-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hold These Thoughts
- Thread starter WeberHome
- Start date
- Status
WeberHome
Member
-
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New
This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite useful.
In a nutshell:
1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based upon a human sacrifice.
2• The Old Testament's priesthood is captained by men subject to death; while the New Testament's priesthood is captained by a man impervious to death.
3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those curses.
4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human race about which we know comparatively little.
=============================
The Difference Between The Old Testament And The New
This major division in the Bible is primarily editorial; viz: it's man-made instead of God-made; but the division is pretty harmless and actually quite useful.
In a nutshell:
1• The primary difference between the two testaments is their respective atonement systems. The Old Testament's atonement system is based upon animal sacrifices; while the New Testament's atonement system is based upon a human sacrifice.
2• The Old Testament's priesthood is captained by men subject to death; while the New Testament's priesthood is captained by a man impervious to death.
3• The Old Testament reveals curses for people who disobey the Ten Commandments; while the New Testament reveals an escape from those curses.
4• The Old Testament is where we learn of the origin of the human race as we know it; while the New Testament is where we learn of the termination of the human race as we know it; along with the introduction of a new human race about which we know comparatively little.
=============================
Ron Hackel
Member
1 The Old Testament was a history of the Jews and prophecies about the first and second coming. Matthew kept relating how such and such prophecy was being fulfilled. Jesus opened the minds of the disciples of the true meaning of Scripture that Satan had distorted in their minds and has continued to distort after their death.
2. Yes Jesus is now our high Priest.
3. The Old Testament reflected how a pagan god would react. The New Testament reveals that we do not have that kind of god. We do not have a legalistic tyrant.
2 CORINTHIANS 3 : 9 "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness."
The sermon on the mount was the Ten Commandments without a god that would destroy for not listening. We have a loving Father that gives advice "Abba Father" and not a legalistic tyrant!
4. The only termination is going to be that of freewill. After the demonstration we will all be given God's Spirit in order to do his will.
1 CORINTHIANS 2 : 11 "For who among men knows the thoughts of man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
2. Yes Jesus is now our high Priest.
3. The Old Testament reflected how a pagan god would react. The New Testament reveals that we do not have that kind of god. We do not have a legalistic tyrant.
2 CORINTHIANS 3 : 9 "If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness."
The sermon on the mount was the Ten Commandments without a god that would destroy for not listening. We have a loving Father that gives advice "Abba Father" and not a legalistic tyrant!
4. The only termination is going to be that of freewill. After the demonstration we will all be given God's Spirit in order to do his will.
1 CORINTHIANS 2 : 11 "For who among men knows the thoughts of man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
WeberHome
Member
-
What may seem like evangelism to outsiders is just another morning in Sunday school to Christ's believing followers.
=============================
What may seem like evangelism to outsiders is just another morning in Sunday school to Christ's believing followers.
=============================
WeberHome
Member
-
Day And Night
†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.
†. Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish Day from Night
On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.
These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always thinking of Days as periods of one earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.
†. Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.
For the third time in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up, and "night" is defined as when the sun is down; and yet people still don't think God means it.
================================
Day And Night
†. Gen 1:4b-5a . . God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
Day and Night simply label two distinct physical conditions-- the absence of light, and/or the absence of darkness. Labeling those physical conditions may seem like a superfluous detail, but when analyzing crucifixion week in the New Testament, it's essential to keep those physical conditions separate in regards to Christ's burial and resurrection if one is to have any hope of deducing the correct chronology of Easter week.
†. Gen 1:14 . . God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish Day from Night
On the first day; God defined Day as a condition of light; and defined Night as a condition of darkness. Here, it's further defined that Day, as pertains to life on Earth, is when the sun is up; and Night is when the sun is down.
These definitions occur so early in the Bible that they easily escape the memories of Bible students as they slip into the reflexive habit of always thinking of Days as periods of one earth rotation of 24 hours. That's okay for calendars but can lead to gross misunderstandings when interpreting biblical schedules, predictions, and/or chronologies.
†. Gen 1:15-18a . . God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night, and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, to dominate the day and the night, and to distinguish light from darkness.
For the third time in Genesis, "day" is defined as when the sun is up, and "night" is defined as when the sun is down; and yet people still don't think God means it.
================================
outhouse
Atheistically
Teaching your own version of religion is Proselytizing.
And literal interpretation do not stand up to any criticism.
This is a debate section, you might have better luck in the same faith section bud.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have no credibility teaching anyone with mistakes like this.
There is text that states a day is 24 hours.
You should stop trying to force mythology onto others, days were much shorter billions of years ago, they have lengthened into the current patter which has been stable for billions of years.
The earth has been slowing 1.7 millisecond every century.
WeberHome
Member
-
The Length Of A Creation Day
†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.
Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning, then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as morning and evening.
In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high noon and sunset.
NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.
Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land animals but the sixth.
Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.
That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.
So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".
The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another; and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words: none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very significant.
Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.
Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer; viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.
================================
The Length Of A Creation Day
†. Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
In accordance with a normal, strict chronological sequence; evening and morning would indicate overnight; viz: a day of creation would take place entirely in the dark; which fails to comply with the definitions of Day given at Gen 1:4-5a and Gen 1:14-18.
Seeing as how it says evening and morning instead of evening to morning, then we're not really looking at a chronological sequence but merely the Am/Pm portions of daytime because evening and morning is all the same as morning and evening.
In other words: morning represents the hours of daylight between sunup and high noon, while evening represents the hours of daylight between high noon and sunset.
NOTE: I suspect that God did His work of creation during what is defined as daytime rather than what is defined as nighttime in order to convey the idea that His work was a work of light as opposed to a work of darkness. That makes sense to me seeing as how there were no actual mornings and afternoons till the fourth day. I also suspect that Christ rose from the dead during daytime instead of nighttime in order to convey the very same idea.
Now, just exactly how long were the days of creation? Well; according to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God create land animals but the sixth.
Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but scientific dating methods have easily proven that dinosaurs preceded human life by several million years. So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.
That's not an unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very same word for each of the six days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour calendar day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six days of creation were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
Another useful hint as to the length of the days of creation is located in the sixth chapter of Genesis where Noah is instructed to coat the interior and exterior of his ark with a substance the Bible calls "pitch". The Hebrew word is kopher (ko'-fer) which indicates a material called bitumen: a naturally-occurring kind of asphalt formed from the remains of ancient, microscopic algae (diatoms) and other once-living things. In order for bitumen to be available in Noah's day, the organisms from whence it was formed had to have existed on the earth several thousands of years before him.
So then, why can't Bible thumpers accept a six-epoch explanation? Because they're hung up on the expression "evening and morning".
The interesting thing is: there were no physical evenings and mornings till the fourth day when the sun was created and brought on line. So I suggest that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a convenient way to indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the beginning of another; and even more important, evening and morning indicate periods of light only, rather than periods of light and darkness together. In other words: none of God's creative activity was done in the dark. I think that is very significant.
Anyway; this "day" thing has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the days of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.
Galileo believed that science and religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the same story. In other words: science and religion compliment each other-- science answers questions that religion doesn't answer, and religion answers questions that science cannot answer; viz: science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary, science and religion assist each other in their respective quests to get to the bottom of some of the cosmos' greatest mysteries.
================================
Ron Hackel
Member
I think the slowing is around a second a year and not a century. Could be wrong, but they announce the leap second every year or two. If you compute that back billions of years you don't have time to brush your teeth at night before you'd have to wake for the next day. Also the moon is getting farther from the earth every year. Equate that back billions of years with a closer moon and you have these huge tides rolling across the planet every hour. If you check into carbon dating you'll find that the earth must be over 35,000 years old for the equilibrium to take place in the atmosphere for the dating to have any viability. Your assuming the earth to be more than 6000 years old for the test. Not the way science works. You don't make assumptions!
When Mount St. Helens blew, it made a miniature Grand Canyon. The caption under the picture in the National Geographic said, "If we didn't know better we'd think this was millions of years old". Maybe in reverse the Grand Canyon isn't millions of years old either. The funny thing is that the lowest level of sediment in the canyon has the appearance of a rug pushed together, if this was layers laid over centuries, why isn't the lower level flat? When I drove out to the canyon coming from the east I had to travel thousands of feet to get to the top. How did the river run up hill? If you google a city upstream or downstream from the canyon you'll see that you can walk right up to the river. At the Grand canyon I walked the trail up and down the canyon. It was 10 miles one way. A twenty foot trip, if that, in upstream and downstream locations. Why no canyon in either direction? Don't be so depended on so-called scientists.
When Mount St. Helens blew, it made a miniature Grand Canyon. The caption under the picture in the National Geographic said, "If we didn't know better we'd think this was millions of years old". Maybe in reverse the Grand Canyon isn't millions of years old either. The funny thing is that the lowest level of sediment in the canyon has the appearance of a rug pushed together, if this was layers laid over centuries, why isn't the lower level flat? When I drove out to the canyon coming from the east I had to travel thousands of feet to get to the top. How did the river run up hill? If you google a city upstream or downstream from the canyon you'll see that you can walk right up to the river. At the Grand canyon I walked the trail up and down the canyon. It was 10 miles one way. A twenty foot trip, if that, in upstream and downstream locations. Why no canyon in either direction? Don't be so depended on so-called scientists.
WeberHome
Member
-
The Image And Likeness Of God
†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but because humanity was created in the image of God.
James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.
I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no more value than a gerbil or a garden slug. The image and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity over and above the animal kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness of God, people could go on safari and hunt each other for sport, like human wildlife, and mount their heads on walls and mantles.
Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness" is the reproduction of one's self by means of engendering biological children. However; humanity bears small resemblance to its creator because God isn't physical. According to John 4:24 God is spirit, while according to John 3:6 humanity is solid. According to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according to Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.
Though humanity obviously isn't God's biological offspring, it still seems to me "children" is the best way to define humanity's image and likeness of God: at least in a limited way; for example:
†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.
Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most High by means of the Most High giving birth. So then; I think it safe to conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a natural-born status; but rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and likeness of God is conferred rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing status it is too seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature can get without actually having biologically descended from God.
†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have crowned him with glory and honor.
The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value that no other species on Earth can match.
Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is mankind so prone to evil?
A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically related to God, it would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.
†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?
A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that according to Gen 2:7 human beings are definitely not God's biological kin. No; Paul simply appealed to Greek poetry to point out to the Athenians that if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then the father of human beings surely would be made of something other than metal and/or stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a mite too seriously.
================================
The Image And Likeness Of God
†. Gen 1:26-27 . . Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 9:5-6 outlaws murder: not on the basis that its morally wrong, but because humanity was created in the image of God.
James 3:9 frowns upon cursing people: not on the basis that it's morally wrong; but because humanity was created in the image of God.
I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that mankind was created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no more value than a gerbil or a garden slug. The image and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity over and above the animal kingdom. Were it not for their image and likeness of God, people could go on safari and hunt each other for sport, like human wildlife, and mount their heads on walls and mantles.
Gen 5:3 indicates that at least one of the meanings of "image and likeness" is the reproduction of one's self by means of engendering biological children. However; humanity bears small resemblance to its creator because God isn't physical. According to John 4:24 God is spirit, while according to John 3:6 humanity is solid. According to Ex 3:14 God is imperishable, while according to Matt 10:28, humanity is perishable: body and soul.
Though humanity obviously isn't God's biological offspring, it still seems to me "children" is the best way to define humanity's image and likeness of God: at least in a limited way; for example:
†. Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.
Now, obviously humanity's status as sons of the Most High isn't a biological status because according to Gen 2:7 human life was constructed from the dust of the earth; in other words: humanity wasn't born a son of the Most High by means of the Most High giving birth. So then; I think it safe to conclude that humanity's status as a son isn't a natural-born status; but rather, an honorary status; viz: the image and likeness of God is conferred rather than inherited. And a pretty amazing status it is too seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature can get without actually having biologically descended from God.
†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have crowned him with glory and honor.
The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm pertains to the image and likeness of God; which puts humanity pretty high up on the food chain-- not because they are brighter and smarter then the other creatures; but because the image and likeness of God lends mankind an amount of value that no other species on Earth can match.
Q: If mankind was created in the image and likeness of God, then why is mankind so prone to evil?
A: Because mankind isn't biologically related to God, nor is mankind a chip off the olde block, so to speak. The term "image and likeness" is merely a status. It has no bearing whatsoever upon either the qualities, or the character, or the personality of mankind's creator. Were mankind biologically related to God, it would be 110% sinless in thought, word, and deed.
†. John 3:9 . .Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
Q: But doesn't Acts 17:28-29 say that mankind is God's biological kin?
A: According to Acts 22:3, Paul the apostle was accomplished in Judaism; so he knew very well from the schooling he underwent with Gamaliel that according to Gen 2:7 human beings are definitely not God's biological kin. No; Paul simply appealed to Greek poetry to point out to the Athenians that if human beings were truly God's biological offspring, then the father of human beings surely would be made of something other than metal and/or stone. I think maybe the Greeks took their religious art just a mite too seriously.
================================
WeberHome
Member
-
Who's Your Daddy?
The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces all forms of life back to a common genetic heritage. The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be identified with a common ancestor.
†. Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"
In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.
It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.
So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to Adam.
================================
Who's Your Daddy?
The Phylogenetic Tree Of Life is an interesting scientific diagram that traces all forms of life back to a common genetic heritage. The branch on that tree that interests me the most is the one that traces human life. According to the diagram; any two people you might select-- no matter what their age, race, or gender --if traced back far enough, can eventually be identified with a common ancestor.
†. Gen 2:21-23 . .Yhvh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
The Hebrew for "rib" in that passage is is tsela' (tsay-law') and Gen 2:21-23 contains the only two places in the entire Old Testament where it's translated with an English word representing a skeletal bone. In the other twenty-nine places, it's translated "side"
In other words: Eve wasn't constructed directly from the dust of the earth as was Adam. She was constructed from a human tissue sample amputated from Adam's body; ergo: Eve got her human life from Adam; consequently any and all human life produced by Eve's body is Adam's human life.
It was apparently the creator's deliberate design that all human life be biologically related to a sole source of human life-- the one and only human life that God created directly from the earth's dust; viz: Adam.
So then; it is not quite accurate to say that Christ didn't have a human father because if Christ is biologically related to his mother, and if his mother is biologically related to Eve, then Christ is biologically related to Adam.
================================
WeberHome
Member
-
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead
†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.
That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)
So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?
Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in his day, not as the Bible thumpers understand death in their day. In other words; Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.
How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree of life. (Gen 3:22-24)
Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"
Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours' viz; the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.
That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of death.
"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)
Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The day ain't over yet"
†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously.
================================
Why Adam Didn't Drop Dead
†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it, you shall die.
That passage has always been an embarrassment for Bible thumpers because Adam didn't drop dead the instant he tasted the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his son Seth. (Gen 5:4)
So; is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent discrepancy?
Well; first off let me point out that in order for the threat to resonate in Adam's thinking; it had to be related to death as Adam understood death in his day, not as the Bible thumpers understand death in their day. In other words; Adam didn't expect to die spiritually. No, he expected to die normally; viz: physically; like as in pass away.
How can I be so sure that God meant normal death instead of spiritual death? Because according to Gen 3:19 that's how it worked out; and to make sure Adam stayed normally dead, God blocked his access to the tree of life. (Gen 3:22-24)
Anyway; the trick is: Adam wasn't told he would die the instant he tasted the fruit. God's exact words were "in the day"
Well; according to Gen 2:4, the Hebrew word for "day" is a bit ambiguous. It can easily indicate a period of time much, much longer than 24 hours' viz; the "day" of Adam's death began the moment he ate the fruit.
That was a milestone in human history. Up till Adam tasted the fruit, the only days on record were the six of creation, and the one when God ceased creating. Adam inaugurated a new day by tasting the fruit-- the day of death.
"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men" (Rom 5:12)
Well; like Jack Palance's character Curly in the movie City Slickers said: "The day ain't over yet"
†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this seriously.
================================
- Status