bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: Extol on March 31, 2009, 04:04:05 PM
-
I was reading some of Ray's old e-mail responses and came across this one about Cain's wife. Does anyone know if Ray still believes this? Since the Nashville conference I've been very intrigued about the possibility of other peoples apart from [and maybe before] Adam's line.
Cain obviously married one of His sisters. This practice was allowed in the early stages of man replenishing of the earth. Tradition tells us that Adam and Eve had SEVENTY children. They lived 900 years you know. "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, and he begat sons AND DAUGHTERS" (Gen. 5:4).
-
Extol,Hello.
Very interesting subject matter.I would have to believe that since Scripture does not state that there were people before Adam and Eve, that all belief other wise would be of pure conjecture. Now,I believe that the Spirit can lead one to think and meditate on the subject,but without definite scriptural proof, it would be pure speculation. :)
Peace...Mark
-
Hi Extol, Mark,
These are some excerpts from The Postscript To Nashville 08 Conference. There are several places in the Nashville 08 Conference papers where Ray discusses more about Humanity and Man being introduced on the scene. I would suggest you read All The Nashville 08 Transcripts to get your complete answer.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9130.0.html
Excerpt # 1. FIRST HUMANS
Now I talked a little, not during the conference so much, but in some of the bull sessions in the evening we had. Where it was said, ‘were Adam and Eve the first humans?’ Well, I said, not necessarily and I gave numerous reasons for that. I thought of another one here just yesterday, so I’ll throw this out just for fun and just to think about. I’m not making some big stand on this.
I used to think where it says God formed man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), He’s just going back to explain in more detail what He did in chapter 1. But I’m thinking that’s not tenable either.
So let’s ask ourselves, when God created herbs and things, did He just create one? One piece of moss, one blade of grass? Or did He make grass, a lot of grass and a lot of things. Well let me explain this, because I don’t know if I did this at the conference. Notice where it says in verse 11.
Now what do science finds are the progression of plants? You start with the primitive, they can be somewhat advanced, until you finally have whole trees producing fruit. What is one of the last things in plant life that comes on the scene according to the geological table? It’s a very recent addition… flowers. Flowers are relatively new to plant life in the geological time scale.
So obviously He didn’t make one blade of grass or one piece of algae, there was a multitude. Now notice when we come over to verse 20.
Gen 1:20 And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures, that hath life.
Did He just make one male and one female fish or was there an abundance of them? Then we go on verse 21, “He made the great tanniyn.” Which I believe you know are the dinosaurs, the reptiles.
Then we have the cattle, verse 24. Did He just make one cow and one bull, is that it? Well, it says He made cattle.
Well then when we come down to verse 26, it says “God said, Let Us make man…” But the Hebrew is ‘humanity.’ “Let us make humanity.” Did He really just make one man and one woman? That’s not what He did with all the other things, did He? Look at it.
Gen. 1:27 Let Us make humanity in Our image after Our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle…
Remember, I pointed out it doesn’t say let them have dominion over the great tanniyn, the dinosaurs. Why? Because they were extinct for 50 million years.
“In the image of God created He him.“ That’s what it says, but that’s not in the Hebrew. It just says, “In the image of God created.” That’s all, it doesn’t say “He him.” Concordant puts “created it.” God created it, humanity, it. So it just says “in the image of God created.” He created, but to make the English more understandable, they put in “…created He him.” God created him, but the “him” is not in there.
Excerpt #2.
“Male and female created.” Now in our translation, it says “male and female He created them.” So it’s pretty difficult to say, ‘well there was one man and one woman.’ He created humanity, He created humanity male and He created humanity female. Humanity, okay.
Now when we come to Adam and Eve, He gives them a name and we know it’s just one. Are they the first ones though? Maybe not. Because we later have Cain, that says his sentence is too great, wherever I go, they will kill me (Gen. 4:13-14). Who will kill him? Who? There was only Abel and he killed Abel. So if there’s only Adam and Eve and their two sons, Cain and Abel… well Cain killed Abel, so now there’s only one man left, and his mother and father. He says to God, wherever I go, “anyone who finds me will kill me." Who? He killed the only other man alive on earth. Well if we interpret it that way, there are problems. Then Cain took a wife… so there’d be all these other things to contend with and so on. Alright.
george. :)
-
Ray also says this:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9130.0.html (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9130.0.html)
Now when we come to Adam and Eve, He gives them a name and we know it’s just one. Are they the first ones though? Maybe not. Because we later have Cain, that says his sentence is too great, wherever I go, they will kill me (Gen. 4:13-14). Who will kill him? Who? There was only Abel and he killed Abel. So if there’s only Adam and Eve and their two sons, Cain and Abel… well Cain killed Abel, so now there’s only one man left, and his mother and father. He says to God, wherever I go, “anyone who finds me will kill me." Who? He killed the only other man alive on earth. Well if we interpret it that way, there are problems. Then Cain took a wife… so there’d be all these other things to contend with and so on. Alright.
Eileen
-
Does anyone know if Ray still believes this?
No, he has changed his thinking on this.
-
hi Eileen,
Good study habits; you are correct. As I wrote, Ray did say more on the subject it is hard listening and reading daily.
george.
-
Sorry George, I didn't see you had that part in your post. :o :o
Eileen
-
Thanks Dennis, and George. I had forgotten about the Nashville postscript--I need to go over that a few more times. :)
-
Does Ray also believe that there were men BEFORE the creation of Adam? If so, then every human (who was supposed to be made in God's Image - or BEING made in God's Image) can not and will not be saved/made righteous etc, etc, since it is only those "IN ADAM" that shall eventually "be made righteous" according to Romans 5. Seems to me that Adam was the first man, unless God will NOT make ALL "humanity" in His Image?
-
Does Ray also believe that there were men BEFORE the creation of Adam? If so, then every human (who was supposed to be made in God's Image - or BEING made in God's Image) can not and will not be saved/made righteous etc, etc, since it is only those "IN ADAM" that shall eventually "be made righteous" according to Romans 5. Seems to me that Adam was the first man, unless God will NOT make ALL "humanity" in His Image?
Not true.
Even if there where humans before Adam [which, as previous posters have so stated, is pure speculation until Scriptural Proof...], they can and will be saved. It was through Adam's Sin, that humanity became subject to death and Judgment; whether or not, one is a descendant of Adam doesn't change that:
Romans 5:17 "For if, by the offense of the one, death reigns through the one, much rather, those obtaining the superabundance of grace and the gratuity of righteousness shall be reigning in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying."
19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."
Besides, we have plenty of other Scriptures that plainly say that God wills ALL HUMANITY to be saved:
I Timothy 4:9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome
10 (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind,; etc, etc, etc...
If you try to limit the "all mankind", then you're making the same mistake that Babylon has done to justify their evil doctrine of Eternal Damnation.
Hope this helps,
Daywalker.
-
Good point, Daywalker. (BTW: I believe in the Salvation of ALL humanity, just so you are aware.)
Now, if there were human beings present before Adam, then wouldn't this mean that they were all sinless? After all, sin entered because of ADAM, correct?
-
Good point, Daywalker. (BTW: I believe in the Salvation of ALL humanity, just so you are aware.)
Now, if there were human beings present before Adam, then wouldn't this mean that they were all sinless? After all, sin entered because of ADAM, correct?
Here I think a review of the first few chapters of Romans would be helpful. Where there is no law, there is no transgression.
None of us were 'there', so to speak, so I am currently willing and able to entertain any number of 'imaginatory' possibilities as long as they don't contradict scripture or clear teaching. My own is 'speculation' to a degree, but not competely uninformed, even though it is quite possibly 'wrong' and most definately incomplete. I wasn't there either. ;)
I don't see our current sinful state as being a result of heredity via the "fall of man", but of the way mankind was formed in the first place--Adam and Eve and/or any who may have lived before them (assuming they themselves are literal historical figures). So any who may have preceded Adam and Eve would be my ancestors in meat-carnality (which falls short of the Glory of God simply by being flesh), and Adam my ancestor in transgression. In both cases, God IS forming man in His Image.
Take that for what it is worth--just my present understanding.
This is a good subject to meditate on, I think. As Ray shared in Nashville, a fuller understanding of the beginning of the Great Parable opens the path to a fuller understanding of the rest of it.
-
Good point, Daywalker. (BTW: I believe in the Salvation of ALL humanity, just so you are aware.)
Now, if there were human beings present before Adam, then wouldn't this mean that they were all sinless? After all, sin entered because of ADAM, correct?
No, death was passed onto all men...not sin.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded [the natural mind] is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Marques
-
Jerreye:
Good point, Daywalker. (BTW: I believe in the Salvation of ALL humanity, just so you are aware.)
Seeing that you are here studying at BT, I had already made that assumption. :)
Dave in Tenn:
Here I think a review of the first few chapters of Romans would be helpful. Where there is no law, there is no transgression.
Good idea! ;D
Revised Standard Version:
Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Rom 7:8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;
Rom 7:10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.
Rom 7:11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.
Rom 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Rom 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
My current thoughts regarding pre-Adamic humans is, as Ray pointed out, that Genesis does seem to at least point to the possibility [that is, until further Scriptural review/support...]. But far as I know, it is nowhere stated that God ever gave any Commandments to any human race preceding Adam.
"sin, finding opportunity in the commandment"
This is exactly what happened in the Garden. God gave Adam a Commandment--don't eat the fruit--Sin found its opportunity to introduce itself. Of course, leave it to that Old Serpent to be the mediator.
I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
Seeing that the Scriptural definition of a "sin" is to miss the mark, and to fall short of the glory of God, I don't think it'd be wrong to suggest that Adam and Eve [who were created as Carnal Beings] had sinned several times in the Garden, but until they broke the Commandment of God, they were unaware of their transgressions.
if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin.
Seems to me, it's very possible, that Adam and Eve were "sinning machines" just like us, but without God's Law, they could not know it. Just like they didn't realize they were naked, until they broke God's Commandment:
Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
But, to be naked is not a good thing:
Rev 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
This Seventh Chapter of Romans is actually my personal Favorite. I can relate to Apostle Paul here so much, and I can see there is a ton of Wisdom and Sacred Secrets hidden within this Chapter...
But Until Further Review,
- Daywalker.
-
From the teachings we have here we know that there is not one Antichrist. We understand that we are the beast. We accept that Adam and Eve were carnal and we know that God did not make one blade of grass and one fish and one bird and etc...
I think Adam is the name for humanity not for one human being. The one Humanity of which we are all together made is carnal - as in first the natural then the spiritual. The One vivifying Spirit is the LAST Adam that is Christ.
Excerpt from http://bible-truths.com/lake4.html
Christ the FIRST of the firstfruit. Then believers, the FIRSTFRUITS.
Arc
-
Perhaps the mixing of Adam with the other humans is what ultimately lead to the decline in life spans. Science hasn't found any human fossils that they feel lived to very old ages. The earliest humans problably didn't live all that long. Just specticalating.
-
If we consider that there were people already living around the world, as Ray has suggested, as we know there are many indigenous tribes of people that live around the world. Then maybe God created His own race of people in which to bring His son into the world. And the Bible gives us record of how Jesus Christ came out of this line of Adam. Maybe this particular line is what is referred to as sons of God in early chapters of the Bible.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
v. 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.
It seems that this Scripture might fit with Adam's line intermarrying with indigenous people of the land. It's not that indigenous people are less human or are excluded from the plan of salvation, but God was working through a certain line of people that He created especially for a purpose. But this is just something that I was thinking about.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Kat,
Also,in the scripture below it states plainly that we should not do as the verses state.
Would not these laws also have applied to Cain also?And if they do you think Adam and Eve would have given permission to Cain(a murderer and vagabond) to have sex with one of their daughters many years latter? I don't think God would have let Cain marry his own sister,knowing that if He did It would be a violation of His own law,which in turn would be going against Gods own will. Lots of questions for sure.
Just my thoughts not trying to teach :)
Leviticus 18
9 'The nakedness of thy sister, daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, born at home or born without; thou dost not uncover their nakedness. 11 The nakedness of a daughter of thy father's wife, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister; thou dost not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 20
17 'And a man who taketh his sister, a daughter of his father or daughter of his mother, and he hath seen her nakedness, and she seeth his nakedness: it is a shame; and they have been cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people; the nakedness of his sister he hath uncovered; his iniquity he beareth.
Peace...Mark
Hey Mark,
Remember, also, that intermarrying wasn't condemned in the early stages of mankind. In fact, Abraham's wife was also his sister. [Gen 20:12]
It seems as though, God gave out His Commandments in increments. Like, how Jesus added to the Law that was already in existence, by giving us a New Covenant, and a Higher Law. I imagine God worked the same way in the Old Testament times. He gave out a set of laws; then when it was necessary, He added more to them.
None that would contradict any laws in existence; just it was His Time to reveal more of His Commandments. [Ex: Giving the commandment to 'not marry one's sister' wouldn't contradict any previous laws, as there was never a law that stated 'a man could marry his sister'. There just wasn't a law forbidding it, yet.]
At least, that's the way I understand it, but I'm not rubber-stamping it or anything... :D
Have a good one,
Daywalker.
-
All humanity is carnal regardless of either being grafted in or of the cultivated olive branch. God did not spare the NATURAL branches.
First the natural, whether wild and grafted in, or pruned and broken off the cultivated olive tree.
Notice what Ray points out that the carnal of the carnal is TALKING ABOUT HUMANITY.
Excerpt #1
Rom 2:1 “Therefore you have no excuse, O man…” Do you know what Paul had in mind when he said “O man?” He’s talking about the carnal of the carnal, he’s talking about humanity in the world, about total uncovering, total carnality. O man, you know he uses that phrase again in Rom. 9:20, “But who are you, O man, that answers against God,” see. God can form man anyway He wants to, who are you O man.
Rom 2:1 “ Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself…”
Is this beam and speck start clearing up a little bit now?
Excerpt #2
Whatever O man is. That’s what we are, because O man is Adam. O man came out of Adam. Where did you come from, some place else? We’re all out of Adam. And what does Adam do? Being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters and on and on. Wow, this is O man out of Adam. This is what he does. And only by the grace of God, some of us didn’t have to go that route.
excerpt # 3
“Mat 7:3 And why do you (My disciples) look at the mote in your brother's eye, but do not consider the beam in your own eye?
Why would His disciples have more sin, and I think we can see that this beam has to do with sin and character flaws and all of that. Why would they have a bigger problem than their brothers. Why would the people that were following Christ, loyally following Christ, learning to do good and to be good and to love God. Why would they have more sins than their brothers, who’s not up on the mountain? He’s saying your looking to get a molt out of your brother’s eye and He didn’t say it appears that you have it, you really do have a beam. And it isn’t what appears to be a mote, He says to you, and this is all from the prospective of YOU, “Why do YOU” try to get what YOU think is a beam out of your brothers eye, when you have this beam in your own eye. You follow me? Why doesn’t He reverse it, why doesn’t He give the guy credit for at least making some improvement, to where the log is down to the size of a beam?
For very keen answers to the questions Ray expounds go to http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3709.0.html
Arc
-
Hey Mark,
Remember, also, that intermarrying wasn't condemned in the early stages of mankind. In fact, Abraham's wife was also his sister. [Gen 20:12]
It seems as though, God gave out His Commandments in increments. Like, how Jesus added to the Law that was already in existence, by giving us a New Covenant, and a Higher Law. I imagine God worked the same way in the Old Testament times. He gave out a set of laws; then when it was necessary, He added more to them.
None that would contradict any laws in existence; just it was His Time to reveal more of His Commandments. [Ex: Giving the commandment to 'not marry one's sister' wouldn't contradict any previous laws, as there was never a law that stated 'a man could marry his sister'. There just wasn't a law forbidding it, yet.]
At least, that's the way I understand it, but I'm not rubber-stamping it or anything... :D
Have a good one,
Daywalker.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Chris,
Seeing that God does not change and condemned incest (as Mark points out in scripture), incest has always been a sin. For example, 'Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, & the pride of life' [1 John 2:16] were always sin whether Eve knew & understood them or not. And seeing as she committed such in the Garden, she was in the transgression [1 Tim 2:14; 1 John 3:4].
Remember, when Abraham took Sarah as his wife, he was known as Abram and was just as pagan as anyone else. It was not until the Lord 'dragged' him to seek after Him, did he learn the ways of the Lord. And of course, he was already married.
And one more note: the scriptures, when speaking of Terah [Abraham's natural father] lineage, refer to Sarah as his daughter in law even though Abraham says in Gen 20:12 they have the same father.
Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram [who is later called Abraham], Nahor, and Haran.
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife...
Hope this helps,
Marques
-
Beautiful edification Marques. Thank you.
Also, Ray expounds in the Trinity Paper the error of seeing two comings of Christ or more than one Crucifixion.
I believe this idea that there are TWO humanities can only lead down the foggy, fruitless path of error that previous false teachings have unchecked embarked upon.
Arc
-
Hey Marques,
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I could've worded my post better. I was trying to say that God was 'okay' with intermarrying, during the early developments of the human race, just that He didn't come out and give an official Commandment outlawing it until later. [at least as far as I have seen, so far, in the Scriptures... but I admit I could be proven wrong in that]
For sure, God doesn't change, and neither do His Commandments, but as I mentioned previously, when Jesus revealed a Higher Law during His Ministry. It wasn't that He was changing the Previous Laws; He was just revealing more of the Spiritual Side, which hadn't yet been revealed to mankind.
I forgot that Sarah was Abraham's sister in-law, thanks. Not that that makes it legal, I just forgot that part. 8)
- Daywalker.
-
From http://bible-truths.com/lake11.html
"For the Law was given by Moses [that would be the OLD Covenant], but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ [that would be the NEW Covenant]" (John 1:17).
Law is good, but grace and truth is better. Grace and truth is a much more demanding and much higher calling. If you aspire to be among the "chosen" you must learn what the New Covenant really is. Here is a chart I prepared for a paper on The Law, which shows some of the many differences between the Old and the New Covenants—between Moses and Jesus:
Old Mosaic Covenant
New Spiritual Covenant
OLD Covenant…II Cor. 3:14
NEW Covenant…II Cor. 3:6
FIRST Covenant…Heb. 8:7,9:1
SECOND Covenant…Heb. 8:7,10:1-9
Came by Moses…John 1:17
Came by Christ…Heb. 8:6,9:15
Law of God in STONE…II Cor. 3:3
Law of God in HEART…Heb. 10:16
Law of MOSES…Acts 13:38-39
Law of CHRIST…Gal. 6:2
Law of the flesh…Rom. 7:5-6
Law of the SPIRIT…Rom. 8:2
NOT of faith…Gal. 3:2
Law of FAITH…Rom. 3:27
Yoke of BONDAGE…Gal. 5:1
Law of LIBERTY…James 1:25
Law of SIN…Rom. 7:5-6
Law of RIGHTEOUSNESS…Rom. 9:30-31
Law of DEATH…II Cor. 3:7
Law of LIFE…Gal. 3:11, 6:8
Christ removes OLD…Heb. 10:9
Christ enacted the NEW…Heb.10:9
A SHADOW…Col. 2:14-17
The REALITY…Heb. 10:1-18
FULFILLED…Matt. 5:17-18
NOW IN FORCE…Heb. 8:6,10:9
Priesthood CHANGED…Heb. 7:12
UNCHANGEABLE Priesthood…Heb. 7:24
MANY sacrifices…Heb. 9:12-13
ONE sacrifice for sin…Heb. 10:12
IMPERFECT…Heb. 7:19
PERFECT…Heb. 7:19
Blood of ANIMALS…Heb. 9:19
Blood of CHRIST…Matt. 26:28
Circumcision…Ex. 12:48
Uncircumcision…Rom. 4:9-12
WORKS of law…Gal. 3:10
NOT of works but GRACE…Eph. 2:8
REMEMBERS sins…Heb. 10:3
FORGETS sins…Heb. 10:17
YEARLY atonement…Heb. 10:3
PERMANENT atonement…Heb. 10:4
SINFUL priests…Heb. 5:3
SINLESS priest…Heb. 7:26
AARONIC priesthood…Heb. 7:11
MELCHISEDEC priest…Heb. 5:5-10
MANMADE tabernacle…Heb. 8:5
HEAVENLY tabernacle…Heb. 8:2,11
Out of LEVI…Heb. 7:11
Out of JUDAH…Heb. 7:14
WEAK, UNPROFITABLE…Heb. 7:18
POWER of ENDLESS LIFE…Heb. 7:16
NO inheritance…Rom. 4:13
ETERNAL inheritance…Heb. 9:15
Sacrifice of ANIMALS…Heb. 9:13
Sacrifice of CHRIST…Heb. 9:28
Purified the FLESH…Heb. 8:13
Purged the CONSCIENCE…Heb. 8:14
PRODUCES wrath…Rom. 4:15
SAVES from wrath…Rom. 5:9
Perfected NOTHING…Heb. 7:19
Perfects BELIEVERS…Heb. 10:14
NO MERCY…Heb. 10:28
COMPLETE MERCY…Heb. 8:12
NO justification…Acts 13:39
BELIEVERS justified…Acts 13:39
BRINGS a curse…Gal. 3:10
REDEEMS from curse…Acts 3:13
ABOLISHED…II Cor. 3:13
CONTINUES IN GLORY…II Cor. 3:11
Brought DEATH…II Cor. 3:7
Brought RECONCILIATION…II Cor. 5:18
ISRAEL ONLY…Deut. 4:7-8,5:3
ALL MANKIND…Mark 14:24, II Cor. 5:14-19
This chart by no means exhausts all the differences between the Old and New Covenants. Can you not see how totally different the New is from the Old? As God’s Word says, the New Covenant is, "NOT ACCORDING to the covenant that I made with their fathers…" (Heb. 8:9). When will we believe God instead of the traditions of men? I hope that you will not just look at this chart, but look up every Scripture and read it for yourself.
.
-
And the Bible gives us record of how Jesus Christ came out of this line of Adam. Maybe this particular line is what is referred to as sons of God in early chapters of the Bible.
I've thought about that but was afraid to ask.
-
And the Bible gives us record of how Jesus Christ came out of this line of Adam. Maybe this particular line is what is referred to as sons of God in early chapters of the Bible.
I've thought about that but was afraid to ask.
That is a sad day when we are afraid to ask questions that are there to be asked. I would like to think that the question should always be asked; without fear. But when the answer is given please, at least research thoroughly, all the answers; before defending a position.
When in doubt about an answer, Prayers, research and study is recommended before engaging fingers and keyboard on the forum. Since the Nashville 2008 Conference, Ray put a huge amount of information on the table. Many of the members have some area of expertise or training in some science or historical area.
Since so much new information was covered, much of it not available even 10 to 15 years ago; even the semi trained need to be careful. If you cannot explain how the things we see are made from things we cannot see, does that mean that it does not exist (the unseen things).
Science has shown (Proven) that human like fossils as old as 50 thousand years exist. Ray has used much of what science discovered to show that science and the Scriptures are more in harmony; than most Christians and The Scriptures are.
Here are some Scriptures that are for now:
Dan 12:4 (GW)
"But you, Daniel, keep these words secret, and seal the book until the end times. Many will travel everywhere, and knowledge will grow."
Daniel 12: 1-13 (Rotherham)
1 And, at that time, will Michael, the great ruler who standeth for the sons of thy people, make a stand, and there will be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, up to that time,—and, at that time, shall thy people, be delivered, every one found written in the hook; (book) aparrent spelling error.
2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, shall be to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence;
3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond.
4 But, thou, Daniel, close up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end,—many will run to and fro, and knowledge, shall abound.
5 Then, I, Daniel, looked, and lo! two others, standing,—one on this side of the bank of the river, and one on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed with linen, who was upon the waters of the river, How long shall be the end of the wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed with linen who was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left unto the heavens, and sware by him that liveth unto times age-abiding,—For a set time and times and a half, and, when the dispersion of a part of the holy people, is brought to an end, then shall come to an end all these things.
8 And, I, heard, but could not understand,—so I said, O my lord! what shall be the issue of these things?
9 Then said he, Go thy way, Daniel; for closed up and sealed are the words, until the time of the end.
10 Many, will purify themselves and be made white and be refined, but the lawless, will act lawlessly, and none of the lawless, shall understand,—but, they who make wise, shall understand;
11 and, from the time of the taking away of the continual ascending-sacrifice , and the placing of the horrid abomination that astoundeth, shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Happy! is he that waiteth, and attaineth to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.
13 But, thou, go thy way to the end,—and thou shalt rest, and shalt rise to thy lot at the end of the days.
george. ???
-
Hi Marques and all,
You wrote:
For example, 'Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, & the pride of life' [1 John 2:16] were always sin whether Eve knew & understood them or not.
I do agree with you on this statement, but I believe you’re missing one very important point. And that is: God is just. Justice demands that sin cannot be reckoned to someone for a certain behavior if no law has been made known that says that that same behavior is forbidden. For example, if God had never told Adam and Eve that they could not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then going ahead and eating from it could not be reckoned as sin against them. There would have been no known law to break. Sin is lawlessness, but where there is no law, sin is not reckoned.
To give a current example, if there was no law saying that one had to stop at a red light, driving through a red light would not be considered a breaking of the law. But once a law is given that specifically says that one must stop at a red light or pay the consequences (i.e. ticket, fines, etc), driving through a red light from that point forward would then be considered a breaking of the law and therefore counted against the one driving. And though the people who drove through the red light before the law was given are technically guilty of breaking that law, their infraction is not counted against them, because the law was not given at the time they drove through the red light. This is not a perfect parallel to God's law, but perhaps it makes the point.
You are right when you say that sin is sin, and has always been sin. God's law has always been known to him. But it has not always been known to us. God has had to reveal it or make it known to mankind in stages for reasons perhaps known only to Him. Therefore if a law has not been revealed or made known at a given point, then sin or the breaking of that law is not reckoned. In fact, sin is dead.
As to Abraham, the writer of Genesis tells us in chapter 26 the following:
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
So certainly God had revealed some laws in the time of Abraham so that it could be said that by following those laws, it could be counted to him for righteousness. The question then becomes, do the laws spoken of here in Genesis include all those given to Moses and the Israelites at Sinai? My thinking is, to say that they did is just an assumption.
Perhaps you could correct me in my thinking if you see that I am in error, but right now that is the only way I can see that does not pit the Scriptures against each other on this issue of Abraham and Sarah's relationship.
As someone posted earlier in this thread, and I alluded to above:
Romans 5:13 …and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;
Romans 7:8 …for apart from law sin is dead.
Again, a behavior cannot be reckoned to someone as sin – remember, sin is lawlessness – if there was not a revealed law condemning the behavior at the time the behavior was engaged in. You are right that God does not “allow” sin. But when there is no revealed law, sin is not reckoned, because sin is dead apart from law. The revealing of the law is what causes sin to come alive. If God had not revealed a law outlawing marriage between siblings, then the sin of marrying his half-sister cannot be reckoned against Abram.
This is the idea that is applicable to the people who are speculated to have been created before Adam and Eve. Surely since they would have been made of flesh and blood as Adam was, they were corruptible and probably “sinned” according to God’s law, but that sin is not reckoned against them because no law or commandment had been given to mankind before Adam. All these people, speculatively speaking, that lived before Adam will be resurrected at the GWTJ and given the experience of God’s law which they did not have before.
Come to think of it, this discussion is similiar to the argument that Ray was making to Dr. Kennedy in his paper about whether God would send millions of Africans to an eternal life of punishment and torture simply for never having heard of God. God is not a tyrant; He is just, more just than any of us. Just as God will not consign them to an eternal firehole for all eternity, He will also not reckon a multitude of sins against them when they have never even been given a chance to hear about Him or His law. In other words, how can the people living in the jungles of Africa have sin reckoned against them when God has not in this life made a way for someone to go a teach them about Him and His law?
At the GWTJ, all of these people will be resurrected and exposed to God and His law by Jesus Himself, at which point sin will spring forth in their hearts and they will “die,” just as Adam and Eve did and just like Paul said he did in Romans 7:
Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. [Paul did not physically die at this point just as Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they ate of the tree]
Romans 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
We all must experience this “death.” That’s the purpose of the law: to show us how sinful we are and how much we need God. The good news, as we all believe, is that through the work of our Lord and His elect, through the lake of fire experience, all of these people will eventually “live” again, becoming dead to sin and alive in Christ. That is the process that we all must go through, whether now in this life or in the resurrection.
And one more note: the scriptures, when speaking of Terah [Abraham's natural father] lineage, refer to Sarah as his daughter in law even though Abraham says in Gen 20:12 they have the same father.
I guess I’m not understanding your point by saying this.
Yes, the Scriptures state that Sarai was Terah’s daughter-in-law. But why does that exclude her from also being Abram’s half-sister? It is possible to be both. This is why incest makes relationships confusing. In Abram’s case, is Sarai his sister or his wife? In Terah’s case, is Sarai his daughter or his daughter-in-law? Well, they can be referred to as both. Simply referring to her as Terah’s daughter-in-law does not exclude her from also being Terah’s own daughter. She was born to Terah’s wife thereby make her his daughter, but she is also married to Terah’s son, thereby making her his daughter-in-law. Likewise, referring to Sarai as Abram’s wife does not exclude her from also being his half-sister. She was born of Abram’s father, thereby making her Abram's half-sister, but she is also married to Abram thereby making her his wife.
Another point is that if this particular law had been revealed by God at the time of Abraham, then by that same law, Abraham should have been a cursed man.
Deut 27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.
However, there is no judgment by God in the Scriptures at that time against their relationship, just as there is no judgment by God in the Scriptures at a later time for the relationship between Amram and Jochebed, the parents of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
Exo 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
The law given to Moses says:
Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she [is] thy father's near kinswoman.
You also point out that Abram was more than likely steeped in the pagan worship of his father, Terah, and that his marriage to Sarai occurred before God called him from Haran to the land of Canaan. This is true.
Jos 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
However, if this law had been revealed to Abram at the time of his calling, wouldn’t he have been required to give up that sinful relationship once he began following the Lord? Well, we know from Scripture that he didn’t, so either 1) God “allowed” this sin to continue unchecked against His stated law throughout the life of one of the patriarchs of Israel, or 2) this law had not been made known yet, therefore not making it possible for that sin to be reckoned against him. I hope an argument has been made for the latter.
To answer the question that some may be asking, am I saying that Abram and Sarai and Amram and Jochebed did not sin according to God’s law? No, not at all; they did sin. All I’m saying is that that sin cannot be reckoned against them, because it is apparent, at least to me, that the laws outlawing those specific relationships had not been expressly made known by God before Sinai.
Hope that makes sense,
Eric
-
On a lighter note...you observe Eric that
the laws outlawing those specific relationships had not been expressly made known by God
How true the observation that remains in place for Christiandom who still believes that Adam and Eve were the flawless image of God and fell from His Plan as did Lucifer!! First the natural then the Spiritual. God does not change.
Arc.
-
Eric, I never said anything about a sin being 'reckoned' to a person or not.
Too many false statements to follow up on...the Law is spiritual and has always been. Whether one knows that or not, they still will be spiritually judged (to learn righteousness [Isa 26:9]) and repent [1 Cor 3:13-15]. You're talking about a 'reckoning' for sin when no one brought that up.
Marques
P.S. Please read LOF #12 'GOD JUDGES THE WORLD IN A POND' (http://bible-truths.com/lake12.html) as well as listen to audio: 'Guilty of All' (http://bible-truths.com/audio/N05%20Guilty_of_ALL.mp3).
-
Hi Folks,
Lots of interesting comments. Thought I'd just add something to the mix,
- "And Yahweh God said, It is, not good, that the man should remain alone,-I will make for him a helper as his counterpart. Now Yahweh God had formed from the ground every living thing of the field and every bird of the heavens, which he brought in unto the man, that he might see what he should call it,-and, whatsoever the man should call it-any living soul, that, should be the name thereof. So the man gave names to all the tame-beasts, and to the birds of the heavens, and to all the wild-beasts of the field,-but, for man, had there not been found a helper as his counterpart. So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept,-and he took one of his ribs, and closed up flesh instead thereof. And Yahweh God builded the rib which he had taken from the man, into a woman, and brought her in unto the man. And the man said, This, one, now, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh! This, one shall be called Woman, for, out of a man, hath this one been taken." (Gen 2:18-23 REV)
Alone? Not been found a counterpart? Why make a woman from the man?
Grace and peace to you
Nelson
-
Why make a woman from the man?
Because God didn't want to use anymore dirt to make the woman out of which He had already made the man. :D Woman had to be the best part of the man who has to recognise her as his own body...well, the best part. I don't think too many men have that problem. So God proves once again to be pretty smart!
Arc
-
Nelson,
You asked the question, the answer will surprise you but you need to read some of Rays Expo on this.
Gen 1: 26-31 (CLV)
26 And saying is the Elohim, "Make will We humanity in Our image, and according to Our likeness, and sway shall they over the fish of the sea, and over the flyer of the heavens, and over the beast, and over all land life, and over every moving animal moving on the land.
27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them.
28 And blessing them is the Elohim. And saying to them is the Elohim, "Be fruitful and increase and fill the earth, and subdue it. And sway over the fish of the sea, and over the flyer of the heavens, and over the beast, and over all the earth, and over all life moving on the land.
29 And saying is the Elohim, "Behold, I give to you all herbage seeding seed, which is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree which has in it the fruit of a tree seeding seed. For you it is coming to be for food.
30 And for all land life, and for every flyer of the heavens, and for every moving animal on the land, which has in it a living soul, all green herbage is for food. And coming is it to be so.
31 And seeing is the Elohim all that He had made, and, behold, it is very good. And coming is it to be evening and coming to be morning, the sixth day.
Ray has taught about this too, try this for your answer.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8831.msg73653.html#msg73653
Excerpt from: Where Did God Get Knowledge ?
Now before I get into that, understand that terms that applied to us are applied to God. The Bible talks about men of power… does God have power? [Yes] Is the power that God possesses greater or lesser than the power men possesses? [Greater] Much greater, considerably greater, infinitesimally more greater.
Does God have mercy? [Yes] Does He have more mercy than men? [Yes] Does God have love? [Yes] Same love that we have, right, same amount? [No] You cannot compare the love that God has with the love that we have. Yes we have love and we kind of know what it means. But it can not be compared with the love that God has.
Therefore whatever words are applied to us, when they are applied to Him it’s infinitesimally more greater and more profound. Agreed? [Yes] Okay.
The word there “brought forth” is H2342 chûl (khool, kheel) A primitive root; properly to twist or to dance (in some contexts, but there is only one application of it), to writhe in pain…
Not just to hurt… you know ‘writhing’ in pain, when you can’t even think straight.
- bear, bring forth, calve, great, grieve, grievous, be in pain, sore, sorrow, travail (with pain).
Those are powerful words aren’t they. If you went through all that you would think you were in childbirth. Guess what this word means here, “I was broth forth”? Travailed - birthed. Can this mean what it says?
Before God could create us and the universe and creatures in His own likeness, He had to know how to do it. How hard was that? ‘Oh but nothing is too hard for God.’ There is nothing too hard for God. Too hard, that means impossible, but how close to that does it come? Are things very very hard for God at times? Did God ever do a honest days work? Did God ever suffer? Was God ever longsuffering? Did He have to have patience?
He could not build this universe until He possessed the wisdom to do it. Before the creation came the master plan and the wisdom to do it. How did He get that wisdom? He birthed it! Under the travail and pain and agony, that He passed on to women to experience a minute little insignificant part of what it is like to bring about children that are going to be in the image of God.
He travailed with pain and agony, until wisdom was birthed out of Him, so that He could now build the universe. It says so! Well you can say, ‘I don’t see it.’ I don’t care, this wisdom was with Him before the heavens and the earth, it was with Him. But where did it come from? He birthed it with great pain, travail and sorrow. It was difficult for God! So don’t think that God hasn’t done anything for us.
God has never suffered? God has never had to work hard? God has never had to go long periods of time and not get what it is He wanted? Don’t think that way anymore. You have a Father in heaven that can identify with everything you are.
george.
-
Why make a woman from the man?
Because God didn't want to use anymore dirt to make the woman out of which He had already made the man. :D Woman had to be the best part of the man who has to recognise her as his own body...well, the best part. I don't think too many men have that problem. So God proves once again to be pretty smart!
Arc
Ha ha!! The woman was made out of recycled dirt. Hee hee. So the men win this round as well.
-
Personally, i think there is way to much speculation on this. I do find it odd that if their were people around adam and eve before God created adam and eve in the garden... that adam would be "alone." That to me just seems strange. "For as in adam all die... even so in Christ shall all be made alive." If thats true... than what about those who were created outside the garden by God, those other humans... they did not die in adam... yet we are told all die in adam...
Eh... Confusing if you ask me.
Not saying it can't be true.. i just can't see around these versus.
-
aqr,
Thanks for digging that up, I found that very helpful regarding Gods mission to make His power and the riches of His glory known. It takes us deeper into understanding Him and knowing Him more intimately.
As far as death beginning with Adam and passing on to all mankind I have some thoughts that are pretty simple but thoughts nonetheless.
Since death came through Adam, even though there were others in the world which scripture seems to clarify the one act of sin that was the one act that brought death upon all mankind. This we know but.....
We are speculating on how that one act of disobedience could also affect those who were in the world at this same time, if indeed there was as Cain seems to point to when in fear for his life following excommunication.
I am in the understanding that the flood was a regional flood in agreement with Ray, and as such, the flood did destroy all people as scripture bares out, save Noah and His family.
So, it is my simple observation that Noah was the only one who was of the seedline of Adam and as such was the only one to continue that seedline on to the rest of the world eventually leading up to Jesus.
So in essence we are still of the seedline of Adam since there would be no other seedline alive following the flood.
This is all just speculation I know but if anyone has any thoughts on this or if Ray may have touched on this in an area I am unfamiliar with, please let me know.
God Bless,
Dave
-
This subject seems to be beaten into the ground enough.
Any further discussion would be further speculation, and we would like to stay away from that path.
Hope you all understand.
Marques