PDA

View Full Version : Genesis REVISITED



Infamous Plug
November 17th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on. It's coded really well and hard to study but I spent some time on it
But I'm not sure if I got any futher ahead but i hope someone can read and tell me what they think. So heres a few points i come up with.

1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish.

2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks. Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit) thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan) and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites.

3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.




Well thats a quickie anyway I'll update soon

Tambora
November 18th, 2004, 02:01 AM
If this be true that Satan is the father of Cain and Kennites are the descendants of Cain, then there are two options as how they survived Noah's flood.

Either the flood was not world wide, or the descendants were on the ark.

1 Peter 3:20 tell us that 8 souls were saved by water. Were any of the wives descendant of Cain?

And was the name "Cain" only given to Abel's brother, or was there another named Cain that the Kennites descended from?

God_Is_Truth
November 18th, 2004, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Infamous Plug

Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on.

Genesis is a chapter now? :D

Frank Ernest
November 18th, 2004, 05:16 AM
tambora:
"If this be true that Satan is the father of Cain and Kennites are the descendants of Cain, then there are two options as how they survived Noah's flood."

FrankiE:
Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth. His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth, ergo, 8 Adamic souls were saved.

Genesis 6:19 says "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort ..." Were not the Kenites "of all flesh?" At least two, male and female, were on the Ark.

tambora:
"1 Peter 3:20 tell us that 8 souls were saved by water. Were any of the wives descendant of Cain?"

FrankiE:
No. If that were so, then Noah would not have been "perfect in his generations."

tambora:
"And was the name "Cain" only given to Abel's brother, or was there another named Cain that the Kennites descended from? "

FrankiE:
What would make you think that?

tambora:
"Either the flood was not world wide, or the descendants were on the ark."

Frankie:
Genesis 6:12-13 The purpose of the flood was to destroy the people who descended from the fallen angels. We do not know the extent of their population, ergo, we do not know the precise geographical extent of the flood.

Tambora
November 18th, 2004, 06:10 AM
Hi Frank,

Thanks for some clarification.

If one of Noah's sons married a Kennite, would not Noah still be perfect in his generations? (that is, if "perfect in generations" means he was of pure Adamic blood).

You said:

His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth

Can you point me to scripture to verify this?


And which do you think it is,
not a world wide flood,
or Kennites were on the ark?

If they were on the ark, and only 8 souls were saved by water, does that mean that Kennites have no soul?


I asked if anyone else might be named Cain because if Kennite means "descendant of Cain", then we need to know which Cain they are refering to.
From the bible I don't see anyone else with this name, just a placename. I was asking the question more on a historical or archeological basis.
Has a reference to a person named Cain been found, and if so, what timeperiod did he exist?

How could anyone prove that he was or was not a Kennite?

Frank Ernest
November 18th, 2004, 07:11 AM
quote:
"His wife and his sons' wives were also direct descendants of Adam through Seth

tambora:
"Can you point me to scripture to verify this?"

FrankiE:
"Perfect in his generations" would mean that Noah's family was too. If any of his sons had married away from the Adamic line, then Noah would not have been "perfect in his generations." The word "generations" translates from the Hebrew "dor" which means generations and implies posterity. Genesis 6:9.

tambora:
"And which do you think it is,
not a world wide flood,
or Kennites were on the ark?"

If they were on the ark, and only 8 souls were saved by water, does that mean that Kennites have no soul?

FrankiE:
Those questions are unrelated. The flood may or may not have been world-wide. Probably not considering Genesis 8:11.

Kenites must have been on the ark as Noah was commanded according to Genesis 6:19. Kenites have souls (Genesis 2:7). Even though they are children of Cain from Eve by Satan, they are still, ultimately, children of God and created of Him.

The 8 souls referred to in 1 Peter 3:20 are 8 Adamic souls.

tambora:
"I asked if anyone else might be named Cain because if Kennite means "descendant of Cain", then we need to know which Cain they are refering to.

From the bible I don't see anyone else with this name, just a placename. I was asking the question more on a historical or archeological basis.
Has a reference to a person named Cain been found, and if so, what timeperiod did he exist?"

FrankiE:
I don't know of any and it wouldn't be relevant even if so. We have Genesis telling us of THE Cain. That is the one we are concerned with.

tambora:
"How could anyone prove that he was or was not a Kennite? "

It wouldn't matter.

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 07:20 AM
This thread is silly.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 07:22 AM
I was about 3/4 done with a thorough reply to the opening post, when my computer crashed. :madmad: :bang: I don't have time to retype it all now, but I'll probably get to it later today.

For now, I'll just post this one verse that destroys the notion that Cain was not Adam's son:
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Genesis 4:1 How could the text be any clearer?

Frank Ernest
November 18th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

In Genesis 4:1 Eve says, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Was Adam the Lord she refers to?

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Infamous Plug

Genesis is one of the harder chapters to get a grip on. It's coded really well and hard to study but I spent some time on it
Oh good. I'm always excited to hear from one of the lucky few with a secret decoder ring.



But I'm not sure if I got any futher ahead but i hope someone can read and tell me what they think. So heres a few points i come up with.

1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish.
Ah, so you think that mankind was the second creation? You think there's a gap between verse one and verse two, right? Why? Why wouldn't that be mentioned? Not all translations use the word "replenish." And even if some do, it doesn't necessarily mean what you are implying. I think we'll have to look at the Hebrew for this. Anyone got a Hebrew Old Testament?




2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks.
Now first of all, take another look at Genesis 3. Do you see the word "apple" anywhere? I don't know where this misconception came from, but it is simply false. There is no apple in the story. It only says "fruit." We have no way of knowing what kind of fruit it was. Maybe it's a kind that mankind has never seen since.

Second, bringing an apple for the teacher is much more of a recent Western thing. It's kind of a classic American symbol that we've all grown up with. It is very unlikely that this symbol is more than four hundred years old. Perhaps the story of Isaac Newton helped establish this symbolism, but the Bible certainly didn't.



Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,
Wow! Your secret decoder ring must do wonders! It's able to decode "serpent" to "angelic form."



Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Please don't lay that notion down as if it is an established fact. That's a highly debated passage and it is not at all proven that the "Sons of God" refers to angels or fallen angels.




So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit)
Whoa whoa wait a minute! Where did you get that? I've heard this from people before, but I've never gotten a real answer of where the idea comes from. I sure don't see it in the text:

Genesis 3:6 --
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The text sounds pretty straight forward. "She took some [of the fruit] and ate it." You'd need a pretty fancy decoder ring to transform that into "she had sex with Satan."

So where does this "seduction" idea come from?




thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan)
There's another leap.

Genesis 4:1-2 --
1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Where is the evidence for your claim that Cain and Abel were twins?




and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites.
How did descendents of Cain survive the flood? Did Satan tell them how to build speedboats?



3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.
You bet. There are many, many symbolic and not-so-symbolic foretellings of Christ in the Old Testament.

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?


Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees?

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?Um... how do you think?


In Genesis 4:1 Eve says, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Was Adam the Lord she refers to? No. Any time you see LORD in the Old Testament (written in all caps), it is a translation of YHWH (Jehovah), which is a proper name for God.

Batman
November 18th, 2004, 08:30 AM
"1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish."

The word replenish can mean to fill or fill again. In fact, the Hebrew word used here means to fill not fill again. BTW, dinosaurs could have existed the same time as man but most would have perished in the flood.

"2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks. Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

So as far as I understand which isn't that far ,Satan seduced Eve in a term called Holy Suduction(body,mind, and spirit) thus comes the paternal children(twins with 2 different fathers), Abel(son of Adam) and Cain(son of Satan) and you can follow the tracks of the Enemy's son and his tribe and it may be the Kennites."

It is normally thought that Satan appeared as the snake, which is why he's later referred to as a serpent or dragon. Most commentaries I've read say the fruit was probably a pomegranate since those are in abundance in that part of the world. Besides, if you ever tried to eat one, it definitely takes some knowledge and skill.

Also the sons of God refer to men in this passage. The only other place this phrase is used is in Job where it's referring to angels. Since that book was written centuries after Genesis and by a different author, it's use of "sons of God" isn't necessarily the same as in Genesis 6. However, if you want some verification of son of God referring to a man other than Jesus, just look in the gospel of Luke where he calls Adam a son of God. Besides, Jesus said that angels don't marry which means they probably can't have sex since sex and marriage go hand and hand in the Bible. What is happening in Gen 6 is the sin of lust and probably polygamy.

I haven't run across anything that says Kenites means "descendants of Cain". It is true that both Cain and Kenite are the same Hebrew word but because of usage have different meanings. Cain means "possession" and Kenite means "smiths". BTW, Cain is not the son of Satan. He had the same opportunities to serve God as Abel but he chose to serve himself.

"3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him."

The context of this passage is referring to the children of Israel which God did establish what was supposed to be an everlasting covenant through Moses, but they never kept their end of the bargain. By extension, it can refer to Christ but mainly because Israel failed to keep the covenant.

Now to address Frankie:
"Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth."

It makes more sense in the NIV, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." This is talking about Noah following God, not the perfection of his genetic line, which means squat to God.

"Genesis 6:12-13 The purpose of the flood was to destroy the people who descended from the fallen angels. "

The purpose of the flood was to punish mankind for his sin and start over with someone who followed God.

Later

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana BATMAN!

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Infamous Plug

3:Look!! Christ mentioned in Genesis (yes that early) such as
GEN:17:19:,
And God said ,Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed:and thou shalt call his name Isaac:and I will establish My covenant with Him for an everlasting covenant,and with his seed after Him.


Originally posted by philosophizer

You bet. There are many, many symbolic and not-so-symbolic foretellings of Christ in the Old Testament. Yes, but I don't think Genesis 17:19 is one of them, at least not the way Infamous Plug is saying it is. I don't know where Infamous Plug got the idea to capitalize the Hims in that verse; it's pretty obvious that they both refer to Isaac.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Batman is right: The only two versions I know of that say "replenish" instead of "fill" are KJV (translated ~1611) and ASV (translated ~1903). Look up "replenish" in a dictionary from those days and you will see that it meant "to fill again" or "to fill," though the latter has for the most part fallen out of use. So it's no surprise that ALL more recent translations use the word "fill" instead of "replenish."

As for why the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs," the word didn't exist prior to the mid 1800s. But the Bible does have many references to dragons. And then there is the discription of Behemoth in Job 40:15-24. What is that passage describing if not a dinosaur?

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Yes, but I don't think Genesis 17:19 is one of them, at least not the way Infamous Plug is saying it is. I don't know where Infamous Plug got the idea to capitalize the Hims in that verse; it's pretty obvious that they both refer to Isaac.


Yeah, I agree. I was just saying that there's a lot of reference to Christ's coming.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 08:48 AM
On a side note:

Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer


Please don't lay that notion down as if it is an established fact. That's a highly debated passage and it is not at all proven that the "Sons of God" refers to angels or fallen angels. philo, have you ever read the thread The sons of God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10955&highlight=archive)? It's a good read, and I think the Sibbie especially did a bang-up job in that thread.

Turbo
November 18th, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Batman

It is normally thought that Satan appeared as the snake, which is why he's later referred to as a serpent or dragon. Most commentaries I've read say the fruit was probably a pomegranate since those are in abundance in that part of the world. I think it makes more sense that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a unique tree, which no longer exists. Check out Ezekiel 31.


Besides, if you ever tried to eat one, it definitely takes some knowledge and skill.But it doesn't take knowledge of good and evil.



Now to address Frankie:
"Genesis 6:8-9, Genesis 6:18-19. Noah was perfect in his generations, i.e., direct descendant of Adam throught Seth."

It makes more sense in the NIV, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God."Just because it makes more sense according to your theology doesn't mean it's a more accurate translation. The NIV translators baked a lot of their own interpretation into that verse rather than just translating what the Hebrew text says.

I admit that this verse is perplexing, but I highly recommend reading the thread I linked in my previous post. :Poly:

Jabez
November 18th, 2004, 09:59 AM
Interesting,but why has the fallen angel/human relations stopped now?or have they?

philosophizer
November 18th, 2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

philo, have you ever read the thread The sons of God (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10955&highlight=archive) It's a good read, and I think the Sibbie especially did a bang-up job in that thread.


I remember that thread, Turbo.

I'm really leery of the idea that angels, fallen or otherwise, could produce offspring by having sex with humans.

God is the Creator. I've never seen an example of any other being actually being able to create something. Now for angels (especially fallen angels trying to pollute the gene pool) to produce offspring with humans, they would have to create the whole genetic structure of a human body.

The main reason I doubt the angel offspring theory is because I think only God has the power to create a human body. The appearances of angels in other stories could be either a mere representation that seemed physical, or a physical body granted them by God for their particular task.

But I don't recall anyone, angel or devil, besides God who was able to really create anything. If you have some verses I'd love to see them.

Batman
November 18th, 2004, 11:29 AM
Turbo quote:
"I think it makes more sense that the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a unique tree, which no longer exists. Check out Ezekiel 31."

I'm just making a point that it wasn't an apple. I'm more inclined to agree with you. BTW, I hate pomegranates!

Turbo quote:
"Just because it makes more sense according to your theology doesn't mean it's a more accurate translation. The NIV translators baked a lot of their own interpretation into that verse rather than just translating what the Hebrew text says.

I admit that this verse is perplexing, but I highly recommend reading the thread I linked in my previous post."

I've read that thread before and wasn't particularly impressed with the supernatural sons of God theory because I used to believe it and was already familiar with the arguments in favor. After studying it in my college days, I changed my opinion on the subject to what I believe now.

In regards to translation, read any version you like and they all say basically the same thing. Besides, why would "perfect in his generations" refer to his gene pool when the rest of the verse is talking about the his moral qualities?

Turbo quote:
"Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?"

I know it but don't accept it. The theology of Satan presented in Job is too advanced to have been written before Genesis. In fact, a case could probably be made that the style of writing is too advanced. I hold to the theory that it was probably written during the time of the Exhile to those that had to endure it but had followed God before the Exhile and continued to do so.

When it comes to the "sons of God", I think the simplest solution is the best. It refers to men, not righteous men or descendants of Seth or angels, just men.

Tambora
November 18th, 2004, 10:14 PM
Genesis 6:12-13 The purpose of the flood was to destroy the people who descended from the fallen angels.


There seems to be a conflict here.
Satan was also a fallen angel.
So if Cain was his offspring, then all of his descendants should have perished in the flood also.

Knight
November 18th, 2004, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

God is the Creator. I've never seen an example of any other being actually being able to create something. Now for angels (especially fallen angels trying to pollute the gene pool) to produce offspring with humans, they would have to create the whole genetic structure of a human body. I don't consider having children a "creation" in the same sense as creating like God creates (or created). God created us with the ability to procreate and therefore we can.

There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.

Infamous Plug
November 18th, 2004, 10:31 PM
Hehe
It feels like i started a forest fire ,

I hope no one gets carpal tunnel.

I love the feedback, keep it coming,its good learning

Infamous Plug
November 18th, 2004, 10:47 PM
I don't base my whole ideals on certain verses, Like some may think.

Just trying to learn with with the extra time i'm given.

I'm even seeing mistakes in my tread even before I read any replys.

But i'll keep trying.And i appriciate the feed back

Tambora
November 18th, 2004, 11:56 PM
QUOTE from KNIGHT:
I don't consider having children a "creation" in the same sense as creating like God creates (or created). God created us with the ability to procreate and therefore we can.

There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.
I agree.





QUOTE from JABEZ:
Interesting,but why has the fallen angel/human relations stopped now?or have they?
Good question.

Frank Ernest
November 19th, 2004, 05:33 AM
philosophizer:
"The text sounds pretty straight forward. "She took some [of the fruit] and ate it." You'd need a pretty fancy decoder ring to transform that into "she had sex with Satan."

So where does this "seduction" idea come from?"

FrankiE:
Throughout the Bible, trees are often used as similes or metaphors for people. If one wishes to understand what is going on, one must follow the simile or metaphor to its logical conclusion.

Genesis 3:3 says, in part, "... Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." The Hebrew word for "touch" used is "naga" which means "reach out" and is a euphemism for "to lie with a woman." Satan is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, his spirit is the serpent. Satan is often referred to as a serpent. I would be hard pressed to accept the idea of a literal talking snake as I would the idea of a literal knowledgable tree.

As a literal reading, I would find it difficult to figure that eating a piece of fruit would make one wise, or become as gods, or know good from evil.

Further on, we read (Genesis 3:6-13) that Adam and Eve sewed aprons made of fig leaves. What does an apron cover? God asks, Who told thee thou wast naked? Why would they worry with that IF they had merely eaten a piece of fruit?

Does not a picture start to form of what is actually going on?

Cool-Icy
November 19th, 2004, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Infamous Plug


1: Someone told me once the Bible wasn't accurate because it didn't explain dinosaurs and such. I said read "if you have a Bible"
Gen :1:28/ Be fruitful and multiply ,and REPLENISH the earth.
It said Replenish not plenish.

Does it need to explain dinosaurs?
Did it explain Kangaroos or Marsupials?

I'm guessing you haven't understood Genesis fully as yet.

The First chapter is symbolism to show that the order of Creation was under the hand of the Soverign God, that creation was not triggered by a spark but rather beautifully architeched and planned by God.

If you read Genesis 2, you'd find that it somewhat contradicts Genesis 1 in the order of Creation, where man was created first then animals then woman...as opposed to Genesis 1 where man was created last.





2:Apples and talking snakes????
First of all Satan was not a snake and he didn't feed Eve apples,
Apple was the fruit of knowlage, ask yourself why there on teachers desks. Satan confronted Eve in Angelic form ,Yes some of the Angels were Keen, like in Gen:6:2/
That the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair ,and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning...


The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.

Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God.

And it's so true with so many people. All sin is rebellion against God, and all sin is all about us trying to be like God.

Theres greed, we want more...like God who's abundant. Lying to get away with more...etc.... list goes on!



This is opening up for some huge debate!!!

Cool-Icy
November 19th, 2004, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Knight

I don't consider having children a "creation" in the same sense as creating like God creates (or created). God created us with the ability to procreate and therefore we can.

There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.

Could not have the saying be translated as "Kings" ?

I think I might leave this open...cause I've heard a lot of interpretation for it.

However, remember what Jesus said to the Saducee...

He said "We'd be like angels" and we don't need to marry...

Frank Ernest
November 19th, 2004, 07:23 AM
FrankiE:
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

philosophizer:
"Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say Adam and Eve had sex and conceived Abel?

Frank Ernest
November 19th, 2004, 07:32 AM
Cool-Icy:
"The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning..."

FrankiE:
That it does. Mind telling me what the symbol stands for?

Cool-Icy:
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.

FrankiE:
And that sin was?

Cool-Icy:
"Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God."

FrankiE:
And the fruit is symbolic of ...?

philosophizer
November 19th, 2004, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Knight

I don't consider having children a "creation" in the same sense as creating like God creates (or created). God created us with the ability to procreate and therefore we can.

There is no reason to deny that fallen angels couldn't have done likewise. In fact just the opposite evidence exists. I think the case is pretty strong.


I'm sorry, I don't think I stated my point very well.

The "creation" I was talking about isn't the production of children. Yes, reproduction creates a new life but the process uses already existing genetic material and re-orders it.

So the procreation wasn't the part of it I had a problem with. It was the initial creation of the angels' physical bodies.

In order for the procreation to work, there would have to be a new creation of the angels' bodies. That would be a production of a completely new genetic code. Can an angel do that-- create a whole new creation themselves?

philosophizer
November 19th, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

FrankiE:
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. ..."

How did that happen?

philosophizer:
"Um.... they had sex. Someone forget to tell you the birds and the bees? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say Adam and Eve had sex and conceived Abel?


Did your parents ever say they had sex to conceive you? If they didn't would it be any less likely?

philosophizer
November 19th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Batman is right: The only two versions I know of that say "replenish" instead of "fill" are KJV (translated ~1611) and ASV (translated ~1903). Look up "replenish" in a dictionary from those days and you will see that it meant "to fill again" or "to fill," thought the latter has for the most part fallen out of use. So it's no surprise that ALL more recent translations use the word "fill" instead of "replenish."

As for why the Bible doesn't mention "dinosaurs," the word didn't exist prior to the mid 1800s. But the Bible does have many references to dragons. And then there is the discription of Behemoth in Job 40:15-24. What is that passage describing if not a dinosaur?


It looks really funny in this post, with you new avatar, when you say "Batman is right." :chuckle:

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

It looks really funny in this post, with you new avatar, when you say "Batman is right." :chuckle: Yeah, I thought about that when I was uploading it last night. :chuckle:

It might be even better if I had a Robin or a Superman avatar.

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 10:04 AM
The Law is "the knowledge of good and evil," by definition. Do you suppose that maybe eating of the Tree (which is also called the Tree of Death) symbolizes putting oneself under the Law?

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 10:06 AM
Frank E, where do you think Abel came from?

It's so obvious that Adam is his father, but it is even more obvious that Adam is Cain's father. The text could hardly be any clearer.

Batman
November 19th, 2004, 10:47 AM
You can't be Batman too! Just b/c your costume looks real and mine is made from bed sheets and trash bags, means nothing! I'm the real Batman! And if I hear Commissionor Gordon cry to me on the red phone one more time, I'm gonna give him something to cry about!

philosophizer
November 19th, 2004, 10:49 AM
Don't let Turbo fool you. He's really the Joker. There are pictures that prove it.

Batman
November 19th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Goodbye old costume, hello new! Now I should get some respect.

Why do I feel so feminine? Oh wait . . . nooooooo!

billwald
November 19th, 2004, 11:15 AM
"Batman, have you ever heard the case that Job was actually written before Genesis?"

One theory is that Genesis was written during the Babalonian captivity. See Donald Akenson and others.

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Don't let Turbo fool you. He's really the Joker. There are pictures that prove it. :chuckle: ...one of the best incentives to subscribe to TOL.


(Or visit the avatar graveyard.)

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by billwald

One theory is that Genesis was written during the Babalonian captivity. See Donald Akenson and others. No thanks. Jesus credited Moses as the author of Genesis.

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." Luke 24:44

"But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?" Mark 12:26 (also Luke 20:37)*

"Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath." John 7:22


*(edit: that was a reference to Moses writing Exodus, not Genesis. I was in a hurry when I posted and mistook the reference to Abraham et al. Added Luke 24:44 to the list.)

Zakath
November 19th, 2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

No thanks. Jesus credited Moses as the author of Genesis.

"But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?" Mark 12:26 (also Luke 20:37)The Jews traditionally refer to the Pentateuch as the "books of Moses", even though many of them do not believe he actually wrote them, it's merely their tradition.


"Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath." John 7:22 But doesn't that parenthetical comment indicate that Jesus did not consider Moses the author of the texts relevant to circumcision, but "the fathers" (aka "the patriarchs")?

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

The Jews traditionally refer to the Pentateuch as the "books of Moses", even though many of them do not believe he actually wrote them, it's merely their tradition.If Jesus is who he claimed, he would know for certain.


But doesn't that parenthetical comment indicate that Jesus did not consider Moses the author of the texts relevant to circumcision, but "the fathers" (aka "the patriarchs")? No. Circumcision was given to Abraham, but Moses recorded the story in Genesis.

Zakath
November 19th, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

If Jesus is who he claimed, he would know for certain.That's a pretty big "if" from where I sit. ;)


No. Circumcision was given to Abraham, but Moses recorded the story in Genesis. And Abraham gave it to his descendents, not Moses. Circumcision was commonly practiced by the Jews before Moses would have written anything. He did not give the Jews circumcision. If Jesus was who you think he claimed to be, he would have known that for certain. ;)

One Eyed Jack
November 19th, 2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest
As a literal reading, I would find it difficult to figure that eating a piece of fruit would make one wise, or become as gods, or know good from evil.

I think this is a common misunderstanding. The fruit didn't have any particular properties for unlocking wisdom or anything like that. There was just one rule in the Garden -- don't eat from that tree. It could just as well have been another rule, like don't pick up a certain rock or something. They didn't gain the knowledge of good and evil because they ate the fruit -- they gained the knowledge of good and evil because they disobeyed God.

Turbo
November 19th, 2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

That's a pretty big "if" from where I sit. ;)That's your problem, both because of which forum this thread is in and in the larger scheme of things.


And Abraham gave it to his descendents, not Moses. Circumcision was commonly practiced by the Jews before Moses would have written anything. He did not give the Jews circumcision. I know. That's why I said, "Circumcision was given to Abraham, but Moses recorded the story in Genesis."


If Jesus was who you think he claimed to be, he would have known that for certain. ;) He did. That's why he said, "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath."

Cool-Icy
November 19th, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Cool-Icy:
"The imagery of a snake has symbolic meaning..."

FrankiE:
That it does. Mind telling me what the symbol stands for?
Remember what Jesus said about Satan, that he saw him falling from heaven like lightning?





Cool-Icy:
The forbidden Fruit is symbolism of the first sin. That Fruit of Tree and Knowledge, the definition of sin is rebellion against God.

FrankiE:
And that sin was?

Read my sentence carefully!

"Sin" is "Rebellion against GOD"!



Cool-Icy:
"Hence the Fruit, is all about wanting to be God, which is why we try to rebel against God."

FrankiE:
And the fruit is symbolic of ...?

The thing that we all want to be God, so that we can make our own decisions, rather than let God make them for us!

Lucky
November 20th, 2004, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by philosophizer

It looks really funny in this post, with you new avatar, when you say "Batman is right." :chuckle:
:D

Originally posted by Batman

I'm the real Batman!
Or are you? :think:

OMEGA
November 20th, 2004, 03:39 AM
De - Batemen are having a Debate

------------------------------------------------


Abraham just told his household and boy were they sore.

God told Moses to tell the Hebrews who were chosen

by the Lord God to be His People and they were sore at both

God and Moses.
:thumb:

Frank Ernest
November 20th, 2004, 04:56 AM
philosophizer:
"Did your parents ever say they had sex to conceive you? If they didn't would it be any less likely? "

FrankiE:
No, they didn't. They didn't say so about my brother either. Why, in Genesis, is Cain's conception specifically mentioned while Abel's is not?

Frank Ernest
November 20th, 2004, 05:01 AM
Cool-Icy:
"The thing that we all want to be God, so that we can make our own decisions, rather than let God make them for us! "

FrankiE:
Really? Where does it say that?

Frank Ernest
November 20th, 2004, 05:05 AM
Cool-Icy:
"Sin" is "Rebellion against GOD"!

FrankiE:
Could you be more specific?

Cool-Icy:
"Remember what Jesus said about Satan, that he saw him falling from heaven like lightning?"

FrankiE:
I fail to see what that has to do with the imagery surrounding a serpent.

Frank Ernest
November 20th, 2004, 05:12 AM
OEJ:
"I think this is a common misunderstanding. The fruit didn't have any particular properties for unlocking wisdom or anything like that. There was just one rule in the Garden -- don't eat from that tree. It could just as well have been another rule, like don't pick up a certain rock or something. They didn't gain the knowledge of good and evil because they ate the fruit -- they gained the knowledge of good and evil because they disobeyed God. "

FrankiE:
Genesis 3:13-14. Please explain the word "beguiled" in verse 13.

Beguiled (English) from nâshâ' (Hebrew)
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Do you have other examples from the Bible where God punished people for eating the wrong fruit or picking up the wrong stone?

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA

De - Batemen are having a Debate

------------------------------------------------


Abraham just told his household and boy were they sore.

God told Moses to tell the Hebrews who were chosen

by the Lord God to be His People and they were sore at both

God and Moses.
:thumb: These two groups, Abraham's household and the Hebrews, are one in the same.

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Why, in Genesis, is Cain's conception specifically mentioned while Abel's is not? Maybe because Cain's was the first conception ever. Or maybe it was to make it easy to debunk false teachers who would someday claim that Cain was Satan's son and not Adam's.

I'm going to ask you again, Frank:
Where do you think Abel came from?

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

FrankiE:
Genesis 3:13-14. Please explain the word "beguiled" in verse 13.

Beguiled (English) from nâshâ' (Hebrew)
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.You answered your own question. Even if that word were translated as "seduced (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=seduce)," it wouldn't mean that he sexually seduced her, because of the context in which the word is used. :duh: He seduced her into rebelling against God's command not to eat from that tree.

Do you think that when God commanded Adam not to eat from the Tree of Death that He was really commanding Adam not to have sex with Lucifer? :hammer:




Do you have other examples from the Bible where God punished people for eating the wrong fruitGod forbade the Israelites from eating unclean animals.


or picking up the wrong stone? God forbade the Isrealites from working on the Sabbath.

One Eyed Jack
November 20th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest
FrankiE:
Genesis 3:13-14. Please explain the word "beguiled" in verse 13.

Beguiled (English) from nâshâ' (Hebrew)
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Deluded, beguiled, deceived, it's all the same thing -- it means tricked.


Do you have other examples from the Bible where God punished people for eating the wrong fruit or picking up the wrong stone?

Do you have any other examples from the Bible where people lived in Eden? If we're gonna make comparisons, let's make sure we're comparing the same thing. The point I was making is that there was only one rule in Eden, and Adam and Eve broke it. Their disobedience brought upon them the knowledge of good and evil.

Tambora
November 20th, 2004, 01:54 PM
Hmmm, I am intrigued by this.
After researching the following scripture, I am inclined to rethink that there may indeed have been some form of physical contact.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Apostasy is often connected with adultery.
And verse 3 is connected to verse 2 implying a fear of adultery just like Eve did.
Also the word “receive” in verse 4 of another spirit has overtones of physical contact.

Another interesting word is “touch” in the following verse.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Strong’s list “touch” as H5060
I will give his definition here:
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Most interesting is the part I have underlined.



OK Frank, you have my attention now. This could get interesting.

So when we are told in Genesis 3:15 that there will be enmity between Satan’s seed and Eve’s seed, is this referring to a literal seed (offspring) from both of them?

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by tambora

Hmmm, I am intrigued by this.
After researching the following scripture, I am inclined to rethink that there may indeed have been some form of physical contact.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Apostasy is often connected with adultery.
And verse 3 is connected to verse 2 implying a fear of adultery just like Eve did.
Also the word “receive” in verse 4 of another spirit has overtones of physical contact. So, do you think in this passage Paul was warning the Corintian church not to commit literal adultery, or was he warning them to beware of deceptive spirits and false gospels?


Another interesting word is “touch” in the following verse.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Strong’s list “touch” as H5060
I will give his definition here:
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Most interesting is the part I have underlined.Guess what: Touch can be used as a euphamism for intercourse in English, too. But that doesn't mean that "touch" always has a sexual connotation. And there's nothing in the context of Genesis 3 that indicates Eve was talking about intercourse. And if touching the fruit did mean having intercourse with Lucifer, what did it mean to eat the fruit? And why did God command Adam not to eat the fruit?

Also, God did not forbid him/them from touching the fruit. He forbade Adam from eating it, period.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
The command not to touch it was either something Adam added, or something Eve invented on her own. In typical legalistic fashion, they invented their own law to keep themselves from breaking God's law, and failed.


OK Frank, you have my attention now. Have you read this whole thread? We've already pointed out that the text specifically says that Adam is Cain's biological father:
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Genesis 4:1
One would think that verse would take the wind out of Frank's sails, but for some reason it hasn't.

Tambora
November 20th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Could be it has nothing to do with sex. But then again maybe it does.

Not the word eat, but the word touch. The word is only mentioned by Eve, not Adam. And yes, it was something she added. They both ate, but only one "touched".

You have made some points that I have always held to.

But, you didn't comment on the fact that enmity would be between Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
I've always been under the impression that Christ was the seed (descendant) mentioned of Eve. Every preacher I have heard talk of this verse says it is Christ. But I can't recall them ever mentioning who the other seed was.
So if Cain is not a candidate for Satan's seed (descendant), then who is?

If the word "seed" means a literal descendant of Eve, then it stands to reason that the seed mentioned of Satan would be also.

Or is it that "seed" refers to something besides a descendant and therefore does not refer to Christ?

OMEGA
November 20th, 2004, 11:14 PM
NAAGH, It just says Don't believe everything that

some strange Philosophizer who comes along may say.

Question everything just like the Bereans did.

Acts 17:10 ¶ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.:think:

Frank Ernest
November 21st, 2004, 04:44 AM
Turbo:
"Maybe because Cain's was the first conception ever. Or maybe it was to make it easy to debunk false teachers who would someday claim that Cain was Satan's son and not Adam's."

FrankiE:
Maybe, maybe, and then the "advertising." Skip the bunk and stay on the subject. I'm not interested in a string of "maybe." By the way, 2 Corinthians 11:3. You just accused Paul of being a "false teacher." Matthew 13:24-30, 13:37-43 and John 8:42-44. You just accused Jesus of being a "false teacher."

Turbo:
"I'm going to ask you again, Frank:
Where do you think Abel came from? "

FrankiE:
I don't have to "think" about where Abel came from as it is clearly stated in the Hebrew manuscripts from which comes the KJV translation (with its warts). Have you read either?

philosophizer
November 22nd, 2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by tambora

Could be it has nothing to do with sex. But then again maybe it does.

Not the word eat, but the word touch. The word is only mentioned by Eve, not Adam. And yes, it was something she added. They both ate, but only one "touched".

And how exactly does one eat something without touching it?


You have made some points that I have always held to.

But, you didn't comment on the fact that enmity would be between Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
I've always been under the impression that Christ was the seed (descendant) mentioned of Eve. Every preacher I have heard talk of this verse says it is Christ. But I can't recall them ever mentioning who the other seed was.
So if Cain is not a candidate for Satan's seed (descendant), then who is?
Isn't Satan the father of lies?



If the word "seed" means a literal descendant of Eve, then it stands to reason that the seed mentioned of Satan would be also.
Nope. Faulty premise. It is not necessary to take the physical conditions of Eve's seed and apply them to Satan's seed.

Now that doesn't mean that Satan doesn't have any literal offspring. Just that it isn't offspring in the same physical sense.



Or is it that "seed" refers to something besides a descendant and therefore does not refer to Christ?
Again, faulty premise.

John 8:44 --
44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

It seems clear that Satan has offspring. They are not physical offspring, but they are very definitely literal. And there certainly is enmity between the sons of Satan and Christ who is descended from Eve's seed.

Tambora
November 22nd, 2004, 08:12 AM
Put whatever words you consider "seed" should be in Genesis 3:15 and see if it makes sense.

Frank Ernest
November 22nd, 2004, 08:14 AM
philosophizer:
"It seems clear that Satan has offspring. They are not physical offspring, but they are very definitely literal. And there certainly is enmity between the sons of Satan and Christ who is descended from Eve's seed. "

FrankiE:
How does one split the hair between "physical" and "literal" to make them distinct and different? How does one use a word, viz. seed, and have two differing meanings within the same context?

philosophizer
November 22nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
Frank, I'd like to know where you're coming from.

Does Satan have physical offspring living among humans?

Are they the only ones who will be bundled and burned?

philosophizer
November 22nd, 2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Turbo:
"Maybe because Cain's was the first conception ever. Or maybe it was to make it easy to debunk false teachers who would someday claim that Cain was Satan's son and not Adam's."

FrankiE:
Maybe, maybe, and then the "advertising." Skip the bunk and stay on the subject. I'm not interested in a string of "maybe." By the way, 2 Corinthians 11:3. You just accused Paul of being a "false teacher." Matthew 13:24-30, 13:37-43 and John 8:42-44. You just accused Jesus of being a "false teacher."


2 Corinthians 11 --
1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Paul is saying that there is no other Gospel and no other Jesus than the one he is preaching. There is no logical necessity to connect verse 2 to verse 3 in a way that states Eve and Satan had sex. In fact, if you want to go down that pathway of logic, then Paul was saying that we were meant to have sex with Jesus.

Turbo
November 22nd, 2004, 10:08 AM
philo... Don't give them any ideas. :hammer:

Frank Ernest
November 23rd, 2004, 07:18 AM
philosophizer:
"Frank, I'd like to know where you're coming from."

FrankiE:
I am a student of scripture.

philosophizer:
"Does Satan have physical offspring living among humans?"

FrankiE:
Yes. Jesus said so. (John 8:42-44)

philosophizer:
"Are they the only ones who will be bundled and burned? "

FrankiE:
No. (Revelation 20:12-15)

Frank Ernest
November 23rd, 2004, 07:39 AM
philosophizer:
"2 Corinthians 11 --
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Paul is saying that there is no other Gospel and no other Jesus than the one he is preaching. There is no logical necessity to connect verse 2 to verse 3 in a way that states Eve and Satan had sex. In fact, if you want to go down that pathway of logic, then Paul was saying that we were meant to have sex with Jesus. "

FrankiE:
(Matthew 4:10)

In verse 2 Paul speaks of a spiritual (doctrinal) virginity. With your "take" on this that anyone who has ever had physical sex would be excluded from being presented.

Verse 3 is quite clear and you're confusing the issue. Paul says "as the serpent beguiled (Gr: expatao "wholly seduced") Eve through his subtilty ... Paul is not primarily referring to the specific act, but how Satan did it.

Paul continues "so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Simply put, Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting (lying about) what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep Christ's teachings simple and you won't go wrong.

philosophizer
November 23rd, 2004, 07:49 AM
Great! Let's not muddy the waters.

I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree.

Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children?

Frank Ernest
November 23rd, 2004, 09:06 AM
philosophizer:
"I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree."

FrankiE:
Apparently your agreement falls in line only with your beliefs and not with what Paul says. Read what I said again.

philosophizer:
"Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children? "

FrankiE:
Beats me. You were the one who brought it up.

philosophizer
November 23rd, 2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree."

FrankiE:
Apparently your agreement falls in line only with your beliefs and not with what Paul says. Read what I said again.

philosophizer:
"Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children? "

FrankiE:
Beats me. You were the one who brought it up.

Frank, you've managed to confuse me more than I've been in a long time. What are we agreeing/disagreeing about?

What is the point that you came to this thread to make? Was it about Genesis? About Cain and Abel? About Adam and Eve? About angels having offspring?

I really believe you have a point, Frank. I just don't have a clue what it is? Please help.

Turbo
November 23rd, 2004, 09:44 AM
I think Frank is being purposefully coy.

Zakath
November 23rd, 2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I think Frank is being purposefully coy. In his case, it's hard to distinguish from being completely confused. :kookoo:

Frank Ernest
November 24th, 2004, 07:18 AM
TackyZaky:
"In his case, it's hard to distinguish from being completely confused."

FrankiE:
:sozo: :loser:

Frank Ernest
November 24th, 2004, 07:26 AM
philosophizer:
"Frank, you've managed to confuse me more than I've been in a long time. What are we agreeing/disagreeing about?"

FrankiE:
What actually happened in the Garden of Eden.

philosophizer:
"What is the point that you came to this thread to make? Was it about Genesis? About Cain and Abel? About Adam and Eve? About angels having offspring?"

FrankiE:
Genesis relates creation, the replenishment of the earth and the history of the family of Adam and the patriarchs through Joseph. Cain and Abel were fraternal twins. Cain is the son of Satan and Eve; Abel is the son of Adam and Eve.
Genesis 6:1-4 relates that the fallen angels did indeed have offspring with human women.

philosophizer:
"I really believe you have a point, Frank. I just don't have a clue what it is? Please help. "

FrankiE:
Ok.

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

TackyZaky:
"In his case, it's hard to distinguish from being completely confused."

FrankiE:
:sozo: :loser:

:kookoo:

Zakath
November 24th, 2004, 12:51 PM
Agreed, granite!

Hillclimber76
November 24th, 2004, 03:09 PM
Why is Cain not mentioned in Adam's geneology? Why does Cain have his own geneology? Frank is on to something here. Why did Adam and Eve cover their privates with fig leaves? I think I see what he's talking about. Im going to investigate this further.

Turbo
November 24th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Hillclimber76

Why is Cain not mentioned in Adam's geneology?LOTS of people aren't specifically mentioned in Adam's genealogy.
Genesis 5
1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. 10After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed." 30After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Only the line that would lead to Noah (and eventually Christ) is given in Genesis 5. And that makes perfect sense, since Noah is the focus of the next few chapters. Genesis 5 bridges the gap between the accounts about Adam & Eve (and Cain & Abel) and the account of Noah and his family and the Flood.


Why does Cain have his own geneology?The text briefly describes that Cain went off and started his own civilization (if you can call it that) in the land of Nod. The most significant detail given is that his great -great-great-great grandson Lamech was emboldened to murder because there would be no (earthly) punishment.


Frank is on to something here... Im going to investigate this further.No, he isn't. You need look no further than Genesis 4:1 to see that: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

elohiym
November 24th, 2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Hillclimber76

Why does Cain have his own geneology?Cain's geneology suggests that he repented after being marked by God, or at least some of his descendants had a relationship with God. Bible names are significant. Mehujael and Methusael are two examples. Mehujael roughly means "smitten by God" and Methusael roughly means "man of God".

So we can say that Cain's descendants were not all wicked as opposed to Seth's descendants being godly, as I have heard some suggest over the years. In fact, this verse...
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. Genesis 4:26...is often mistranslated. The Targum of Onkelos: "...desisted from praying in the name;" Targum of Jonathan: "...surnamed their idols in the name;" Mamonides, Commentary on the Mishna, ascribes the origin of idolarty to the days of Enosh.

It's interesting that the start of idolatry is mentioned in Adam's geneolgy, not specifically Cain's geneology.

Originally posted by Hillclimber76

Why did Adam and Eve cover their privates with fig leaves?Two reasons. First, they were suddenly ashamed of their nakedness, so logically they sought to cover themselves. Second, the story of the fall communicates a spiritual message that underlies the entire account. The tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to be the letter of the law; it's fruit being sin, and wages death. The fig leaves represent Adam's and Eve's unrighteous works (fig leaves symbolize works). That is why God doesn't accept their garments as a cover for their unrighteousness (nakedness). Instead he covers them with the skin of an animal (Christ/God's righteousness).

Frank Ernest
November 25th, 2004, 06:01 AM
"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD.""

Repeat question: Why did Eve say she had acquired a man from the Lord if Cain's father was Adam?

Frank Ernest
November 25th, 2004, 07:24 AM
elohiym:
"Two reasons. First, they were suddenly ashamed of their nakedness, so logically they sought to cover themselves. "

FrankiE:
Then this is a literal recounting of what happened, no? Why did they cover themselves with aprons? Why not hats?

elohiym:
"Second, the story of the fall communicates a spiritual message that underlies the entire account. The tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to be the letter of the law; it's fruit being sin, and wages death. The fig leaves represent Adam's and Eve's unrighteous works (fig leaves symbolize works). That is why God doesn't accept their garments as a cover for their unrighteousness (nakedness). Instead he covers them with the skin of an animal (Christ/God's righteousness). "

FrankiE:
Are the fig leaf aprons literal or figurative? God didn't say fig-leaf aprons were unacceptable. God asked, "Who told thee thou wast naked?" He wanted to know who was involved, not what are you wearing.

Genesis 3:21 says that God made made coats of skins. Literal or figurative?

Genesis 3:22 mentions the tree of life. Is this not a metaphor for Christ (Revelation 2:7)? If the coats God made in 21 are Christ's righteousness, why was God concerned that Adam and Eve would partake of the tree of life?

If God covered Adam and Eve with Christ's righteousness, why does He (in verse 24) drive them out of the Garden and prevent their return?

In verse 24, what does "... to keep the way of the tree of life" mean?

elohiym
November 25th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

elohiym:
"Two reasons. First, they were suddenly ashamed of their nakedness, so logically they sought to cover themselves. "

FrankiE:
Then this is a literal recounting of what happened, no? Why did they cover themselves with aprons? Why not hats?Like many literal accounts in the Bible, this one prefigures the gospel of righteousness by faith without the works of the law.

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Why did they cover themselves with aprons? Why not hats?The Bible states:
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.Isn't your question answered by those verses?
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

elohiym:
"Second, the story of the fall communicates a spiritual message that underlies the entire account. The tree of knowledge of good and evil seems to be the letter of the law; it's fruit being sin, and wages death. The fig leaves represent Adam's and Eve's unrighteous works (fig leaves symbolize works). That is why God doesn't accept their garments as a cover for their unrighteousness (nakedness). Instead he covers them with the skin of an animal (Christ/God's righteousness). "

FrankiE:
Are the fig leaf aprons literal or figurative? God didn't say fig-leaf aprons were unacceptable. God asked, "Who told thee thou wast naked?" He wanted to know who was involved, not what are you wearing.I believe the fig leaves were both literal and figurative. God implied the fig leaves were unacceptable as a covering for their nakedness when he gave them coats of skin.
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.So their aprons obviously didn't cover them good enough for God.
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 3:21 says that God made made coats of skins. Literal or figurative?Both. There are many examples of accounts in the Bible that are both literal and figurative.
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Genesis 3:22 mentions the tree of life. Is this not a metaphor for Christ (Revelation 2:7)?Yes. It is a metaphor for the spirit of the law, which gives life.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the letter of the law, and partaking of it causes death. The tree of life is the spirit of the law, Christ, and partaking of it's fruit is eternal life.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

If the coats God made in 21 are Christ's righteousness, why was God concerned that Adam and Eve would partake of the tree of life?The coats were only a figure of the righteousness which is a free gift from God. They didn't actually receive God's righteousness in Christ, only a figure of it that should have left them asking: "What was wrong with my fig leaves?"

Are you familiar with Joshua the high priest in the book of Zechariah?
Zechariah 3:3,4 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.Here God takes away Joshua's filthy garments (fig leaves/works) and replaces them with a change of garment (coat of skin/God's righteousness). A very close parallel to what happened to Adam and Eve, and figurative.
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

If God covered Adam and Eve with Christ's righteousness, why does He (in verse 24) drive them out of the Garden and prevent their return?That is because then, like today, you cannot eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (sin), the wages of doing so being death, and at the same time eat from the tree of life (Christ), in which their is NO sin.
1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.There is no sin in Christ.
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

In verse 24, what does "... to keep the way of the tree of life" mean? It means to preserve the way. So mankind could find it's way back. The flaming sword turning every way is the Bible, which has kept the way of and to the tree of life.

Frank Ernest
November 26th, 2004, 05:57 AM
FrankiE:
In verse 24, what does "... to keep the way of the tree of life" mean?

eloyihm:
It means to preserve the way. So mankind could find it's way back. The flaming sword turning every way is the Bible, which has kept the way of and to the tree of life.

FrankiE:
Then the reference to Revelation 2:7 means nothing? If the flaming sword is the Bible, why is the Bible used to prevent Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden?

eloyihm:
"The coats were only a figure of the righteousness which is a free gift from God. They didn't actually receive God's righteousness in Christ, only a figure of it that should have left them asking: "What was wrong with my fig leaves?"

FrankiE:
Why are you ignoring the "why" of the fig-leaf aprons? Why did Adam and Eve make the fig-leaf aprons?

eloyihm:
Zechariah 3:3,4 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

FrankiE:
Christ forgives Joshua's iniquity (filthy garments) and clothes Joshua in His righteousness (change of raiment). Did God punish Joshua AFTER He gave the change of raiment? (In order to keep your comparison intact and consistent, God should have evicted Joshua.)

eloyihm:
There are many examples of accounts in the Bible that are both literal and figurative.

FrankiE:
Then the Bible is meant to be confusing? God is a riddler? I think not.

eloyihm:
Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

FrankiE:
In order for your reasoning to be correct, Adam should have said, ... I was afraid, because I was wearing fig leaves; and I hid myself.

eloyihm:
Like many literal accounts in the Bible, this one prefigures the gospel of righteousness by faith without the works of the law.

FrankiE:
Salvation is by faith, not righteousness.

Infamous Plug
November 26th, 2004, 09:54 PM
I guess i should have explained things further.

I've heard and it does make sense that Satan tried to pollute the bloodline that would eventually lead to Christ ,Satan knew Jesus would sooner or later have a seat beside God ,and Satan tried to prevent this but he did fail. And most of the bible is telling of the liniage that leads to Christs coming.

Lighthouse
November 26th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Eve never had Satan's child.:rolleyes:

And you were doing so well, with the gun control and things...:doh:

Frank Ernest
November 27th, 2004, 04:55 AM
:Brandon: :
Eve never had Satan's child.

FrankiE:
Please explain Mathew 13:24-30 and Matthew 24:36-43

Lighthouse
November 27th, 2004, 09:23 PM
FrankiE-
Do you really believe that Satan and Eve had sex? And what do either of those scriptures have to do with the topic? I can understand where you might be going with the first one, but I don't see how you would relate it to Eve and Satan having sex.

Frank Ernest
November 28th, 2004, 06:01 AM
It's not a matter of belief, it is a clear thread in scripture. Unless one fully understands what happened in the Garden of Eden, one will not understand Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed or His explanation of it to the apostles. No would one understand Revelation 2:8-11 or Revelation 12:1-17.

God's Plan is that all should come to Him in faith and salvation. Satan's is to prevent it. Satan's plan was to prevent the Christ from being born of woman into human flesh and deny salvation to us. What better way than to attempt to destroy the pure seed-line from Adam to the Christ at the very beginning?

God's Word to us is meant to be understood as fully as one's understanding will allow. It tells us exactly what the war between good and evil is, what it consists of, what the stakes are, how we were redeemed from Death, how we are to fight Satan and his angels.

It's all there in scripture. John 8:31-32 and Mark 13:22-23.

julie21
November 28th, 2004, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:Brandon: :
Eve never had Satan's child.

FrankiE:
Please explain Mathew 13:24-30 and Matthew 24:36-43


I took the Matthew verses to perhaps thinly represent the Garden, where God planted good seed ,Adam and Eve. Along came the bad seed, Satan, and he ruined the good field/crop forever via his influencing Eve to go against God's decree. The good crop was ultimately ruined through this sin. I do not believe the word 'seed' here is an allegory for 'sperm'.

I don't follow with the next reference either, in pertaining to the discussion of whether Eve had Satan's child...sorry. Maybe you could enlighten us as to why you think it is relevent?


Humbly,
Julie21

Frank Ernest
November 28th, 2004, 06:50 AM
julie21:
"I do not believe the word 'seed' here is an allegory for 'sperm'."

FrankiE:
From the Greek manuscript, the word "seed"
G4690 (Strong's Concordance)
σπέρμα
sperma
sper'-mah
From G4687; somethng sown, that is, seed (including the male “sperm”); by implication offspring; specifically a remnant (figuratively as if kept over for planting): - issue, seed.

julie21
November 28th, 2004, 04:35 PM
FrankiE,
Thanks fOr the definition of seed in its various forms...I still don't believe in this case it is referencing Satan's sperm and impregnation of Eve though.



Further to Matthew 13:24-30
The 'field' in our day is the World we are now in. Strongs definition of seed does mention 'remnant', possibly this could apply to the 'remnant' of Israel that will always exist.
The word of God has been spread as the 'good' seed throughout the World, but the crop has been defiled by Satan, who comes as the enemy and sows his seeds, greed; discontent; hate ;malice, untruths, the 'weeds' that spring up amongst the good crop and will strangle all ruin the field.
As your next reference in Matthew alludes to, we in the World must be wary of this thief who tries to overtake the good seed sown.

The Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13:3 - 9 leads well into the Parable you have noted, and if read in conjunction with the latter, defines it better I believe.
Humbly,
Julie21

Lighthouse
November 28th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

It's not a matter of belief, it is a clear thread in scripture. Unless one fully understands what happened in the Garden of Eden, one will not understand Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed or His explanation of it to the apostles. No would one understand Revelation 2:8-11 or Revelation 12:1-17.

God's Plan is that all should come to Him in faith and salvation. Satan's is to prevent it. Satan's plan was to prevent the Christ from being born of woman into human flesh and deny salvation to us. What better way than to attempt to destroy the pure seed-line from Adam to the Christ at the very beginning?

God's Word to us is meant to be understood as fully as one's understanding will allow. It tells us exactly what the war between good and evil is, what it consists of, what the stakes are, how we were redeemed from Death, how we are to fight Satan and his angels.

It's all there in scripture. John 8:31-32 and Mark 13:22-23.
So, what happened with Adam? Since he ate of the fruit as well...

Frank Ernest
November 29th, 2004, 05:14 AM
:Brandon:
So, what happened with Adam? Since he ate of the fruit as well...

FrankiE:
First he tried to shift the blame to Eve (Genesis 3:12) then God stated the punishment (Genesis 3:17-19). After that God evicted them from the Garden (Genesis 3:22-24). Moving right along, Adam had a bunch of kids and died (Genesis 5:1-5).

Frank Ernest
November 29th, 2004, 05:34 AM
julie21:
"Further to Matthew 13:24-30
The 'field' in our day is the World we are now in. Strongs definition of seed does mention 'remnant', possibly this could apply to the 'remnant' of Israel that will always exist.
The word of God has been spread as the 'good' seed throughout the World, but the crop has been defiled by Satan, who comes as the enemy and sows his seeds, greed; discontent; hate ;malice, untruths, the 'weeds' that spring up amongst the good crop and will strangle all ruin the field.
As your next reference in Matthew alludes to, we in the World must be wary of this thief who tries to overtake the good seed sown.

The Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13:3 - 9 leads well into the Parable you have noted, and if read in conjunction with the latter, defines it better I believe."

FrankiE:
Fine with me, Julie21. I have gone as far as I should with this. Will put you with the Matthew 13:43 folks. May God love you and continue to bless you.

philosophizer
November 29th, 2004, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD.""

Repeat question: Why did Eve say she had acquired a man from the Lord if Cain's father was Adam?


First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.


So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?

"A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world."

I thank God for my wife every day. Yet I know she came from her mother and father and was not directly created by God. When I have children I will thank God for them too, though I know they came from me and my wife.

That seems like a pretty easy explanation to me.

philosophizer
November 29th, 2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:Brandon:
So, what happened with Adam? Since he ate of the fruit as well...

FrankiE:
First he tried to shift the blame to Eve (Genesis 3:12) then God stated the punishment (Genesis 3:17-19). After that God evicted them from the Garden (Genesis 3:22-24). Moving right along, Adam had a bunch of kids and died (Genesis 5:1-5).

That didn't answer lighthouse's question.

If "eating the fruit" meant that Eve had sex with Satan, what does it mean when Adam "ate the fruit?" Did he have sex with Satan too?

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2004, 01:41 PM
Thank you, Philo.

Yes, FrankiE, that was my question.

Infamous Plug
November 29th, 2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Eve never had Satan's child.:rolleyes:

And you were doing so well, with the gun control and things...:doh:

Ah well i can't win them all.

I do think it's relevent but that doesn't make it completly true .

I think somthings could be open for discussion with this ,but just don't condemn me just because I stated a point

Lighthouse
November 30th, 2004, 12:03 AM
If you stated it as an idea, I would be less condemning, but you put it forth as if it were fact...or that you at least believed it.

Frank Ernest
November 30th, 2004, 06:05 AM
That didn't answer lighthouse's question.

If "eating the fruit" meant that Eve had sex with Satan, what does it mean when Adam "ate the fruit?" Did he have sex with Satan too?

FrankiE:
Genesis 3:12. "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

What do you think? There is an implication that he did, but no statement that Adam partook of the "tree" directly.

Frank Ernest
November 30th, 2004, 06:11 AM
First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

FrankiE: I ask again, why did Eve say, "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Are you suggesting Lord = Adam? In the manuscript, "Lord" always refers to God, Adam (in this case Hebrew "ha Adam") always refers to "the" Adam specifically.

Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.

FrankiE:
God's punishment came after the sin, not before it. She could not have mistaken Satan for God after He punished them? Why not? Does having a knowledge of good and evil mean that one does distinguish between them without fail? Satan's ability to deceive ended? It may be obvious to you that Satan was not the Lord because scripture is specific. Can you answer for Adam and Eve? They lived it, we are reading about it.

Do we not have difficulty still in discerning what is of the Lord and what is of Satan? Do we not have people who still mistake Satan for God?

Frank Ernest
November 30th, 2004, 06:42 AM
philosophizer:
"So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?"

FrankiE:
That isn't what she said. What she "could have meant" is speculation, therefore, not the simplest answer.

philosophizer
November 30th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

FrankiE: I ask again, why did Eve say, "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Are you suggesting Lord = Adam? In the manuscript, "Lord" always refers to God, Adam (in this case Hebrew "ha Adam") always refers to Adam specifically.
Yeah, Lord = God (YHWH). Big surprise.

Do you have kids? Did you get them with the help of the Lord?

Did you wake up this morning? Did you do it with the help of the Lord?

How many things that we do can we also credit God with?

They wronged God. They sinned. God came and punished them. God said that it would HURT when she had kids. God kicked them out of the garden.

But God also clothed them in animal skins. God punished, but he also helped and maintained.

What was Eve thinking about God? She must have been scared out of her mind. Especially since the thing He said about childbearing was true-- it really hurt!

But she also would have had respect for God as a Father, caretaker, and provider. He had the power and right to take away her life at any time, but also the love and willingness to sustain it.

With all of that... why would she not thank God for her child? Why would she not be grateful to her Father and Creator as wholly and surely as she is greatful to her husband? Why does it seem like a problem to you that she says she aquired a man from the Lord? Come on! It's a just plain logical thing to say.





Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.

FrankiE:
Eve was no longer deceived after the Garden? Satan's ability to deceive ended? It may be obvious to you that Satan was not the Lord because scripture is specific. Can you answer for Adam and Eve? They lived it, we are reading about it.

Do we not have difficulty still in discerning what is of the Lord and what is of Satan? Do we not have people who still mistake Satan for God?
Okay, if you really want to make Eve into the world's first dunce, you can go right ahead.

But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her?

philosophizer
November 30th, 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?"

FrankiE:
That isn't what she said. What she "could have meant" is speculation, therefore, not the simplest answer.

Your "theory" is speculation too.

In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain.

There ya go-- simplest answer.

Frank Ernest
November 30th, 2004, 08:07 AM
philosophizer:
"But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say that God punished (condemned actually) Satan "right in front of her?"

philosophizer:
"In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain."

FrankiE:
Where does it say that Eve had sex with God? I'd say that requires a bunch of speculation.

philosophizer
November 30th, 2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say that God punished (condemned actually) Satan "right in front of her?"
Now who's speculating?

It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them.





philosophizer:
"In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain."

FrankiE:
Where does it say that Eve had sex with God? I'd say that requires a bunch of speculation.
Well it requires a lot less speculation than your offering.

"I have acquired a man from the LORD."

Must be God's kid. Right?

Lighthouse
December 1st, 2004, 01:37 AM
Frank-
What's wrong with you?

Frank Ernest
December 1st, 2004, 05:16 AM
philosophizer:
"Now who's speculating?"

FrankiE:
You.

philosophizer:
"It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them."

FrankiE:
Where does it say He didn't? Hebrew manuscripts don't use paragraph breaks. Those were done by translators.

Frank Ernest
December 1st, 2004, 05:31 AM
:Brandon: :
Frank-
What's wrong with you?

FrankiE:
Osteoarthritis, essential myeloproliferative thrombocythemia, and high blood pressure. All are being taken care of by some medical folks, who have some really neato machinery and pharmaceuticals.

Frank Ernest
December 1st, 2004, 05:34 AM
philosophizer:
"I have acquired a man from the LORD."
Must be God's kid. Right? "

FrankiE:
Hint: The word is "acquired" not "conceived."

philosophizer
December 1st, 2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"Now who's speculating?"

FrankiE:
You.

philosophizer:
"It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them."

FrankiE:
Where does it say He didn't? Hebrew manuscripts don't use paragraph breaks. Those were done by translators.

Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

Frank Ernest
December 2nd, 2004, 05:50 AM
philosophizer:
Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

FrankiE:
I didn't speculate on anything. The scripture does not say whether God spoke to them individually or in a group. I stated no opinion on which way it might have been. You did.

philosophizer:
If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

FrankiE:
I can tell you what I have learned from studying scripture. I have made no claims about "right" or "wrong" and I won't. When I started studying scripture, I wanted to know what scripture says, not what I want it to say, not what I think it means, not what I "believe" it to mean. There are more than enough preachers and so-called scholars out there who do that to satisfy anybody's guessing game.

I started on this pursuit because I had a suspicion that there is more to scripture than what I had been taught and led to believe. What I do not accept is that God's Word is meant to be mystifying, obscure, unclear, obtuse, subject to individual beliefs and creative interpretations, etc. I will not accept, "well, that might mean ..." or "this could be ..." as answers to anything. Especially I will not accept a somewhat common statement that "we were not meant to understand ..."

What I believe is that God revealed Himself to us and left His revealed Word in fullness and truth and it is meant to be understood in His fullness and truth. I am sure that, someday, the LORD will correct me if I went wrong somewhere.

philosophizer
December 2nd, 2004, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

FrankiE:
I didn't speculate on anything. The scripture does not say whether God spoke to them individually or in a group. I stated no opinion on which way it might have been. You did.
Scripture does not say that Cain is the child of Satan and Eve. Anyone who makes that claim is speculating.




philosophizer:
If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

FrankiE:
I can tell you what I have learned from studying scripture. I have made no claims about "right" or "wrong" and I won't. When I started studying scripture, I wanted to know what scripture says, not what I want it to say, not what I think it means, not what I "believe" it to mean. There are more than enough preachers and so-called scholars out there who do that to satisfy anybody's guessing game.

I started on this pursuit because I had a suspicion that there is more to scripture than what I had been taught and led to believe. What I do not accept is that God's Word is meant to be mystifying, obscure, unclear, obtuse, subject to individual beliefs and creative interpretations, etc. I will not accept, "well, that might mean ..." or "this could be ..." as answers to anything. Especially I will not accept a somewhat common statement that "we were not meant to understand ..."

What I believe is that God revealed Himself to us and left His revealed Word in fullness and truth and it is meant to be understood in His fullness and truth. I am sure that, someday, the LORD will correct me if I went wrong somewhere.
That's great! :thumb: You have a really good attitude about Bible study. I've never really discussed biblical issues in a thread with you before. I mostly see you in the political threads bashing the silly commies. I guess your study and my study on this issue has led to differing ideas.

Frank Ernest
December 3rd, 2004, 06:44 AM
philosophizer:
Scripture does not say that Cain is the child of Satan and Eve. Anyone who makes that claim is speculating.

FrankiE:
(See particularly verse 44)

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Frank Ernest
December 3rd, 2004, 06:48 AM
philosophizer:
That's great! You have a really good attitude about Bible study. I've never really discussed biblical issues in a thread with you before. I mostly see you in the political threads bashing the silly commies. I guess your study and my study on this issue has led to differing ideas.

FrankiE:
Thank you, philo! Bashing commies I do for fun. Bible study is serious stuff. :cheers:

geralduk
December 8th, 2004, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by tambora

Could be it has nothing to do with sex. But then again maybe it does.

Not the word eat, but the word touch. The word is only mentioned by Eve, not Adam. And yes, it was something she added. They both ate, but only one "touched".

You have made some points that I have always held to.

But, you didn't comment on the fact that enmity would be between Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
I've always been under the impression that Christ was the seed (descendant) mentioned of Eve. Every preacher I have heard talk of this verse says it is Christ. But I can't recall them ever mentioning who the other seed was.
So if Cain is not a candidate for Satan's seed (descendant), then who is?

If the word "seed" means a literal descendant of Eve, then it stands to reason that the seed mentioned of Satan would be also.

Or is it that "seed" refers to something besides a descendant and therefore does not refer to Christ?

If you go to that parable by which we can understand all parables in Mathew you will find that the "WORD is the seed"
Then you will find that there is one parable where the GOOD seed IS SOWN and his enemy came and sowed tares.
Thus the SEED of the WOMAN is CHRIST .
God willing to show that that this ONE ("IT") seed which will be a MALE("he") child born of a woman but not of ADAMS seed is but God who is the WORD which was in the beginning.
Thus the good seed is the Word of God.
and the serpents seed is the devils WORDS.

The final result being of that good seed being CHRIST.
and the serpents seed being the ANTICHIRST.
Each seed "bringing forth fruit after its own kind"
Thus they who 'argue' from a carnal mind as to angels having sex with women hav eforgotten that lesson that the Lord gave to the pharasees over marriage and that "angels " are neither male or female"
and if it is argued that angels are always spoken of in the male gender that si because GOD is always so spoken for He has revelaed himself as the FATHER of all that is good.
Even as the scriptures speak of the devil as the FATHER of lies.
Thus while ADAM slept the devil SOWED his LIES into the heart and mind of eve.
the fruit of which was spiritual BLINDNESS and eventual death.
Those "sons of God " therefore which knew those women are as the sons of God are ALWAYS depicted in scripture.
THE RIGHTOUS line of CHRIST they who are BORNagain. by that "incorruptable seed" which is Christ.
They therefore yoked themselves to the unrightous line even of CAINES.
to the extent that ther ecame a timne when only 9 that is NINE people were saved from out of the WHOLE earth.
So it was then so shall it be in the last days.
Where the church is committing spiritual fornication with the world and in doing so is losing her salt.
and the world is descending into gross wickedness and violence covers the whole earth.
"As it was in the days of noah so shall it be in the last days"

in Christ
gerald uk

Frank Ernest
December 8th, 2004, 07:01 AM
geralduk:
Thus the good seed is the Word of God.
and the serpents seed is the devils WORDS.

FrankiE:
Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Mat 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

philosophizer
December 8th, 2004, 07:05 AM
Frank, is it possible that is a metaphor?

geralduk
December 8th, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

geralduk:
Thus the good seed is the Word of God.
and the serpents seed is the devils WORDS.

FrankiE:
Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Mat 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

if then I managed to arrive at the same conclusion using other scripture then it is irefutavble.

Tambora
December 8th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Gerald,

I appreciate your input. I'm still sitting in the middle on this one.


But your referral to no marriage in heaven does not apply to earth.
And besides, one does not have to be married to have offspring.
And on top of that, does a woman who is godly and marries one who is ungodly always produce an ungodly offspring? That’s news to me.

And could you list the NINE that were saved.

Thanks.:)

Lighthouse
December 9th, 2004, 02:01 AM
tambora-
You'll need to refer to him as geralduk, because there is another poster who goes by the name Gerald, here. And the two of them are pretty opposite.

Tambora
December 9th, 2004, 02:10 AM
Thanks for the heads-up.
I will remember that in the future.;)

Frank Ernest
December 10th, 2004, 05:59 AM
philo:
Frank, is it possible that is a metaphor?

FrankiE:
Why would Jesus "declare" (explain fully) a parable using a metaphor? Seems to me that would compound the comprehension problem the apostles were having. The apostles wanted a clear plain-talk explanation. Jesus gave it to them.

geralduk
December 15th, 2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by tambora

Gerald,

I appreciate your input. I'm still sitting in the middle on this one.


But your referral to no marriage in heaven does not apply to earth.
And besides, one does not have to be married to have offspring.
And on top of that, does a woman who is godly and marries one who is ungodly always produce an ungodly offspring? That’s news to me.

And could you list the NINE that were saved.

Thanks.:)

ENOCH and the Noah and his family.

Frank Ernest
December 15th, 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by geralduk

ENOCH and the Noah and his family.

:confused:
Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

geralduk
December 20th, 2004, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:confused:
Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

"COUNT" all the days of noah and all the others so mentioned from ADAM to NOAHS days thier births and deaths and you will find that in Noahs DAYS there was also ENOCH.
Enoch walked by FAITH "for he pleased God" and without faith you cannot please God"
Noah "in that he feared " believed God and so was "counted rightous"
But even as ABRAHAM walked PERFECTLY before God and he also was in the "DAYS of LOT"
So too did ENOCH walk perfectly before God.
While it can be seen later after the flood that NOAH did not.

Here then "in divers ways" do you see what it will be like in the last days"
Where you will have CHRISTIANS who are BORNagain but who do not WALK perfectly before the Lord.
Who walk by SIGHT and not by faith.
And those who "WALK in the light even as HE is in the light"
Thus ENOCH was saved and NOAH was saved.

But while ENOCH was TRANSLATED BEFORE the outpouring of Gods wrath upon all flesh.
Noah had to endure to the end and go through it.
LAbraham was nowhere near SODOM and was as RICH in the blessing of God as he was in the beginning.
While lot though as RICH in the beginning "suffered loss as through fire" saving but his own soul.

Frank Ernest
December 20th, 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by geralduk

"COUNT" all the days of noah and all the others so mentioned from ADAM to NOAHS days thier births and deaths and you will find that in Noahs DAYS there was also ENOCH.

But while ENOCH was TRANSLATED BEFORE the outpouring of Gods wrath upon all flesh.

The two statements above are contradictory.

If one counts according to the years given in the Bible, one will discover that Enoch was taken some 669 years before the Flood.

prospector
August 18th, 2006, 10:25 AM
To gain a broader perspective of the topic and issues surrounding the 1st son of Adam and Eve, I strongly recommend reading the new book 'The Parthenon code'.

In this book the Author shows that the biblical figure Kain, the 1st child of Adam and Eve, is also the Greek God Hephaistos, the 1st child of Zeus and Hera.

It also shows that the very belief system of the Greeks is a post-deluvian recreation of the serpent worship beliefs of Kain and his descendants who were all killed in the flood.

Just go to this site and check it out for yourselves.

www.theparthenoncode.com

Jefferson
August 18th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Welcome to TOL prospector! :wave:

bob b
September 9th, 2006, 10:34 AM
To gain a broader perspective of the topic and issues surrounding the 1st son of Adam and Eve, I strongly recommend reading the new book 'The Parthenon code'.

In this book the Author shows that the biblical figure Kain, the 1st child of Adam and Eve, is also the Greek God Hephaistos, the 1st child of Zeus and Hera.

It also shows that the very belief system of the Greeks is a post-deluvian recreation of the serpent worship beliefs of Kain and his descendants who were all killed in the flood.

Just go to this site and check it out for yourselves.

www.theparthenoncode.com

Part of this book appeared as an article in 2003.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/Athena.asp