prove otherwise except by adding or dimishing from the written Word. And what you call assumptions are the facts i interpret from the simple word, i.e the Commandment. You refuse to believe the simple Truth and make acceptions for every cause, even without sound logic. I know you think you are saying something, but all you are reall saying is that you do not have a source which you call the Word of God, as i have said. You should also try putting the fodder down where the sheep and goats can get to it. And just so there is no misinterpretation of what i mean by 'fodder' (there are several defintions in tHe Dic.), i mean the food for the critters.

I believe you are truly seeking to know Truth, and i am sure that if you are, then you will find it. We understand by the scriptures that is not sufficient enough just to believe that GOD IS, for we must also believe what HE said (Heb 11:6; James 2:19). Our salvation if fully dependent upon that fact, beginning with our recognizing Jesus as our personal Savior. The criteria was no different for Adam, because, as long as Adam beleived in the Word, he would never eat the forbidden fruit, because willfully eating was the same thing as suicide. Some say Adam ate because he loved his wife and wished her not to be alone with her sin and death; but, first and formost, Adam was with her but made no attempt to stop her (would you have let your wife, assuming you are married?), and Paul does not let him off so easily (Rom 5). Really, if it is as you say, that Eve was like the proverbial blonde, and all of this is her fault, and Adam was just collateral damage, why does not Paul crucifiy her? (rhetorical) If what i say is true, then there is very little mystery left in the bible concerning man, angels and sin. It started with man, it will end with God: but throughtout time, it has always been faith in the Word of
God which has carried the sinner through. You struggle because you do not wish to see yourself as a devil from birth, or want to think you have been or ever could be deceived (pride), and, because you are a man, you might want to keep the burden on women. In the Beginning, at the Judgment, Adam was elevated above Eve (iin a sense) because GOD made her submit to him; but, i believe thsi will all change with the Revelation, and the woman shall again be on an equal footing. And in case you are wondering, No, i am not a woman.

Credo_ut_Intelligam · Jun 2, 2010

Whether or not Eve was surprised is really trivial. I simply added it to the list to show how many assumptions you had built into your interpretation. Nothing you say here proves that Eve was *surprised* it only proves that she “had just acquired knowledge” as you put it. But that’s an even more trivial claim than saying she was surprised.

And Eve could have known the name of the tree and still later have come to the conclusion that it was “a tree to be desired to make one wise.” The difference is that in the first instance she knows the name of the tree and that she isn’t supposed to eat from it (or touch it) and in the latter instance she comes to believe that the tree is *desirable* for the purpose of making one wise. Those are two different things. You can’t infer from the fact that she came to believe it was desirable to make one wise that she had no knowledge of the tree’s name prior to her coming to that belief.

Let’s say I make a candy bar and call it “Scrumptious” I then give it to you wrapped up in a package and say, here is my candy bar, I call it Scrumptious. Then, you take it out of the package and look it over. You look at its texture and color and smell it. You then decide that it is indeed scrumptious and you want to have a bite. Does that mean you didn’t realize that I called it Scrumptious till you wanted a bite? Clearly absurd.

You’re all over the map here. One minute you claim to be teaching the “simple Truth” and the “simple word of God” then you admit that you yourself had a hard time believing this “simple Truth” and “simple word of God” then you go back to talking about how the “Truth is simple” and how “God reveals the mysteries within the Bible in His Times, making clear that which before was hidden or dark.” Well, is this supposed to be one of those things that was dark but is now clear? If so, why does it still look dark? Is this one of those simple truths you keep talking about? If so, why doesn’t it look simple and why are you now indicating that it isn’t simple, it’s meat and mysterious requiring diligent study.

I guess that when it comes to rhetorically beefing up your theory it’s plain and simple. All you have to do is a get a KJV (1611?) and read what the Bible says. But when it comes to answering objections that’s when it becomes dark and mysterious, something that is not simple to understand. You have to study diligently and, of course, tap into the Holy Spirit.

Don’t you feel sorry for all those people prior to 1611?

Empty charges aren’t going to get either of us anywhere.

Let me try to reconstruct your argument here in a more straightforward manner. Correct me if I’m wrong.

1. Adam is the only one who was told the truth, being the only human existing at the time.
2. The Devil told the first lie.
Conclusion: Thus, Eve is simply regurgitating the untruth she was told by Adam.

Now, one should be able to tell just by looking at this that it makes no sense at all. Maybe that’s because I’ve falsely constructed your argument here. If so, go ahead and provide the correct argument.

Your first premise is irrelevant to proving that Eve was regurgitating what she was told by Adam. It’s as simple as that.

Moving on to the second premise, this is also irrelevant to proving that Eve was regurgitating what she was told by Adam. Eve wasn't a robot. She could think creatively for herself. So, as I've been saying all along, it's possible that she just got creative about "do not touch." Now, you would object to this on the basis that "Then Eve would have told the first lie!" correct? Well that's not correct, as I pointed out before. For one thing, it's possible to read the Devil's initiating question/statement as the first lie. For another thing, a statement only qualifies as a lie if the person uses it with the intent to deceive (whether they know it to be true or not doesn't seem relevant). Eve may have made a mistake, perhaps by mental lapse. Do you really want to argue that our brains/minds functioned perfectly prior to the fall? Finally, it's possible that Eve's statement "do not touch" is not even untrue. It could be true as I pointed out and argued for using Elijah as my example.

But apparently it does take a rocket scientist to figure out that Eve could have made up the untruth herself or it could not be an untruth at all.

You do realize these are empty claims right? I could sit here all day and throw the same rhetoric at you: You call facts what are assumptions that you are not getting from the simple Word. You’ve come up with a crazy and novel interpretation of Scripture and you want it to be true so badly that you can no longer distinguish between the Word of God and your assumptions. Your assumptions have for all practical purposes become the Word of god.

Nothing I said implies that. The Bible is clear, all three persons did wrong: the serpent, Eve, and Adam. That’s why God curses all three of them.

My theory is that people generally start to psychologize when they run out of substantive things to say.

The Revelation of Adam

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

charisenexcelcis

Guest

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

charisenexcelcis

Guest

Banned

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest