where is it written?

Harmonious said:

It wasn't the deception she was punished for.

Eating the fruit was a sin, sure. But that wasn't the only sin that went on there.

When asked what he did, Adam turned around with serious ingratitude, and blamed his sin (which might have even been thought of as a mistake) on GOD. In a paraphrase: "If it wasn't for this woman, which YOU gave me, I never would have sinned."

Really? He could have been a man, and owned up to his responsibility. But it was more important to pass the blame than to admit he was wrong.

Eve was then questioned, and instead of admitting her guilt, she blamed the snake.

And the snake lied and deceived to start with.

When you consider that the evil, hurtful speech that went on, THAT was the unforgivable sin, rather than eating the wrong fruit. However, the fruit was most definitely the catalyst for what went wrong, as that was the only thing that was actually forbidden at the time.

They lied, they slandered, they spoke hurtfully. THIS is more along the lines of injustice, and for THAT they were exiled and punished with death.

Note - while eating the fruit was the high ticket item that was mentioned in conjunction with death, if the texts are to be believed, Adam lived to be 930 years old.

Obviously, eating the fruit isn't the ultimate problem. Nor was being deceived. It was EVERYTHING ELSE.

Click to expand...

Thank you! FINALLY!! An asessment of the text based in reality instead of Dr. Who!

URAVIP2ME said:

There seems to be a lack of knowledge about the flexible use of the word: day.

Click to expand...

Flexibility isn't what is needed.
Careful attention to context is.

URAVIP2ME said:

In Scripture the word day has shades of meaning, or units of time that vary in length.

Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of "shades".
It is a matter of context.

URAVIP2ME said:

For example:
All of the creative days are summed up by the word 'day' at Gen. 2 v 4.

Click to expand...

Not so. It says that all of those things just mentioned prior about the 7 days of creation pertained to generations (of people) ["these are the generations"] and that it took about 1 day unto the Lord in order to accomplish the organization of it all. This is the process of taking the genealogy of everyone who lived in a prior cycle of creation and organizing them into a new cycle of creation. This ["in the day they were created (organized)"] period of time is also the same thing as the Judgment Day being spoken of here.

The reason this took one day is because this was the period of time during Adam's life that He performed this great labor. He is who was to acquaint himself with every "creature" and to give to them their "new name". Some would be named as "fishes" (Christians) and some would be named as the next cycle's Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, and so on. This great work would encompass nearly the entirety of Adam's life, which is about a Millennium.

A Creation is like a pageant or a production that repeats over and over again. That's why all of the holy books that pertain to it are called "scriptures". There is a script that is written that plays out each time. And, the master blueprint of that "script" is the creation account itself. Each Day is a seal that when opened up reveals the hidden will of God in relation to what has been "scripted" to take place upon that Day, which is a period of about 1,000 years. Its what says who, when and where, depending upon the name you were given by Adam, comes fourth in their "word to come". The name we receive from Adam fore-ordains us to a particular level of glory. We received a fleshly glory and some receive a heavenly glory.

URAVIP2ME said:

The 'day' of Genesis 2 v 17 is as Peter mentions at 2nd Peter 3 v 8.
God's day is: one-thousand years in length.
Or, as the Psalmist wrote that in God's eyes or viewpoint a thousand years is as yesterday or a watch in the night. [Psalm 90 v 4]

That the 'day' of Genesis 2v17 is a thousand years is also shown in the ages of people at their death. Adam lived under 1000 years dying at age 930.
Even the oldest person in Scripture died before age 1000 dying at age 969.

Hope the ^ above ^ has been of some help.

Click to expand...

It is a good start, but things aren't "flexible" as you put it.
You can tell when the day as 1,000 years is applicable if it pertains to the Lord's reckoning of time and not man's reckoning of time.

It should also be helpful to understand that Adam was a body of flesh and bone, not a body of flesh and blood. This means Adam was a society of individuals who are all united as members of a distinct spiritual body by way of solemn covenants to bring them all into a state of union.

Therefore, the lifespan of this society is more in keeping with 930 years versus having that be the lifespan of a person like you or I in flesh and blood to live that long. Adam is a group of individuals in union by means of a covenant who form a distinct society, which society shall undertake the labor of passing judgment upon all who have ever lived and sealing them into the new cycle of creation to follow.

Thus, keep an eye out for what society has a keen interest in genealogical info and is organizing them into a new family structure via priesthood power. That society is the Lord of Creation and your King. Unfortunately, that society is presently in a very fallen state, for the time being.

This means Adam was a society of individuals who are all united as members of a distinct spiritual body by way of solemn covenants to bring them all into a state of union.

Click to expand...

Adam is an avatar for humanity -- not for a particular group of humans.

sojourner said:

Adam is an avatar for humanity -- not for a particular group of humans.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understood what I said.
Do you know what a flesh and bone body is?
That is what Adam is.

See Ephesians 5:30 for a definition of a flesh and bone body.

kylixguru said:

I'm not comfortable with that assessment.
Adam admitted "I did eat".
He gave the reason he ate.
He told God that it was his intention to face the same fate as his wife, because God commanded him to remain with her.

Add: I also dare say because he loved her.

Click to expand...

Kylix, Genesis 2:12 says, "And the man said, 'The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate.'"

My assessment is accurate. Your explanation is lovely and romantic... And is not supported by the text in Genesis.

sojourner said:

Thank you! FINALLY!! An asessment of the text based in reality instead of Dr. Who!

Click to expand...

Thank you for saying so.

Harmonious said:

Kylix, Genesis 2:12 says, "And the man said, 'The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate.'"

My assessment is accurate. Your explanation is lovely and romantic... And is not supported by the text in Genesis.

Click to expand...

Apparently you don't believe Adam loved Eve.
You can read into that what you do, but what I see is "I did eat", not "she tempted me to eat and coaxed me into it".
Adam simply reported the facts.
He wanted to stay with her.
He ate the fruit in order to do so.

kylixguru said:

Apparently you don't believe Adam loved Eve.
You can read into that what you do, but what I see is "I did eat", not "she tempted me to eat and coaxed me into it".
Adam simply reported the facts.
He wanted to stay with her.
He ate the fruit in order to do so.

Click to expand...

I never said that I don't believe Adam loved Eve. I believe that they had a love so deep that sharing a fraction of that love should be the goal of every married couple.

However, I'm not going to dismiss God's narration because you don't feel it was romantic enough.

It's there in black and white. Perhaps it was a case of guilt that filled Adam with overwhelming stupidity. But regardless of his reasoning, when God asked, "Who told you that you are naked? Did you eat from the tree I commanded you not to?"... The answer Adam gave was: The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate.

Adam might have loved her seriously and with a depth we may never fathom. But at that moment, he threw her back in God's face and under the bus.

Harmonious said:

I never said that I don't believe Adam loved Eve. I believe that they had a love so deep that sharing a fraction of that love should be the goal of every married couple.

However, I'm not going to dismiss God's narration because you don't feel it was romantic enough.

It's there in black and white. Perhaps it was a case of guilt that filled Adam with overwhelming stupidity. But regardless of his reasoning, when God asked, "Who told you that you are naked? Did you eat from the tree I commanded you not to?"... The answer Adam gave was: The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate.

Adam might have loved her seriously and with a depth we may never fathom. But at that moment, he threw her back in God's face and under the bus.

Click to expand...

Still, you don't get it.
Adam simply reported the facts and said "I did eat".

You are projecting in negativity that just wasn't there.
Nor was stupidity manifest in what he said.

kylixguru said:

Still, you don't get it.
Adam simply reported the facts and said "I did eat".

You are projecting in negativity that just wasn't there.
Nor was stupidity manifest in what he said.

Click to expand...

Do you have an abridged version of Genesis? I translated every word in 3:11-12 myself.

I'm not reading anything that isn't there. YOU have refused to acknowledge the words of Genesis. The last word of 3:12 is "and I ate." For some reason beyond my understanding, you are ignoring the rest of the verse.

Genesis 3:

11. And He said, "Who told to you that you are naked? From the tree that I commanded you to refrain eating from it, did you eat? 12. And the man said "The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate."

Harmonious said:

Genesis 3:

11. And He said, "Who told to you that you are naked? From the tree that I commanded you to refrain eating from it, did you eat? 12. And the man said "The woman that was given (to be) with me - she gave to me from the tree and I ate."

Click to expand...

I use the King James Version of the Bible, which more or less says the same thing.

I read it as I do because I know things outside of that passage that pin down what was actually in Adam's heart and mind in the matter. I have the advantage of knowing in recent history the actual reality of what that narrative is representative of.

You, on the other hand, are injecting in your own bias to what was a simple statement of the facts.

kylixguru said:

I use the King James Version of the Bible, which more or less says the same thing.

I read it as I do because I know things outside of that passage that pin down what was actually in Adam's heart and mind in the matter. I have the advantage of knowing in recent history the actual reality of what that narrative is representative of.

You, on the other hand, are injecting in your own bias to what was a simple statement of the facts.

Click to expand...

"'knowing things' outside that passage" and adding it to what the passage actually says is "your own bias." You're accusing her of of something you're doing.

sojourner said:

"'knowing things' outside that passage" and adding it to what the passage actually says is "your own bias." You're accusing her of of something you're doing.

Click to expand...

My main point is what is actually written could be taken either way.
It is simply Adam reporting the facts in a very "matter of fact" way.

I agree I am bringing to those statements of fact a refinement from other external passages that are deciphered from my interpretation. You can call this a bias too if you wish. It is a bias I would be able to substantively defend.

At some point I will be writing things up in a book or a series of articles for that purpose.

kylixguru said:

My main point is what is actually written could be taken either way.
It is simply Adam reporting the facts in a very "matter of fact" way.

I agree I am bringing to those statements of fact a refinement from other external passages that are deciphered from my interpretation. You can call this a bias too if you wish. It is a bias I would be able to substantively defend.

At some point I will be writing things up in a book or a series of articles for that purpose.

Click to expand...

kylixguru, From your posts, don't bet on a lucrative income from the "book or articles".

Hmm. sincerly, have you noticed waitasec is gone? Anyway, everyone knows a book must be about zombies and/or sex to be lucrative. What's the matter with you?

sincerly said:

kylixguru, From your posts, don't bet on a lucrative income from the "book or articles".

Click to expand...

I won't because I don't bet. But, I know what you mean.
I can't think of anyone who will really want to hear what I have to say, although it is ironic because if what I have to say is as significant as I feel it could be, it's what every religious person has been waiting for thousands of years to know.

kylixguru said:

I won't because I don't bet. But, I know what you mean.
I can't think of anyone who will really want to hear what I have to say, although it is ironic because if what I have to say is as significant as I feel it could be, it's what every religious person has been waiting for thousands of years to know.

Click to expand...

That would be going some---As the Ever-lasting Gospel concerning Christ's Sacrifice is what is needed for entrance into the Eternal kingdom for all Believers.

sincerly said:

kylixguru, From your posts, don't bet on a lucrative income from the "book or articles".

Click to expand...

That wasn't nice...
Judgmental and definitely not nice.:tsk:

kylixguru said:

I won't because I don't bet. But, I know what you mean.
I can't think of anyone who will really want to hear what I have to say, although it is ironic because if what I have to say is as significant as I feel it could be, it's what every religious person has been waiting for thousands of years to know.

Click to expand...

I'm curious enough to buy your work :yes: