Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Copen

Every tree in which has fruit-isfor your food

72 posts in this topic

Word of advice for God...if the fruit on the tree is forbidden for Adam and Eve to touch, don't put it near them... come one dude!, you're supposed to be almighty and great and you make a mistake like that? Unless it was part of God's plan in which case, that guy has nerve. "Do not sin, it's in the plan, it's in the screenplay but do not sin!"

This could make a good skit...

Also God, if it's broke, you might want to fix it; you know, to right a wrong. It would sure suck if computer companies were to churn out faulty hardware despite knowing that the first model of a series they planned on creating was faulty...but oh well, I'm just planting seeds here.

...****, here I am by myself at the computer talking uh, to myself...that - that's chaos theory. (<Get the reference???)

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example Adam was created on the 8th day.

Woah! What? Please explain this because according to Gen 1, God created Adam on the 6th day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each day except for Day Two, God spoke into existence something and said, "Good" not "Perfect" but "Good" for His planned purpose. Day Two was created perfect like God wanted but He didn't give it the usual, "Good." Because He knew He was going to use it for a curve correction in about a 1,000 years.

When Adam was created, you are right he was perfect for God's planned purpose; but he was not sinless. Out of fear and love and over protection or whatever it was, Adam told Eva if she TOUCHED the fruit, that same day she would die. She was deceived by Adam. To manipulate someone by lying is a sin. No one had eaten the fruit, yet.

OK, where in Scripture do you see Adam telling Eve not to touch the fruit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response. Bless you. :)

I can't get past how its okay to pretend to eat his flesh yet he created us with emotions and needs that are instinctive for us to procreate.

The Catholic Church is the one that espouses that idea. Protestant churches believe that communion (eating the bread and drinking the wine [usually grape juice]) is done in remembrance of His sacrifice, and not that we are somehow literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
Without the fruit none of us would have been born! So to speak.
Not really. If you read the account, God had already told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, so eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not what resulted in them having children.
Modesty is a sin I believe, yet god made them feel shame, he taught them this after the fact! What would have happened if Adam and Eve had of done what he asked?

Actually, if you read the text, Adam and Eve felt shame all on their own after eating the fruit. God simply addressed the shame they were feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you take the story of Adam and Eve literally, talking snake and all?

Edited by Sean93
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

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.”

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.

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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Actually, if we look at Hebrews 6:18 in context:

The Certainty of God’s Promise

13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.”[d]15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.

16 People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

We see that the verse does not in any way say what you interpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are words in the Bible God uses that have a meaning quite different from the dictionary definition. The meaning is derived from their use. Example: Adam "knew" his wife and she conceived Cain....And Adam "knew" his wife again; and she bore a son..."

The lineage of Jesus goes all the way back to Adam and the last remark is that Adam was the son of God. (Luke 3: 38) That brings up, again, the sons of God (descendants of Adam) married the daughters of men, all whom they chose.

QUESTION: Since Jesus said there would be no such thing as a wife of a man in heaven, where in scripture do you find support that angels can procreate? Course, those sons of God didn't just procreate with daughters of men, they married them. That means they hung around for a life time, till death do ye part. Really, angels lived on earth and grew old together with the daughters of men and built cities?

Moses, who came after Abraham, said in Deuteronomy 32: 8 that God divided to the nations their inheritance, when He, (God), separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. Adam was set in the Garden in Israel. Adam is connected to Israel by blood, by being placed in Israel and by being "the figure," (foreshadow),"of Him," (Jesus), "that was to come." (Romans 5:14)

QUESTION: How can Adam be a foreshadow of Jesus Christ if he is the man that brought sin into the world? There are many pictures, (foreshadows), of Jesus can be seen in Adam.

Back to proof "men" is used where it has a meaning different from dictionary definition meaning as mankind --- Galatians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)." Paul was saying neither Gentiles nor Jews made me an apostle. It was by the direct experience with Jesus Christ.

The whole earth was not cursed. Adam did not fall and bring all creation down with him. God cursed the serpent above all other animals. That curse holds true even today. People will have fear of a bear in a personal encounter, or many other animals in a dangerous situation; but the serpent has an automatic curse on it above all the other animals when it is just mentioned. The ground, (not the whole earth) were the serpent was in the tree was cursed. That very spot is where another tree was placed and Jesus Christ hung from that tree. And what more fitting place for sins to be paid than the the spot that was cursed.

Once God blesses something He never removes it. He is all knowing and all powerful. He is not a God that reneges on a blessing and later curses someone. God blessed Ham. That is why God did not curse Ham for performing a perverted act on his father, Noah. So God cursed Ham's son, Canaan. That curse has never lifted.

The same is true when God blessed male and female and told them to multiply. He couldn't turn around and curse them. And He didn't. Gentiles have always multiplied more than descendants of Adam. Adam transgressed. Everybody transgresses. David transgressed. No where in the Bible is there a fall of Adam. No where is there proof that Adam brought sin into the world because he ate the forbidden fruit. It says their eyes were opened and they were like gods knowing good and evil. Gods is used of priests and prophets of God. Such as in the Psalms and when King Saul's witch called up Samuel and she saw he was in Paradise with other gods, (other prophets and priests who knew good and evil).

"By one man, (Lucifer), sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned...death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that did not sin similar to Adam's transgression"

QUESTION: Why did sin not ENTER when the woman ate the fruit, since she ate it first? Could she have eaten fruit everyday in disobedience and sin would not have entered until Adam ate the fruit? Isn't disobedience a sin, even if you don't know you are being disobedient to God's dictates.

QUESTION: If death reigned from Adam to Moses, did death cease to reign after Moses? Is there no more death after Moses? Is it saying death began because of Adam? Does that mean death continued because of Moses? It is talking about sin increasing because the LAW had not been given.

QUESTION: Since God said the self same day (that's 24 hours) they ate the fruit they would die, did God lie? Was He talking about a death of the soul (seat of the mind, emotion)? Because they didn't die physically until one day more than 900 years later.

It may be hard to realize the many contradictions to Adam being the cause this world fell into sin; but the only way to eliminate the contradictions is to not be satisfied until everything adds up and there are no contradictions and no scripture ignored. It takes more than one person to do that together to keep each other from clinging to preconceived false teachings that are full of contradictions.

It took earnest seekers in the upper room 10 days of constant praying and searching the scriptures together. There was one point that must have been hard to swallow. That being the virgin birth. It was hard to accept. But they didn't take her word alone. They searched the scriptures and remembered things Jesus said. There must have been other points that needed contradictions eliminated. Modern history of religious cults has proved it is not impossible to get as many as 120 men and women to all agree together on something from one leader. But they were not in agreement with scripture and the leader was teaching contradictions with the Bible. But on Pentecost when the 120 men and women all came together in one accord with God and the scriptures, the anointing with fire came down and started a revival.

If we have a revival, that's the way it will happen again. Don't be satisfied with a contradiction. Acknowledge them and get in one accord with God and the scriptures.

May God bless us all is my prayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are words in the Bible God uses that have a meaning quite different from the dictionary definition. The meaning is derived from their use. Example: Adam "knew" his wife and she conceived Cain....And Adam "knew" his wife again; and she bore a son..."

Oh, and who doesn't know that means sexual relations?

I mean it is quite cleary all the way through the bible, even in the New Testament.

Matthew 1:24-25

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not UNTIL she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

The lineage of Jesus goes all the way back to Adam and the last remark is that Adam was the son of God. (Luke 3: 38) That brings up, again, the sons of God (descendants of Adam) married the daughters of men, all whom they chose.

You are relying on false exegisis

The problem with that view is that the term "sons of God" also means angels and gods. So who exactly is meant in Genesis 6?

At no time, before the Flood or after, has God destroyed or threatened to destroy the human race for the sin of "mixed marriages." And that is exactly what you are proposing with your interpretation. It is impossible to reconcile this extreme punishment with the mere verbal strictures found elsewhere in the Bible for the same practice. If God is going to be consistent, He should have destroyed the human race many times over!

The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." If by "sons of God" is meant "sons of Seth," then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.

The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them--that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly godly sons of Seth?

Even Seth's own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning "mortal" or "frail." And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?

Some scholars give us a more literal and exact translation to this verse: "Then men began to call themselves by the name of Jehovah." Other scholars translate the statement in this manner: "Then men began to call upon their gods (idols) by the name of Jehovah." If either of these be the correct translation then the evidence for the so-called godly line of Seth is non- existent. The truth of the matter is that Enos and his line, with few noted exceptions, were as ungodly as the other line. The divine record could not be clearer: "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Genesis 6:12).

The term sons of God is an ancient term, used throughout the Near Middle East. The entire region including Israel shared a common cosmological view of the universe, and one of the things that was well known is that the term was used to speak of the lesser gods, These gods shared the atributes of their father, had supernatural powers, but were in fact created by the Father God.... who does that bring to mind? angels...

QUESTION: Since Jesus said there would be no such thing as a wife of a man in heaven, where in scripture do you find support that angels can procreate? Course, those sons of God didn't just procreate with daughters of men, they married them. That means they hung around for a life time, till death do ye part. Really, angels lived on earth and grew old together with the daughters of men and built cities?

Your questions will be answered fully, but you also need to ask yourself, what assumptions are you making when you ask them...

Contrary to what you may believe, scripture supports my view rather than yours...

1st, angels can and do incarnate (become flesh and blood) There are a number of instances of this in the bible, but I'll give you two.

In Genesis 18, God appears along with TWO angels to Abraham. We know this because all three figures are eventually identified in the text as such. This was not a vision, it was a physical event.

7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

Notice that they ATE the food prepared and offered to them. Not only God, but the two angels with him as well. Those same angels are then sent on an errand by God, to Sodom.

This is evidenced by the words of the text.

Genesis 19

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

These are the very same angels that appeared to Abraham with God. The textual context verifies this. It is not an opinion. Now guess what happens to these angels?

They are attacked by the Sodomites and if they hadn't been inside Lots house, they would have been raped... That is why the word Sodomize, means male on male rape.

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

So were these men seeing visions or were they seeing angles who had physical bodies?

This is attested again by many, and I mean many other sources of literature, from the near Middle East and from Israel itself. Angels could and did become flesh. These weren't special cases, they are a natural attribute of angels, they can become flesh when they want to. How many stories have we heard, of angels saving people, physically, for that they need physical bodies. Do these bodies age? We don't know, but probably not, they are not human flesh.

That brings us to the last point. How can mixed marriages, between believers and idolatrers produce monsters?

The Nephilim are clearly hybrids, they are represented as such, they are neither human or angelic, they are a mixture of both. How can such beings be the produce of humans, whether they be believers or unbelievers. No, there is much more there than marriage between humans.

Now let us go elswhere... to the New Testament, let us see what Jude has to say on the subject.

Jude 1:6-7

6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Notice how the angels in the text are linked directly to sexual imorality and that the judgement of these angels was to be imprisoned in eternal chains. The references are clear that these are the angels referred to as the sons of God in Genesis 6. The references again are not only biblical but extra-biblical. Entire books were written on the subject by the ancients. The book of Enoch written long before the New Testament is a witness to the truth of these statements. There are many other witnesses especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your view on the other hand is an invention by Jews in the late 1st century who could not accept christianity... by espousing it you actually denigrate the word of God.

Moses, who came after Abraham, said in Deuteronomy 32: 8 that God divided to the nations their inheritance, when He, (God), separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. Adam was set in the Garden in Israel. Adam is connected to Israel by blood, by being placed in Israel and by being "the figure," (foreshadow),"of Him," (Jesus), "that was to come." (Romans 5:14)

Incorrect. It is now known and accepted by virtually ALL bible scholars that the verse in question, (Deuteronomy 32: 8) had been altered in Masoretic text over the centuries. The original reading as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and adopted in nearly all New translations of the bible is as follows...

Deuteronomy 32:8

English Standard Version (ESV)

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,

when he divided mankind,

he fixed the borders of the peoples

according to the number of the sons of God.

The reason for the alteration is clearly to allow for the modern reading that you defend. The earliest masoretic text is from the 9th century C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls reading is clearly the original and superior of the two. The text was definitely altered in the late 1st century because of the discomfort this caused in some circles. Chrsitianity adopted it unknowingly in later times after it rejected much of the early Jewish literature it relied on from early on in the 1st century.

QUESTION: How can Adam be a foreshadow of Jesus Christ if he is the man that brought sin into the world? There are many pictures, (foreshadows), of Jesus can be seen in Adam.

He is a foreshadow as you put it, but in contrasts not in parallels. That is the error of your view. Let me quote the bible here...

1 Cor. 15:22, 45

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”, the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Romans 5:12-14

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all menbecause all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

It is clear that Sin came into the world due to the actions of ONE man (Adam) and that because of this death came to all men, because all are sinners. Jesus is also called the 2nd Adam, because he came to do what the 1st failed to do. That is why the foreshadow (type) as you put it does not equate, they are contrasts, not parallels. There is more than one kind of type.

The same is true when God blessed male and female and told them to multiply. He couldn't turn around and curse them. And He didn't. Gentiles have always multiplied more than descendants of Adam. Adam transgressed. Everybody transgresses. David transgressed. No where in the Bible is there a fall of Adam. No where is there proof that Adam brought sin into the world because he ate the forbidden fruit. It says their eyes were opened and they were like gods knowing good and evil. Gods is used of priests and prophets of God. Such as in the Psalms and when King Saul's witch called up Samuel and she saw he was in Paradise with other gods, (other prophets and priests who knew good and evil).

I won't comment on the above, it is simply too strange...

"By one man, (Lucifer), sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned...death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that did not sin similar to Adam's transgression"

When was Lucifer ever a MAN?

The reference to the man is clearly Adam it actually says so in the scripture... I just quoted it. Or are you saying that Lucifer is the type of the one who was to come (Jesus)?

Romans 5:12-14

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all menbecause all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

You know, one can't have it both ways. Either one adheres to what is actually written, or one writes fiction.

QUESTION: Why did sin not ENTER when the woman ate the fruit, since she ate it first? Could she have eaten fruit everyday in disobedience and sin would not have entered until Adam ate the fruit? Isn't disobedience a sin, even if you don't know you are being disobedient to God's dictates.

Sin didn't enter because she was not the responsible individual before God for keeping the commandment. Adam was. Thus the responsability was his, the consequences though were shared but individually tailored.

QUESTION: If death reigned from Adam to Moses, did death cease to reign after Moses? Is there no more death after Moses? Is it saying death began because of Adam? Does that mean death continued because of Moses? It is talking about sin increasing because the LAW had not been given.

Death without the Law reigned from Adam to Moses, death did not cease with Moses, but death due to the Law followed. In both circumstances, Death was not negated. Did death cease with Jesus? No. The events decreed are not negated, we must die, because of the consequences of sin, but we are also saved and born again to life everlasting. One does not contradict the other.

QUESTION: Since God said the self same day (that's 24 hours) they ate the fruit they would die, did God lie? Was He talking about a death of the soul (seat of the mind, emotion)? Because they didn't die physically until one day more than 900 years later.

Incorrect.

That is a misinterpretation of scripture due to the complexity of the Hebrew in question.

מוֹת תָּמוּת

tamut mot

you shall die dying

Biblical Hebrew

Hebrew has two infinitives, the infinitive absolute and the infinitive construct. The infinitive construct is used after prepositions and is inflected with pronominal endings to indicate its subject or object: bikhtōbh hassōphēr "when the scribe wrote", ahare lekhtō "after his going". When the infinitive construct is preceded by ל (lə-, li-, lā-) "to", it has a similar meaning as the English to-infinitive, and this is its most frequent use in Modern Hebrew. The infinitive absolute is used for verb focus, as in מות ימות mōth yāmūth (literally "die he will die"; figuratively, "he shall indeed die"). This usage is commonplace in the Bible, but in Modern Hebrew it is restricted to high-flown literary works.

Source: Wikipedia

And here again is another more detailed explanation...

But is the penalty annexed to the law translated according to the full import of the original text? All Hebraists are agreed that it is not. The words penned by Moses, without the Masoretic pointing are ki bium akalek memenu muth temuth—the English of which is, for after the day of thy eating from it, dying thou shalt die. We have rendered byom 'after the day.'

For the information of the mere English reader, we remark that byom is formed from the particle b, which is here a proposition as well as a prefix; and yom which signifies day, definite, or otherwise, according to the context. Bayt or b has many countersigns in our language, among which are in, against, to, after, &c. We have selected from these the last. B or Bayt is used in this sense in Numb. 28:26, where it is prefixed to the word sebothikam, which is rendered 'after your weeks;' that is, your weeks having expired, or from the expiration of your weeks, 'ye shall have a holy convocation;' so in the case before us, 'after the day of the eating,' or the day of the eating having passed; or, 'from the day of thy eating dying thou shalt die.'

As to the phrase 'dying thou shalt die,' no criticism is needed; for it is admitted as the correct rendering on every side.

As such the correct interpretation is not a literal 24 hour period where death would occur after disobedience. It is quite clearly an expression that death would come to them over time, but they would most certainly die. Dying, you shall die. We all are dying at this very moment, little by little, cell by cell.

Mankind was never created immortal, what kept Adam and Eve from dying was access to the tree of life, when that access was denied, they proceeded to age and die.

I would challenge anybody to find a single verse that states that mankind was created immortal. That is the reason why they were banned from the Garden of Eden, not because they sinned. The sin was the cause of their expulsion, but the reson the were expelled was so that they could not maintain access the tree of Life. It is there in black and white.

It may be hard to realize the many contradictions to Adam being the cause this world fell into sin; but the only way to eliminate the contradictions is to not be satisfied until everything adds up and there are no contradictions and no scripture ignored. It takes more than one person to do that together to keep each other from clinging to preconceived false teachings that are full of contradictions.

It took earnest seekers in the upper room 10 days of constant praying and searching the scriptures together. There was one point that must have been hard to swallow. That being the virgin birth. It was hard to accept. But they didn't take her word alone. They searched the scriptures and remembered things Jesus said. There must have been other points that needed contradictions eliminated. Modern history of religious cults has proved it is not impossible to get as many as 120 men and women to all agree together on something from one leader. But they were not in agreement with scripture and the leader was teaching contradictions with the Bible. But on Pentecost when the 120 men and women all came together in one accord with God and the scriptures, the anointing with fire came down and started a revival.

If we have a revival, that's the way it will happen again. Don't be satisfied with a contradiction. Acknowledge them and get in one accord with God and the scriptures.

May God bless us all is my prayer.

I am never satisfied with contradictions, I study them to death until they cease to be so, that is why your view does not make sense, instead of subtracting it adds confusion and misunderstanding.

Edited by Jor-el
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you also take texts from different sources and expect the answers to remain the same. 1+1=1, 2+2=4, 1+2=3 < see the sequence no matter how much you want to change the basics of the sum it will always be changed. 1+2 will never = 2 or 4.

Uhmmm don't mean to be difficult but in binary number it does... :su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh all this over some fruit...Does this mean Harry and David are the anti-christ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.