|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 3, 2011 22:25:12 GMT -5
When I read Genesis 3 the other day, a few things struck me for which I made notes. I pretty much write down whatever strikes me, no matter how bizarre the thought might be. Here are my thoughts. Comment if you feel like it.
____________
1. (Genesis 3:13 NASB) Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
(Romans 7:11 NASB) for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
- The serpent deceived Eve via the one commandment God gave them.
- Paul states that "sin" took opportunity through the commandment to deceive him.
- The serpent's deception ultimately "killed" Adam and Eve by causing them to be banned from the tree of life.
- Paul states that sin's deception "killed" him.
----
Romans 7:9-10 NASB
(9) I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(10) and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
Genesis 2:16-17 NASB
(16) The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
(17) but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
----
James 1:14-15 NASB
(14) But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
(15) Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
Genesis 3:6-7 NASB
(6) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
(7) Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
----
(1 Peter 5:8-9a NASB) Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith,
(Genesis 4:7 NASB) "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
Here, the devil (the serpent) and sin are referred to again as though they are the same, as the serpent deceived Eve and sin deceived Paul.
____________
2. (Genesis 3:14 NASB) The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
Are cattle and beasts cursed? How can the serpent be cursed "more" than them?
____________
3. (Genesis 3:16 NASB) To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
Bizarre thought: "Man" (our husband) is our flesh; our desire will be to satisfy our fleshly desires, it will rule over us. Later, our flesh must die and our new husband must be Christ.
"Woman" may represent our "self"/selfishness/lust. The "serpent" our temptation to sin because of our lust/selfishness.
See also James 1:12-15.
James 1:12-15 NASB
(12) Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
(13) Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
(14) But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
(15) Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
____________
4. (Genesis 3:20 NASB) Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
How can Eve be the mother of all the living when they were the only two people extant at the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 3, 2011 22:42:44 GMT -5
I edited item #1 a couple of times after posting it, most significantly adding the 1 Peter and Genesis 4 verses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 4, 2011 12:09:54 GMT -5
4. (Genesis 3:20 NASB) Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. How can Eve be the mother of all the living when they were the only two people extant at the time? Lots of interesting thoughts here but I only have time to make one quick comment. Genesis 3:20 reads literally "and-he- is-calling / the-human[Adam] / name-of / woman-of-him / Eve / that / she / she-becomes / mother-of / all-of / living-one". To me, it would appear she was called Eve because she would become the mother of all living. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 4, 2011 22:23:10 GMT -5
4. (Genesis 3:20 NASB) Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. How can Eve be the mother of all the living when they were the only two people extant at the time? Lots of interesting thoughts here but I only have time to make one quick comment. Genesis 3:20 reads literally "and-he- is-calling / the-human[Adam] / name-of / woman-of-him / Eve / that / she / she-becomes / mother-of / all-of / living-one". To me, it would appear she was called Eve because she would become the mother of all living. Hi Sheldon. Yes, I noticed that too, I think it was at the Scripture4All website. I can't find anything that specifically addresses the tense (i.e., past, present, future, etc.) Maybe Hebrew doesn't have tenses like Greek. I also checked several translations. While a few of them do translate it as "would become," most of them say "was." |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 5, 2011 1:03:47 GMT -5
Lots of interesting thoughts here but I only have time to make one quick comment. Genesis 3:20 reads literally "and-he- is-calling / the-human[Adam] / name-of / woman-of-him / Eve / that / she / she-becomes / mother-of / all-of / living-one". To me, it would appear she was called Eve because she would become the mother of all living. Hi Sheldon. Yes, I noticed that too, I think it was at the Scripture4All website. I can't find anything that specifically addresses the tense (i.e., past, present, future, etc.) Maybe Hebrew doesn't have tenses like Greek. I also checked several translations. While a few of them do translate it as "would become," most of them say "was." Bev, No tense in Hebrew. "She is." I believe the question is "who is/are the living." Notice, Adam didn't die a physical death. The "living" are those who are not dead in the manner that Adam had already died when he renamed her Eve. Therefore, the statement must be prophetic and must refer to those redeemed from Adam's death or who never died Adam's death. (That would be Christ and the Church. Rom. 16:20) The Blue Letter Bible doesn't have a Hebrew word for "all." The Hebrew says "mother living." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 5, 2011 23:25:33 GMT -5
Hi Sheldon. Yes, I noticed that too, I think it was at the Scripture4All website. I can't find anything that specifically addresses the tense (i.e., past, present, future, etc.) Maybe Hebrew doesn't have tenses like Greek. I also checked several translations. While a few of them do translate it as "would become," most of them say "was." Bev, No tense in Hebrew. "She is." I believe the question is "who is/are the living." Notice, Adam didn't die a physical death. The "living" are those who are not dead in the manner that Adam had already died when he renamed her Eve. Therefore, the statement must be prophetic and must refer to those redeemed from Adam's death or who never died Adam's death. (That would be Christ and the Church. Rom. 16:20) The Blue Letter Bible doesn't have a Hebrew word for "all." The Hebrew says "mother living." Hi Jeff. If this is so, what is the rationale for declaring Eve as the mother of the living/redeemed? She died the death, as well as Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 5, 2011 23:55:52 GMT -5
Bev,
Who is the seed of the woman (Eve)? Eve is the mother of Christ and His bride. Christ and the Church are the living.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 6, 2011 10:09:35 GMT -5
The Blue Letter Bible doesn't have a Hebrew word for "all." The Hebrew says "mother living." From what I've seen, the Hebrew says "mother-of / all-of / living-one" (those being three identifiable words; Strong's numbers 517, 3605, and 2416, for anyone wishing to look them up). Also, we shouldn't overlook the meaning of the name "Eve". It means "life-giver". This name stems from what God had just said to them. He addressed Eve first, telling her of the pains she will have to endure to bring forth children. Then God addresses Adam, after which, Adam then gives Eve her name. Given the flow of the narrative, I believe the name given to Eve was a direct result of the pronouncement God made to her that she shall bare children (in sorrow). Although they were commanded to "multiply", there is no record that Adam knew his wife before the fall, and personally, I think it may be a part of their innocence that either they didn't know how or perhaps had a total lack of desire. It was in god's pronouncement to Eve where He says that her "desire will be toward her husband", so perhaps there was no desire in this manner before the fall. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 6, 2011 12:07:39 GMT -5
The Blue Letter Bible doesn't have a Hebrew word for "all." The Hebrew says "mother living." From what I've seen, the Hebrew says "mother-of / all-of / living-one" (those being three identifiable words; Strong's numbers 517, 3605, and 2416, for anyone wishing to look them up). Also, we shouldn't overlook the meaning of the name "Eve". It means "life-giver". This name stems from what God had just said to them. He addressed Eve first, telling her of the pains she will have to endure to bring forth children. Then God addresses Adam, after which, Adam then gives Eve her name. Given the flow of the narrative, I believe the name given to Eve was a direct result of the pronouncement God made to her that she shall bare children (in sorrow). Although they were commanded to "multiply", there is no record that Adam knew his wife before the fall, and personally, I think it may be a part of their innocence that either they didn't know how or perhaps had a total lack of desire. It was in god's pronouncement to Eve where He says that her "desire will be toward her husband", so perhaps there was no desire in this manner before the fall. I think this is a great observation from you, Morris. Iron sharpens iron. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 6, 2011 12:47:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 6, 2011 14:26:44 GMT -5
No problem. All we can do is use and rely on what we have as resources. That's we I sometimes use wording like I did in my last post; "From what I've seen...". I'm merely trusting in my resources for this kind of information but it does show how it's good not to rely on a single source. Edit: Actually, thanks for showing me a new resource! I've had difficulty finding a good interlinear of the Greek OT Septuagint. In the Greek, Eve appears as "Zwh", and "living" appears as "zwntwn". What I found interesting is that (according to Strong's) the Greek word used for 'Eve' in Genesis 3:20 of the LXX is based on the Greek word for 'living'. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 6, 2011 16:26:17 GMT -5
When reading/studying Scripture, did you ever feel like you were on the verge of seeing/understanding something, but it remains just out of reach?
In reviewing Genesis 3 again, in light of you all's recent comments, the following idea started to take form. There are large pieces missing, but I think you will see the pattern.
First, I am going on the basis that Genesis 1 describes a general creation, and Genesis 2 a more specific creation: that of the garden and someone to tend it.
Genesis 2:7 says that God formed man of dust of the ground. That word "formed" means to squeeze or mold into shape, like a potter forming a vessel.
The man is formed from something already existing (dust of the ground). He is not a creation from nothing, but one molded for a specific purpose. This purpose was to cultivate and keep the garden (Genesis 2:15).
The word "cultivate" means to serve and to "keep" means to guard or watch. This man was set apart by God to serve His purpose.
But the man failed in his purpose by disobeying God. Therefore, God put him out of the garden, back "to cultivate the ground from which he was taken" (Genesis 3:23). "Cultivate" is the same Hebrew word as before, meaning to serve. He was put back to serve that from which he was separated.
The pattern is that of sanctification (or separation), failure, return to previous state (or perhaps even lower than previous state), which must then be followed by repentance in order to return to a state of grace (favor with God). Or in some cases, to await a deliverer sent from God.
Think of the pattern repeated throughout the Bible. How God's people, whom He set apart as His own, disobeyed and were exiled to serve the Babylonians or the Egyptians. Then God sends a deliverer to rescue them (think Moses, and of course Jesus).
The deliverer always encourages repentance from the people, but those who don't repent end up back in bondage.
This pattern is nothing new, of course. It is the significance of it in the Adam and Eve story and how it helps explain the meaning of Genesis 1-3 that feels just out of reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 6, 2011 18:39:58 GMT -5
When reading/studying Scripture, did you ever feel like you were on the verge of seeing/understanding something, but it remains just out of reach? Haha! Yep! Remember that head covering thread we had? Genesis is indeed a collection of individual 'books', eleven in total I think. The first begins with the familiar "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The next book begins at Genesis 2:4 with "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth..." and then at 5:1 with "This is the book of the generations of Adam". So in many ways we aren't reading a continuous narrative through Genesis at all, but rather several small narratives, each with its own topic. We have the creation, the generations of it, that being Adam (and Eve), and their generations, and their generations. Regarding your observation of a pattern of behavior, I agree with it completely. Adam and Eve set the pattern themselves, and as I believe, the pattern is more or less set in ourselves as it was first manifested in them; that being, we have a desire to do what we want when something appears to us as "pleasant" or "desired". We have the ability to place our will over and above God's. Adam and Eve discovered this when they took the fruit and ate. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 6, 2011 20:42:34 GMT -5
Yes, I'm aware of the behavior pattern. I just couldn't shake the notion that there was more there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jun 7, 2011 9:22:23 GMT -5
First, I am going on the basis that Genesis 1 describes a general creation, and Genesis 2 a more specific creation: that of the garden and someone to tend it. Hi Bev, I've heard this view a few times. Out of curiosity, how would you explain why Eve is called "the mother of all living" if Genesis 1 were a separate creation? Presumably the man and woman of Genesis 1 had children too? Paul |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 7, 2011 22:10:57 GMT -5
Once 4:
A great thread here. You have an excellent side by side of two verses:
Romans 7:9-10 NASB
(9) I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(10) and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
Genesis 2:16-17 NASB
(16) The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
(17) but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
As I read further, I find that Law is directly associated with sin. What Adam and Eve did was choose Law by choosing the symbolic Tree of Knowledge. This was the request for the Mosaic Law basically - them saying "we think if we were to run the show, we'd be happier" They believed that created things could do more for them than the creator himself.
When they did that, they were locked to Law. Everything was now more difficult. For them (in a mythological sense) they had birth pangs, and they had to work the soil. But for the Jews, they had a less symbolic uphill battle through the 'pains' of Law.
For us today, we have the law written on our hearts, which is how we become accountable to sin. No more rule book, no more stone tablets - its on us to find the law inside ourselves and be true to it, just the way God intended it.
Paul..
I'll try that one: "how would you explain why Eve is called "the mother of all living" - any comment like this should be taken in context of who wrote it.
Refer to Genesis 5 for the genealogy of Adam to Abraham - this is presenting the lineage of Israel, not mankind. Adam and Eve were the mother and father of the Jews, who, from Genesis 2 on, referred to themselves as the center of the universe, as the entire earth.
So, in the context of the Bible, phrases like "all the living" "all mankind" "entire world" etc should have an assumed "of the Jews" added at the end of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 7, 2011 23:09:23 GMT -5
Hi Paul! I haven't heard from you in ages. Good to know you are still alive and kicking. I think comankind did a good job of answering your question for me, regarding the application being to the Jews. Adam and Eve were the first people whom God set apart for Himself.
Comankind, you wrote: "For us today, we have the law written on our hearts, which is how we become accountable to sin. No more rule book, no more stone tablets - its on us to find the law inside ourselves and be true to it, just the way God intended it."
That's good. I like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 8, 2011 9:42:48 GMT -5
Since my view differs from the others expressed here, I might as well give it. Hi Bev, I've heard this view a few times. Out of curiosity, how would you explain why Eve is called "the mother of all living" if Genesis 1 were a separate creation? Presumably the man and woman of Genesis 1 had children too? Paul Why should this be presumed? Is there any textual reason? As we read Genesis 11-14, we see that God speaks of Abram's descendants and how they are to become great in number and possess a land. Would we be right to presume that Abram had children? After all, he was seventy-five years old when left Haran in chapter 12. It would seem logical to assume he had unmentioned children based on his age and the references to his descendants. Yet we'd see we were wrong once we started reading chapter 15. My point is that there is no reason for us to presume children in Genesis 1. Now to "explain why Eve is called "the mother of all living" if Genesis 1 were a separate creation?" First, I don't believe it speaks of a separate creation but rather a separate document speaking of shared background. There are eleven such documents within Genesis and each speaks to its own subject matter. Let me again say what I said earlier: This builds on what the story provides and the subject matter that the passage deals with. It makes me believe that the naming of Eve was not some random comment of observation by Adam, but a direct consequence of God's statements to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 8, 2011 11:31:27 GMT -5
Refer to Genesis 5 for the genealogy of Adam to Abraham - this is presenting the lineage of Israel, not mankind. Adam and Eve were the mother and father of the Jews, who, from Genesis 2 on, referred to themselves as the center of the universe, as the entire earth. Under this argument we could just as easily conclude that it had nothing to do with mankind or the Jews and instead referred to the lineage of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, based on Luke 3:23-38; from "son of God" to "Son of God". Besides, Genesis 5 has nothing to do with Abraham or the Jews. It is " the book of the genealogy of Adam" up to Noah and his three sons. Again, we could just as easily say this is regarding the three nations born from those three sons. I am simply applying the same reasoning. Additionally, I don't see any evidence that the Jews (who do not yet exist is any of these narratives) referred to themselves "as the center of the universe, as the entire earth". There are many verses that make no sense within their context under this assumption. Why "should" they be assumed? This is my personal observation, but I see "Jews" being read into "earth" on the basis of a philosophy, and not because of any textual directives. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 8, 2011 22:08:58 GMT -5
Morris,
The philosophy is "Scripture interprets Scripture."
It has been demonstrated to beat the common assumption that a Hebrew word translated "earth" in a translation published in 1611, only threes years after Kepler invented the concept of planet, must necessarily mean planet earth.
By the way, I've been saying that Genesis is a collection of books for far longer than this site has been up. This view of Genesis does not cause one to conclude your view of "earth."
|
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 9, 2011 0:14:56 GMT -5
"and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” Gen 22:18
"Listen, you heavens, and I will speak; hear, you earth, the words of my mouth." Deut 32:1
“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. "-Ezra1:2
"Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" - psm 8:9
Just a handful of verses that imply the 'we are the world' persona of the Jews. The OT is filled with them. On top of this, their idea of "earth" in those days was far different than today. When we take their perception of Gods special relationship with the Jews, we add their limited view of the world at the time, and apply to realities today... then we have Eve as the mother of the Aborigines.
Also, after reading Gen 22 regarding the offering of Isaac: Had Abraham hesitated...according to the scriptures, Israel would never have existed, seen the promise land or a Messiah. Abraham in effect saved 'the world' through his willingness to offer up Isaac. An incredibly noble act with embellished impact. God does not leave such things in human hands....this is religion talking.
All scripture is inspired. We are children. God loves our imaginations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 9, 2011 10:02:26 GMT -5
Morris, The philosophy is "Scripture interprets Scripture." But that isn't what's being done. "Scripture interpreting scripture" is when we see a clear statement in one place that explains the unclear statement somewhere else. For example, looking at Acts 4:10-12, " let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” " The reference for the underlined is in Psalms 118:22. Up until we read the above in Acts, we could presume that the "stone" should be 'this' or 'that', but Acts interprets Psalms for us here. We have no scriptural interpretation that tells us that the Jews were considered the earth/world. In fact, there are scriptures that show otherwise. Deuteronomy 7:6 says, " For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth." Or, 1 Kings 8:53, " For You separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be Your inheritance, as You spoke by Your servant Moses, when You brought our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD." This is an example of using a philosophy to interpret scripture. There is no reason to insert the latter (additional) definition of "Earth" (the generally capitalized version) as in 'third planet from the sun' into ancient Hebrew writings. The word "earth" (non-capitalized) existed long before the concept of planet that we understand today. The word "earth" is simply the solid land (it's root likely meaning 'to be firm'), to distinguish between the sea and the sky (heavens). " In all the earth" is simply 'in all the land', whatever that land may be, and for as much of it as is known or even unknown. For instance, in 1 Kings 8:53 as seen above, "earth" included the land that the people of Egypt occupied. God's inheritance was separated from "peoples of the earth". Those people were the Egyptians and they were brought out from Egypt, yet this philosophy wants me to say 'separated them from among all the peoples of the Jews'. This just doesn't work. People have been saying that Genesis is a collection of books for longer than any of us have been alive. Be it a collection of separate "books" or simply separate narratives within one book, I don't think we can truly know and I don't think it makes any difference either, as long as we see that it isn't one continuous story but rather many (as identified within the text itself). The view that Genesis consists of separate narratives has little to do with my view that earth means the ground. What it does do is help in understanding the differences between Genesis chapter 1 - 2:3 and 2:4 to the end of chapter 4. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 9, 2011 11:05:05 GMT -5
"and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.” Gen 22:18 Genesis 41:56 " The famine was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians. And the famine became severe in the land of Egypt." Exact same Hebrew word. Would you say the famine was over the Jews? Or we can agree with scripture, Genesis 41:57 " So all countries came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine was severe in all lands". This includes Egypt as well, as seen in verse 55, " So when all the land of Egypt was famished...". This is a Hebrew idiom. We see it in Job as well. Job 16:16-19 " My face is flushed from weeping, And on my eyelids is the shadow of death; Although no violence is in my hands, And my prayer is pure. “O earth, do not cover my blood, And let my cry have no resting place! Surely even now my witness is in heaven, And my evidence is on high." Persia had conquered and controlled more kingdoms than just Israel and Judah. In fact, scripture shows us that these kingdoms are more than simply the Jews. 2 Chronicles 36:23, " Thus says Cyrus king of Persia:
All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is among you of all His people? May the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up!" Cyrus said to all the kingdoms he commanded (as king of other kings) that any Jews in any of these other kingdoms are free to go to Jerusalem. Psalm 8:3,4 " When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?" This is a direct contract between what is seen in the heavens/sky, and man. So great and enduring are these works of God, why should He recognize us mere mortals? The old testament does not say the Jews are the world. It says they are a people, a nation, holy men, blessed, but never the earth or the world. You may read the OT that way but it doesn't say it that way. I fully agree that God does not leave such things in human hands! For if God wanted Israel to exist, it would exist regardless of what Abraham did. Luke 3:8, " Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 9, 2011 11:19:06 GMT -5
Morris, The philosophy is "Scripture interprets Scripture." But that isn't what's being done. "Scripture interpreting scripture" is when we see a clear statement in one place that explains the unclear statement somewhere else. We have no scriptural interpretation that tells us that the Jews were considered the earth/world. In fact, there are scriptures that show otherwise. Deuteronomy 7:6 says, " For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth." Or, 1 Kings 8:53, " For You separated them from among all the peoples of the earth to be Your inheritance, as You spoke by Your servant Moses, when You brought our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord GOD." In other words, you have taken a claim somebody made and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Tim Martin and I spent some 500 pages spelling out the issues. We carefully demonstrated that "heavens and earth" always has a covenantal context. It is never used in a physical context. We have also demonstrated that the physical land called "face of the earth" is limited in area, it is not the entire planet, or even all of the land known to the writer. It is the land where a people (typically the covenant people) reside. Every time a word is used to define a large amount of physical land, that physical land is covenantally defined. When a word is used to define men, the men in question are covenantally defined. Etc. And some words, the Greek kosmos in particular, is translated in a way that communicates global land for ever and ever to us, but is truly limited to a covenant people (with or without their land) of a single generation. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 9, 2011 13:40:51 GMT -5
In other words, you have taken a claim somebody made and twisted it into something unrecognizable. Tim Martin and I spent some 500 pages spelling out the issues. I take it from this that I do not understand the claim you are making. It is not from a lack of trying though. What is the "covenantal context"? As I stated above, "earth" means ground or land. Can you give me an example of a land being "covenantally defined"? Now, I realize you've spent 500 pages dealing some issues (and I have no idea what any of those issues are). However, would you able to spend just a little time dealing with some of the issues I've raised in this thread? I would appreciate it. Thanks. Still your brother in the Lord, despite these differences. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 9, 2011 16:05:05 GMT -5
Genesis 41:56 " The famine was over all the face of the earth, and Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians. And the famine became severe in the land of Egypt." Exact same Hebrew word. Would you say the famine was over the Jews? Or we can agree with scripture, Ahhh, snarky is it?  I view your point as supportive of mine. That "earth" is entirely conditional. I did not say that the Jews felt their land and people marked the boundaries of physical creation. I said they had a superiority complex. Absolutely. Cyrus said God gave them to him. All nations of the earth. This would have included North America, South America, Australia and all of Asia. Or was it less? Was Adam & Eve's family 'all nations of the earth' or was it less? This is the point I'm probably doing a bad job of making. This was not necessarily the point. The name/legacy/power of God was not recognizable in Antarctica by Eskimos, was it? Or was it? Please note your phrasing "The OT does not say the Jews were..." Keep in mind the OT was written BY the Jews, ABOUT the Jews. The OT is not an objective piece of literature. If you believe that Israel was God's chosen people, and that all other people on earth were condemned, then agreed. That salvation only comes to us through one race of man, who became condemned for their pride...then yes, I can see your point for sure. Just because the OT says something a certain way does not mean God meant it to be said that way. He may have written on stone tablets with a finger, but scripture was not dictation. If one wishes to believe how Israel viewed themselves is how God viewed them, then more power to them for sure. I personally am very selective with this concept, at least when it comes to reading passages. I use this to understand key messages and themes of the Bible, so the 'lowest common denominator' I guess you could say. I'll also try to understand specific words/terms a little better. But I find when taking a scripture from a completely different account to understand another verse, that I run a risk of patching phrases together to create a personal theology. Different writers, stories, context, culture, perspective, etc lead to different meanings. JL - I'm just catching on here - forgive the ignorance. But you appear to be promoting a book? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 9, 2011 22:45:49 GMT -5
Ahhh, snarky is it? I view your point as supportive of mine. That "earth" is entirely conditional. I did not say that the Jews felt their land and people marked the boundaries of physical creation. I said they had a superiority complex. My apologies if I came across as snarky, that wasn't my intent. I do agree with a bit here in that what the "earth" references can vary somewhat, simply based on the fact that it means ground/land. However, what I was showing was that " the earth" had nothing to do with, and nothing to do in relation to, the Israelites. It referred to the land of Egypt and all the other surrounding nations equally. This is where our modern minds are imposing upon the text. As far as Cyrus knew and believed, there were no nations that were not subject to him. This was the world as known to them. If the Israelites believed they were the center of the universe, so did every other culture. You know, the world sure has gotten smaller thanks to technology. For us perhaps. But there are millions in the world who have no internet or the other advances we take for granted. The world has not gotten smaller for them, it has only gotten smaller from our perspective. And from Cyrus' perspective, he pretty much ruled the world. And yes, from Adam and Eve came all the nations of the earth. Scripture is quite specific in this. 1 Corinthians 15:45 " And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." The Greek is careful to note that the first man was Adam. It does not say the "first Adam... last Adam", but the "first man Adam... last Adam". This is a huge difference. Here's another huge issue. We cannot claim Eve to be the "mother of all living" in a covenantal sense. Scripture denies us that option. Genesis 2:17, " 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" Romans 7:9-12, " I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.Both Genesis and Romans confirm that once Adam and Eve ate of the tree, sin killed them; they had broken commandment. They were dead in sin (or more accurately in the Hebrew, "in dying you shall die", or, you will "die until dead"). Then, after God's pronouncements upon them, Adam is to name Eve "mother of all the living ones" based on covenant? No, she was the mother of the dead-ones! Certainly not; Eskimos are in the Arctic.  (Sorry. I thought it was funny). But seriously, the majesty of God is not reliant on man's recognition of it. The psalmist declares God's 'largeness', 'nobleness', 'powerfulness', based on his observing what God created. No matter where we go, God's name is majestic. Sorry, I am out of time. I'll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 9, 2011 23:58:55 GMT -5
Morris,
What does "heaven and earth" refer to in Scripture? What passed away in Rev. 21:1? Was it the physical universe? Or was it the old covenant?
"Heaven and earth" always refers to covenant/covenant people/something defined covenantally. It never refers to the physical universe. Or at least, it can be understood in this covenantal sense in every verse of Scripture. It can be understood in a physical sense in a few verses of Scripture, but that sense does harm elsewhere.
What is meant by the phrase "the face of the earth?" Does it mean the whole planet earth or the surface of the whole planet?
No. It always refers to a specific land area. That land is associated with the people in the immediate context of Scripture. That land is defined by which people are on it, not by geographical borders.
What does "world" mean? Does it mean planet earth?
The Greek "kosmos" means one people of one generation. The Greek "oikoumene" refers to the Roman empire. They might include the land that this one people possess or that the Roman empire possessed, but that is secondary. The words reference the whole body of people who have a defined relationship to the body. Those people not a part of that body are not in view when those words are used.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 10, 2011 0:24:35 GMT -5
JL - I'm just catching on here - forgive the ignorance. But you appear to be promoting a book? Comakind, Yes I am. Tim Martin and I wrote a book (now in its 3rd edition). The original purpose was to demonstrate that preterism, specifically Covenant Eschatology, demands that the Flood was a physically local/regional event, primarily for a covenantal purpose, that is judgment of the covenant people. It has expanded from there. Since finishing the book, we have come to realize that our conclusions were more far reaching than we had imagined. Everything in Scripture needs to be read in a covenant context. Bara (create) is the verb form of berith (covenant). Standard usage would require that God baras a berith. God covenants a covenant. God creates a created thing. The old covenant, the first heaven and first earth which passed away in Rev. 21:1, was covenanted in Gen. 1:1. "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent." Numbers 23:19. "Man?" "Son of man?" In English, it appears to have a poetic element, calling the same person two different names. Is it? The verse actually read, in Hebrew, "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of Adam, that He should repent." Adam had a covenant relation with God. These are not the same person. The man is a liar. The son of Adam is a liar that knows God and knows he should repent. Far fetched? "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." What man? My ancestors in the British Isles? No! My wife's ancestors on the Ivory Coast? Certainly not! My cousin from east Asia. Not a chance! The Sabbath was made for those men in covenant with God, the sons of Adam, the Jews. Our website is BeyondCreationScience.com/. You can read part of the book there. If you are still interested, Mike Loomis of PreteristRadio.com sells the book. The proceeds go to help support Preterist Radio. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 10, 2011 8:07:13 GMT -5
Thanks JL.
Fascinating. I thought I was on an island believing and teaching that Adam was the first Jew / not the first man. It's been an eye-opening exercise for sure.
I'll say this: I personally am refraining from any theology or commentary. Just reading the Bible and letting HS do it's thing. If there's one thing I've learned its that when the bible says the "blind lead the blind" its not referring to a selective group, it's describing all of man. (see the Buddhist story of the blind men and the elephant)
But sounds very interesting!
I tend to not use terms like "covenant" though (this is a Jewish thing) although now I understand what you mean. I use terms like "lesson" and "trial" to describe how God used the Israelites as an example.
For me- I really view the account of Job as the microcosm of all of scripture. Riches to rags to exponentially greater riches. God's sovreignty and man's dedication to that sovreignty was challenged by a spirit creature. A man's dedication wasn't shaken by what happened to him or his family physically, he kept his mind on spiritual things. (On the contrary, Adam and Israel were drawn to the physical - tree of knowledge and Law) Well-meaning advisors misled Job spiritually (Priesthood, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc) Job conquered and was rewarded (Jesus, apostles, us) And most importantly, a trial/lesson was closed in heaven that Job was unaware he was a part of (Israel did this on a greater scale, proving that man cannot rule themselves spiritually)
|
|
