Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Every tree in which has fruit-isfor your food


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#31    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

View PostSean93, on 06 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Do any of you take the story of Adam and Eve literally, talking snake and all?
It depends on what you mean by literally.

The literary form of the first chapters of Genesis seems to be poetic, so obviously it is not intended to be read as a scientific treatise.  Additionally, the story was written in a pre-Hebraic language and some of the proper or exact meaning of some words or terms may have been lost in translation.  

Were the days of creation 24 hour days or was the word translated as "day" (yom) also used as we use the word "day" today to mean some time period (As in the English phrase, "the olden days" or "back in the day")?  

Is the description of how Adam was formed exact or is it a poetic way of describing that God created the human being using matter already in existence?  Is the description of how God created Eve from Adam's rib a literal description or is it a poetic way of showing that the human female was made of the same genetic material as the human male?

Is the serpent an animal that once had limbs and is now cursed to exist without them or is it a spiritual being whose name or title was "Serpent" or something very similar?  Is it intended to be a play on words that is lost in translation?

Given all of that, yes, I believe the account in Genesis to be true, but not necessarily an exact description of the events.

Edited by IamsSon, 06 December 2012 - 08:54 PM.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#32    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

View PostCopen, on 04 December 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Genesis 1: 29 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

So the ideal diet then would be vegan. Anticipating the next argument; "everything changed after the Fall". What specifically changed in the human digestive system to preclude a vegan diet? I submit nothing changed, and a vegan diet is still the philosophical/religious ideal which abstains from promoting pain, suffering and death.

(feel free to ignore my drive-by vegan propaganda.)

carry on


#33    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

View Postredhen, on 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

So the ideal diet then would be vegan. Anticipating the next argument; "everything changed after the Fall". What specifically changed in the human digestive system to preclude a vegan diet? I submit nothing changed, and a vegan diet is still the philosophical/religious ideal which abstains from promoting pain, suffering and death.

(feel free to ignore my drive-by vegan propaganda.)

carry on
Not sure there is a mandate for a vegan diet here, simply a statement that all of those types of trees were edible.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#34    Sean93

Sean93

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • WRATH

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:30 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 06 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

It depends on what you mean by literally.

The literary form of the first chapters of Genesis seems to be poetic, so obviously it is not intended to be read as a scientific treatise.  Additionally, the story was written in a pre-Hebraic language and some of the proper or exact meaning of some words or terms may have been lost in translation.  

Were the days of creation 24 hour days or was the word translated as "day" (yom) also used as we use the word "day" today to mean some time period (As in the English phrase, "the olden days" or "back in the day")?  

Is the description of how Adam was formed exact or is it a poetic way of describing that God created the human being using matter already in existence?  Is the description of how God created Eve from Adam's rib a literal description or is it a poetic way of showing that the human female was made of the same genetic material as the human male?

Is the serpent an animal that once had limbs and is now cursed to exist without them or is it a spiritual being whose name or title was "Serpent" or something very similar?  Is it intended to be a play on words that is lost in translation?

Given all of that, yes, I believe the account in Genesis to be true, but not necessarily an exact description of the events.

For the word of God, there sure seems to be a lot of uncertainty surrounding it's meaning, your post is eveident of that among others. Some agree with parts, some don't, some take it literally (sometimes in parts) some don't. "It says this!" <Defending their belief, "No, it says this!" <Defending their belief.

For a book that supposedly is the word and law of an omnipotent being, it sure has a lot of disagreement stemming from it (Orthodox, Jew, Presbyterian, Protestant, Catholic, SDA, etc.) I guess all one can do is hope their interpretation is  correct.

This point applies to all holy texts' as well so before I get flagellated by anyone, I'm putting that out there.

I wish there was a god, I hope there is one...but not any of the Earthly god's (with the exception of Thor) because they're just boring. I'd love (and I suspect if a god/creator does exist) the Firstborn from A space Odyssey, magnificent, amazing and powerful and my thoughts about the universe only allow the idea of an indifferent creator because really, we're one ******* planet out of 00000000000000000000's and if there really was a caring god, he she, they or it would have stepped in ages ago.

Edited by Sean93, 06 December 2012 - 10:32 PM.

"Regarding life, the wisest men of all ages have judged it alike: It is worthless."

"Be peaceful, be courteous, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

#35    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 07 December 2012 - 03:24 AM

View PostSean93, on 06 December 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

For the word of God, there sure seems to be a lot of uncertainty surrounding it's meaning, your post is eveident of that among others. Some agree with parts, some don't, some take it literally (sometimes in parts) some don't. "It says this!" <Defending their belief, "No, it says this!" <Defending their belief.

For a book that supposedly is the word and law of an omnipotent being, it sure has a lot of disagreement stemming from it (Orthodox, Jew, Presbyterian, Protestant, Catholic, SDA, etc.) I guess all one can do is hope their interpretation is  correct.

This point applies to all holy texts' as well so before I get flagellated by anyone, I'm putting that out there.

I wish there was a god, I hope there is one...but not any of the Earthly god's (with the exception of Thor) because they're just boring. I'd love (and I suspect if a god/creator does exist) the Firstborn from A space Odyssey, magnificent, amazing and powerful and my thoughts about the universe only allow the idea of an indifferent creator because really, we're one ******* planet out of 00000000000000000000's and if there really was a caring god, he she, they or it would have stepped in ages ago.
I believe the "uncertainty" is there so that people can retain the choice to turn to Him or not.  If the Bible were written in the clouds, then no one would have an option but to acknowledge God and serve Him.

Why do you think God would have stepped in long ago?  Do you think an omnipotent being would be at the beck and call of His creation?  He has a purpose, He gives us choices, and when His purpose is fulfilled, then He will "step" in.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#36    Sean93

Sean93

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • WRATH

Posted 07 December 2012 - 04:59 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 07 December 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

I believe the "uncertainty" is there so that people can retain the choice to turn to Him or not.  If the Bible were written in the clouds, then no one would have an option but to acknowledge God and serve Him.

Why do you think God would have stepped in long ago?  Do you think an omnipotent being would be at the beck and call of His creation?  He has a purpose, He gives us choices, and when His purpose is fulfilled, then He will "step" in.

What would be wrong with that? We'd all know God and love him as a big daddy figure...but no, God wants us to scramble and fight over him like the village whore. We're his kids for **** sake, nor play things! Well, no one said God has to be fair. (Kinda' exciting though, a dictator god! :w00t: )

I see, it's basically God's version of Saturday morning cartoons - nice and fun entertainment watching us squirm and fight over him. I refuse to squirm or acknowledge God out of fear of punishment. I can't take a deity seriously when all it does is complain about it's own messed up creation that he (God - your God, here) knew was broken from the beginning.

If you saw your kids beating the **** out of each other and fighting, would you watch from the doorway and say "They have to learn on their own, I can't help them". I can bet you and any other sensible parent would step in and stop the madness, I wonder why God can't? Oh that's right, special purpose and all...sorry.

Still I could be wrong and you could be right, in which case fair do's, I'm sure God in all his infinite wisdom understands where I'm coming from, regardless of whether he wants to burn me or not.  

♪ Our God is an awesome god! :passifier:

Edited by Sean93, 07 December 2012 - 05:00 PM.

"Regarding life, the wisest men of all ages have judged it alike: It is worthless."

"Be peaceful, be courteous, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."

#37    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

Your original post is not a question about God.  It is a question about a story that has been preserved by Hebrews and adopted by Christians, and later again, adopted by followers of Islam.  We can ask if this story make sense, but we should not mistake discussing the story with questions of God.  To clarify, these religions have their interpretations of ancient stories, and they have their separate holy books, but they are in no way, the only explanations of God.   I do not give any of these religions, the authority to define God.

The biblical description of how God created humans, is a Hebrew translation of a Sumerian story about many gods, and a river god asking a goddess for help so that it may stay in its banks and avoid angering her again, but flooding and destroying her plants.  She made a man and a woman from mud and breathed life into them.

Abraham and his people, originate in Ur.  Long before Ur had been a Sumerian city and it left these stories on clay tablets.  The writing on these tablets is called cuneiform.  The goddess Ninti is a goddess who heals ribs and she helped heal the river.  She is "the lady of the rib" and "the lady who makes live". She becomes Eve, the lady made of a rib and who makes live.  Eden means "uncultivated plain" and Adam means "settlement on the plain".

May I suggest the original story tells us real events, a very long drought and then a flood, and then a return to normal weather and a return to the valley.  However, when this story is passed on from generation to generation, the cause of the story is forgotten and we get religious myth.  The Hebrews attempted to improve on the myth and correct it by making it a story of one God.  Islam makes more corrections to biblical stories.  And then everyone fights over who knows God's truth.  However, if we turn to science, we find the four rivers of Eden, and the geological evidence of a long drought and flood, and we have the record of Sumerian stories.

Edited by me-wonders, 07 December 2012 - 05:54 PM.


#38    me-wonders

me-wonders

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Joined:30 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:11 PM

View PostSean93, on 07 December 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

What would be wrong with that? We'd all know God and love him as a big daddy figure...but no, God wants us to scramble and fight over him like the village whore. We're his kids for **** sake, nor play things! Well, no one said God has to be fair. (Kinda' exciting though, a dictator god! :w00t: )

I see, it's basically God's version of Saturday morning cartoons - nice and fun entertainment watching us squirm and fight over him. I refuse to squirm or acknowledge God out of fear of punishment. I can't take a deity seriously when all it does is complain about it's own messed up creation that he (God - your God, here) knew was broken from the beginning.

If you saw your kids beating the **** out of each other and fighting, would you watch from the doorway and say "They have to learn on their own, I can't help them". I can bet you and any other sensible parent would step in and stop the madness, I wonder why God can't? Oh that's right, special purpose and all...sorry.

Still I could be wrong and you could be right, in which case fair do's, I'm sure God in all his infinite wisdom understands where I'm coming from, regardless of whether he wants to burn me or not.  

♪ Our God is an awesome god! :passifier:

Yeah, the Egyptians had the same problem with their gods.  Nut is the mother of all of them, and when they start fighting and doing bad things, she stays out of it, and things get all screwed up.

I don't know.  Maybe if we could go back to the beginning of time and teach the god and goddess good parenting skills, things wouldn't be so messed up?  

Personally, I am not going to worship a jealous, fearsome and revengeful, punishing God, who is the role model of an abusive husband, and favors one child over another.  Jesus did his best to correct this image of God, but Christians decided they had to justify their new religion which is a hybred of Judaism (Sumerian and possible Egyptian origin), Egyptian theology and Hellenism, mixed with Roman skills for bring everyone together in one nation.  It is much easier to determine human truths, than it is to determine God's truth, and perhaps we want to know human truth, before assuming we know too much about God's truth?


#39    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,456 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

View PostCopen, on 03 December 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

If God said that to Adam (Genesis 1:29) then God is a very unstable God and is not all knowing.
God said that to male and female created Day Six - Gentiles.

Adam, (the first Jew), created Day Eight, was told something different. "Every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat it; for in the DAY thou eatest there thou shalt surely die."

The Jews have always been under more dietary restrictions than the Gentiles. God keeps His promise. Adam did not begin to die. He died that self same day. His soul died to sin. He immediately knew to be ashamed of his nakedness.

When the serpent asked, "Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" He was asking - - are you not as good as the Gentiles for they can eat fruit of every tree? Eva thought Adam had told her the truth; "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye TOUCH it, lest ye die." She touched it and realized Adam had deceived her. She didn't die until she ate the fruit. Then she became as gods knowing good and evil.

In the Psalms 82:6 and also when King Saul called the prophet Samuel up from Paradise, he saw gods. Gods (with a little "g") used in those references meant priests and prophets who had wisdom concerning God's righteous laws of good and evil.
God bless us all is my prayer.

Jews did not exist until God brought them out a gentile called Abram and turned him into the 1st Jew called Abraham.

God also never said that Adam and Eve could not eat of the trees, God specifically stated this of only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not once is it stated anywhere that they could not eat of the Tree of Eternal life. As a matter of fact there is textual evidence that that is exactly what they did repeatedly.

Edited by Jor-el, 10 December 2012 - 07:07 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#40    Copen

Copen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:57 AM

View PostSean93, on 06 December 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Do any of you take the story of Adam and Eve literally, talking snake and all?
The Bible says God does everything twice for our proof that it is true. (Hebrews 6:18) Therefore, you can find it twice in the Bible. No other book is crammed packed with so many twos. That includes especially the creation.

Is there anywhere in the Bible where an animals spoke? Well, in Numbers 22: 28 the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey and it spoke to Balaam.


#41    Copen

Copen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:33 AM

View PostJor-el, on 10 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Jews did not exist until God brought them out a gentile called Abram and turned him into the 1st Jew called Abraham.

God also never said that Adam and Eve could not eat of the trees, God specifically stated this of only the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not once is it stated anywhere that they could not eat of the Tree of Eternal life. As a matter of fact there is textual evidence that that is exactly what they did repeatedly.

Abram was not a Gentile. Abram is a descendant of Adam, through the line of Seth and not of the Jewish line of Cain whom God ran out of the Land of Milk and Honey, (Israel) where Cain married his Gentile wife in the land of Nod.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Incest is a sin. God blessed the Gentiles to multiply. Since Adam and Eva only had sons until after Cain was gone and Seth had been born, Cain could not have married a sister. UGH! Adam said right away by inspiration of God that incest was forbidden. "Man must leave father and mother" to get his wife and by "cleaving" to her they become one flesh. The most logical way to get a wife of one flesh would be to marry a sister. But Adam said, "No!" Cleave to her and you will be one flesh.

The very word "Gentiles" says they were first. "Gen" - beginning; "tiles" - baked pieces of clay. God spoke them into existence.

As God was dictating the events of the six day creation to Moses, He identified Himself as Elohim. That means God in the plural and implied Triune. That is how God has identified Himself to the New Testament Church as Triune.

When the narrative started with God forming, (molding), Adam with His hands out of the dust of the earth (not spoken), He identified Himself as Jehovah meaning One. That is how He has most of the time revealed Himself to the Jews.  

You might have missed the point of this thread. God said to the Gentiles, "I give you every herb bearing seed, (which means the seed is on the outside), which is upon the face of all the earth AND EVERY TREE which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed, (which means the seed in on the inside), to you it shall be for food. The next day was Sabbath and God blessed it and rested.

Day Eight, God created Adam, the first Jew. God commanded the man saying, "Of every tree of the garden (not upon the face of all the earth -- like He said to the Gentiles), thou mayest freely eat; BUT "--- that's, "BUT of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt NOT eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Either God didn't do what He said He was going to do, because the day they ate the fruit they died not die physically; or God is didn't mean what He said; or God is so weak He can't do what He wants to do; OR GOD IS TRUE AND THEY DIED --- BUT GOD WASN'T TALKING ABOUT A PHYSICAL DEATH. When they gained the knowledge of good and evil they died to self righteousness and to sin. Their souls (mind-emotions) died to world of flesh and sin.

Romans 5;14 says Adam is the figure (foreshadow) of Him, (Jesus), that was to come. Jesus was a Jew. Adam was the first Jew and Jesus' lineage goes directly back to Adam. And he lied to Eva and said if she touched the fruit she would die. She touched it and realized Adam had decieved her. God didn't tell anybody they would die if they touched the fruit.

"By one man, (Lucifer), sin entered." If it entered by eating the fruit ---- sin entered by one woman --- not one man.
God bless us all is my prayer.

Edited by Copen, 13 December 2012 - 02:39 AM.


#42    Copen

Copen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:07 AM

View Postredhen, on 06 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

So the ideal diet then would be vegan.

carry on
No. The next verse, God continues with for food every beast of the earth, every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, I have given every green herb for food. So that is not completely a veggie diet. Gentiles have never been limited to the dietary restrictions of the Jews. God actually only mentions fruit of the garden for Adam to eat except for the one notorious fruit. Herb is the root, stem, leaves, and flower of plants that is eatible. If the seed is on the outside, it is grain. If it is on the inside, it is fruit.


#43    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,456 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

View PostCopen, on 13 December 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

Abram was not a Gentile. Abram is a descendant of Adam, through the line of Seth and not of the Jewish line of Cain whom God ran out of the Land of Milk and Honey, (Israel) where Cain married his Gentile wife in the land of Nod.

That is one heck of a statement, considering that the entire Jewish nation called Israel are direct descendents of Abraham.

The reason why God decided to create a nation from one man is due to mankind as a whole persisting in worshipping everything under the sun except God. The gentiles lost their inheritence and can only acquire it again by being reinserted into the family of God by adoption.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9

8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9 For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.


Deuteronomy 4:19

19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly host—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Before Abraham there were no gentiles, and there were no Jews... there was only mankind.


Quote

God said to the Gentiles, "I give you every herb bearing seed, (which means the seed is on the outside), which is upon the face of all the earth AND EVERY TREE which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed, (which means the seed in on the inside), to you it shall be for food. The next day was Sabbath and God blessed it and rested.


I find it interesting that nowhere in the text, does the word "gentiles" appear... mankind does...

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.


28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Edited by Jor-el, 13 December 2012 - 08:25 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#44    Copen

Copen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 14 December 2012 - 03:22 AM

View PostJor-el, on 13 December 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:


Deuteronomy 32:8-9

8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9 For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.

You do remember that the "sons of God" (the Jews) began to marry the daughters of men (Gentiles) all whom they chose. (Genesis 6:2)


Before Abraham there were no gentiles, and there were no Jews... there was only mankind.

I find it interesting that nowhere in the text, does the word "gentiles" appear... mankind does...

You are right, they were not called Gen-tiles. They were called "men" and "male and female" The word "men" does not mean mankind. It means Gentiles.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created men in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

In the Septuigant which was the translation in Greek that every Jew was using including Jesus, it said God created "MEN" in His own image. The mis-understanding that "men" means mankind has brought about the terrible teaching that angels were marrying mankind. The Bible says angels cannot procreate. How ridiculous. The sons of God (Jews) were marrying daughters of men. They were Gentile women.

Also, when you read "sons of mAn" it is talking about being a descendant of Adam the first one that was named Man. It was capitalized, making it the proper name of Adam. And Eva was named Woman (also capitalized) because she came out of Man. Jesus said He was the Son of Man (Adam). That title and proper name was not used by anyone after Jesus. But descendants of Adam were called sons of mAn several places in the Old Testament.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
It is true God gave all that to "men" (Gentiles). God never told Adam he could eat from EVERY tree. There was no warning nor limitation placed upon what they could eat in the above verse.

If Abraham was the beginning of the Jewish nation, there would have been to reason to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam. The prophecy that the messiah would come and bruise the head of the serpent was given to Eva not Sarah. The Blessed Virgin Mary was called "Woman" by Jesus, showing her lineage goes right back to Eva.

Edited by Copen, 14 December 2012 - 03:57 AM.


#45    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,456 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:35 PM

View PostCopen, on 14 December 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

It is true God gave all that to "men" (Gentiles). God never told Adam he could eat from EVERY tree. There was no warning nor limitation placed upon what they could eat in the above verse.

No sorry, men does NOT mean gentiles, in any book I've ever read, much less in the bible. Men, means MANKIND, every single one of us, the whole, lot, men and women... adults and children, babies and newborns, of all colours. There were no gentiles there were no jews, When God created mankind there were no such distinctions. There were no Jews, there were no gentiles, there was MANKIND. (and that includes Jews, since thery are not a breed apart)

Quote

If Abraham was the beginning of the Jewish nation, there would have been to reason to trace Jesus' lineage back to Adam. The prophecy that the messiah would come and bruise the head of the serpent was given to Eva not Sarah. The Blessed Virgin Mary was called "Woman" by Jesus, showing her lineage goes right back to Eva.

Of course there was a reason, and the reason is quite simple. It is to unequivicoly demonstrate that HE WAS HUMAN. A seed of Adam and Eve.


14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”


Quote

In the Septuigant which was the translation in Greek that every Jew was using including Jesus, it said God created "MEN" in His own image. The mis-understanding that "men" means mankind has brought about the terrible teaching that angels were marrying mankind. The Bible says angels cannot procreate. How ridiculous. The sons of God (Jews) were marrying daughters of men. They were Gentile women.

Also, when you read "sons of mAn" it is talking about being a descendant of Adam the first one that was named Man. It was capitalized, making it the proper name of Adam. And Eva was named Woman (also capitalized) because she came out of Man. Jesus said He was the Son of Man (Adam). That title and proper name was not used by anyone after Jesus. But descendants of Adam were called sons of mAn several places in the Old Testament.


In the original Hebrew, there are no capitalizations. And I would seriously go study a little more about angles before stating that they cannot procreate. That is a willful misinterpretation because people started to feel uncomfortable with the simple truth of the bible. It is amusing the twists and turns that people make so that they can't face uncomfortable truths.

Quote

You do remember that the "sons of God" (the Jews) began to marry the daughters of men (Gentiles) all whom they chose. (Genesis 6:2)


No they didn't, Jews are descendents of Abraham, they came much later. There were no Jews at the time of the great flood. Abraham, is Noahs' great great great grandson. As a matter of fact, Noah was still alive when Abram was born.


Therefore you are inventing and twisting things to fit your preconcieved view of how things should be. The Sons of God are clearly references to beings that are NOT human, and their offspring were hybrids. You can call them angels, but that is only one name we can give them. They were also considered to be gods in their own right.. Psalm 82 is quite clear on this...
Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.


1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “
gods”:

2 “How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.


5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.


6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”


8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.


You can shake your head, but this Psalm is not being metaphorical, it is meant to be taken literally. We are not speaking of human beings, we are speaking of "elohim", the very same name given to God.

Quote

You are right, they were not called Gen-tiles. They were called "men" and "male and female" The word "men" does not mean mankind. It means Gentiles.


Prove it, show me one single lexicon that demonstrates that you are correct in your interpretation.

Edited by Jor-el, 14 December 2012 - 07:16 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users