bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: angie on August 28, 2006, 10:07:45 PM
-
Hiya folks,
I had written some notes a while back, on reading Genesis. I realised [almost a year on] that I never really got to the bottom of it by way of a satisfactory answer, and if anything, I've learned that additional words dropped into somewhere are there for a reason so thought I'd post it and see what others thought.
Using KJV
So, God creates Adam, puts him in the garden, tells him [Gen 2:16]
"...but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
THEN God had him name all the animals and birds
THEN created eve from Adam.
Eve doesn't say anything until she meets the serpent in the garden. He only asks her a question
[Gen 3.1] '...Yea. hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? What surprised me was Eve's answer
3.2 '...we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But 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.
GOD NEVER SAID THAT. Adam was cleaved to Eve, she was made to be his helpmate. Do you think God would have told Adam all this, then tell Eve the same all over again, but add a bit on Himself, or would adam be responsible for telling Eve the rules. Likely, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY. do you think this is the first time a human [either Adam OR Eve] has ADDED TO GOD'S WORD if this is the case? (so the second half of the statement is a lie)
If so, does it confirm sin was already in the Garden even before desiring the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I also noticed:
Satan said '...Ye shall not surely die [an out and out lie]
Satan THEN went on to say [V.5] ' For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof. then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil' This part was NOT a lie, it was TRUE because later in V.22;
'And the Lord God said behold, The man is become one of us, to know good and evil:...' [and God doesn't lie]
I've always held the belief that the most dangerous lies were ones that contained an element of truth, But I was really perplexed because Jesus said of Satan that; ' ... there was no truth in him, he was a liar... [not a quote- but you will know the scripture that does quote this meaning]
I puzzled over it for ages then when I was out walking the dog, I realized Satan didn't use his OWN words to validate the lie he told, he used God's word to VALIDATE/AUTHENTICATE the LIE that was his, even though it seems that Adam [man] had added to his word in the first place. This is what preachers of false doctrine do, they ADD to the word of God and VALIDATE it using some truth of Gods word. A LIE with some TRUTH in it, plausible and VERY dangerous for newbie's in Christ who will perpetuate the doctrine. Am I way out on this do you think? :-\
Angie
-
I think your right on. That's how I always understood Jesus' comment about the "yeast of the Pharisee's". A little bit of a twist at the end so that the truth is turned 180 degrees around. It never ceases to amaze me how often in the gospels Jesus warns us to beware lest we be decieved. aand Paul does the same through his writings: "guard the truth" etc. There must be great deception in this world regarding the things of scripture or why so many stern warnings?
God bless'
Rob
-
Good work, Angie! I've studied Genesis many times (since my husband and I are always discussing the origina and nature of man as well as how man populated the earth), and never noticed that! Thank you!
As to Satan, and preachers, lying by using God's Word to validate, I have, over the last several months, started to question every word that comes out of a preacher's mouth (as God has me spiritually discerning...and, heck, He's just gotten started with me!). Anyway, one day when we had a visiting preacher, one who really has a lot of discernment, he gave the message on John 17, when Christ is praying to His Father in the garden of Gesthemane before Judas and the soldiers came. Verse 15 says Christ prayed that: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one." and verse 20 says, "Neither pray I for these (the apostles) alone, but for them also which sahll believe on me through their word."
Well, when he pointed that out, it was a bolt out of the blue! You know how the Pharisees of today use 1 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians to "prove" the pre-trib rapture? Well, here is Christ Himself saying there WILL BE NO "RAPTURE" but that we will be protected until He returns! I thank God for this discernment! And I thank God for this forum, which is the ONLY forum I have found on the entire billions of web sites where Biblical sanity reigns!--snorky
-
Hi snorky
Cheers, must look at John 17 :) I like this forum too, It helps me see scripture in the way it is meant. They are just vast though and I wonder sometimes if I'll ever get through them all, far less remember them and where they are located! :( [need to drink more water ;D]
Your mention of the 'rapture' reminds me... I did try to go to several churches on several occasions when I first was drawn to God. You'd never believe the stuff that got in the way of it. I did manage to get to one session of those Alpha courses for newbies. Unfortunately [for the church] I'd read only one paper from bible truths.The man taking the class was very nice [as was everyone there] but he started on about the rapture [complete with diagrams] Yep, that subject was the very paper I'd read on bible-truths, and suffice to say, it was the last session I went to. I haven't looked back. ;D
Angie
-
Angie,
Just a short comment before going to the jail.
3.2 '...we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But 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.
I once went to a retreat where the speaker used this very verse to declare: "Never depend on a 'secondary word' which hasn't been revealed to you!" His opinion was that Adam had told her what she hadn't heard herself. That advice is good anywhere you hear teaching I think. We all "KNOW IN PART"
1CO 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1CO 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
-
Angie,
3.2 '...we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But 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.
I once went to a retreat where the speaker used this very verse to declare: "Never depend on a 'secondary word' which hasn't been revealed to you!" His opinion was that Adam had told her what she hadn't heard herself.
Hi Dee,
Did the speaker have any scriptural witnesses for his opinion that Adam spoke this first? It seems that this would constitute "a secondary word" wouldn't it?
Thanks,
Joe
-
I once went to a retreat where the speaker used this very verse to declare: "Never depend on a 'secondary word' which hasn't been revealed to you!"
Hello Dee
I think we need to listen to secondary words in the process of learning but not depend or act on them until we can check with the source or cross-reference them. This can be difficult when dealing with what dead people supposedly said many years ago. I believe this is what makes the scriptures unique in that we can check with the source since can personally interact with our Father who is the living God and there is no higher authority. Most of us know that it is very easy for some people to read the words, repeat what they were with pinpoint accuracy, and yet still have no clue as to what was really said. If they did, then all would agree, but they don't.
I think you are right in that in that no one individual here on earth has all the answers. I also believe that's why it's great to be able to come to this forum and exchange thoughts, knowledge and ideas. We can then think about and process the information so that we see what God wants us to see at any given moment in our individual lives. I have read stuff here that made no sense to me at the time of reading and then weeks later after much thought, it's like a lightbulb being switched on [literally seeing the light- lol]
Now I'm going to tease you a little bit about this 'retreat' you went to and ask;
was it underground? :D [no offence intended mind]
Angie
-
Angie, you have presented an interesting problem.
Did Eve commit the first lie or not. Clearly we must not assume that God never spoke to Eve, or for that matter that God and Adam were not in converse on a regular basis. Genesis was written a long time after the fact, and such happenings may have been deemed irrelevant by God, whom inspired Moses to begin writing ot the creation account. Of this, I do not no other than what was recorded.
But did Eve tell the first lie, or is it the first recored case of Eveusing the intelligence that God gave her. How, many times are children told: "Don't touch the cookies" in direct reference to "Don't EAT the cookies!"? :) So perhaps she added a natural progression.
However, this line of thinking is flawed inasmuch as neither Adam nor Eve were yet laden with Sin. She would have had no reason to lie. Why then would she?
So now we come back to the author, Moses; did he or more likely one of the many translators either drop or add a word or two from the original text?
I am really not comfortable with the idea that by God saying: "though shalt not eat of it: " but left the door open to touching, picking, smelling, licking and possibly using it as a ball in some pre modern-time game of baseball.
I personally woould not lose a lot of sleep over this particular verse, as it does not change the promise of salvation promised us all. But I do degree that the doctrines of Christianity are filled with second words that drasically alter meanings, so to your point, it is a very worthy lessen and I commend you on your post. :)
Also, I to have often thought about how Satan stated: said '...Ye shall not surely die' which, is both a lie and the truth all at once. We are reminded many times in scripture that God see human death as nothing more than sleep.
Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens [be] no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
Job 14:13 ¶ O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
Oh, I think he pulled a fast one on Eve, but he "technically" told the truth when viewed through God's eyes.
Such as this has got me to the point where unless a preacher speaks of Love and charity, I am not interested.
Great thread.
Darren
-
Well pick me up and knock me down :)
I missed that one Bobby. But my point still remains that we should not be so quick to condem one on the word of another. Are we 100% sure that God did not tell either Adam or Eve not to touch the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge? I don't think the bible told us of dinosaurs either.
Many thanks for your correction Bobby, my brother
Darren
-
Hi Darren,
re-reading this thread and the original scripture, I had another thought as I stared at the sentence;
"...but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
you said that...I am really not comfortable with the idea that by God saying: "though shalt not eat of it: " but left the door open to touching, picking, smelling, licking...
The tree is NOT good and evil in of itself, it's the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. We only get the knowledge by experiencing the evil. In this way we can know what good also is. The way I see it at this juncture, either way we die. If we live the evil life in the flesh, we spiritually die and if we live righteously, we die to the flesh.
Your quote about God leaving the door open to touching, picking etc. made me think that, in fact this is what God really does. We touch evil, or it touches us in some way or another all the time, we are said to be 'only evil continually' As far as picking it goes, we could liken that to contemplating or thinking about an action before the actual doing [eating] of it. We might only pick it because we are curious about it [to learn about it] doesn't follow that we will automatically desire to eat it. Am I making any sense? :-\ [or talking complete c**p?] lol ;D
Another way of looking at it is that we can look at good, we can look at evil [or at least the outcome of both] we can be and we can experience it and learn, after that if we continue to live it [evil], knowing it for what it is then we will "...surely Die" [twice!] The tree isn't 2 trees, one each of good and evil, they are in the SAME tree in the SAME garden as the tree of life. Strange how a tree THAT important never got any kind of mention until AFTER the deed was done [the apple eaten] but was lumped [the tree of life] together with the rest of the trees. God never said 'never mind that tree, that ones much better' did He? [unless I missed that bit...Lol] Seems to me anything worthwhile seems to always come along second.
Anyway, I think I'm starting to ramble now and going off what I originally intended so I'm offski for the moment.
Cheers Darren
Angie
-
Angie responded with:
Your quote about God leaving the door open to touching, picking etc. made me think that, in fact this is what God really does. We touch evil, or it touches us in some way or another all the time, we are said to be 'only evil continually' As far as picking it goes, we could liken that to contemplating or thinking about an action before the actual doing [eating] of it. We might only pick it because we are curious about it [to learn about it] doesn't follow that we will automatically desire to eat it.
Very good reasoning. But how much better is ones faith that they can believe on faith (The Word of God) alone, without exploring temptation. We humans seem to be all about tearing down borders and boundries and erasing established lines just to creat new ones. Your reasoning seems to fit very well, although, even though the desire to eat the fruit may not be automatically there, the act would itself seem inevitable. How less the possiblity of sin (if this were possible) by rejecting all temptation?
Angie, I enjoy reading your insight :)
Love to All,
Darren
-
Okay,
First, we weren't made NOT to sin, we were made flesh and 'subject to vanity' I quote ray when he said we were made 'sinning machines'. We were supposed to get the knowledge of good and evil, without it, we can't be made into the image of God, so there goes being tempted right out the window.
When Mathew says: '...That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart'
He is in fact talking about the lust part of it, not the looking part, when deciding where about in the proceedings you have committed adultery. It all depends on what you see, then think, once you have already looked. I do this with 'stuff' all the time. I go to the shops, can see something pleasing to the eye, [eye candy] agree that its very nice, go home and never think about it again. Now, were I to go home and sit wondering how I could possibly get it to the point that I thought of very little else, in other words 'lusted after it', then thats the bit that would be the sin. Another way to look at it is, we can agree that a simple wee bumble-bee is a beautiful sight, but would I want one in my house? No thanks! Yet the way they go around contrary to all the laws of physics intrigues me.
We are 'in the midst' of temptation all the time, certainly we can remove ourselves from it, but doesn't that only serve to tell us how weak we are? what else would we learn? How would we learn to overcome? We can resist temptation, but not by ourselves, but by having Jesus in us and us in Him - no other way round this.
We need the first part [the physical] to get to the second part[the spiritual]
It's after that, after we have experienced evil, know how it is different from good and have learned, that we move on to spiritual maturity if called by God to do so. I do believe things through faith now, that I hope will turn out to be true. God through Jesus gives us this Hope. I also know a lot of [though not all] that which is false and evil through experience
I didn't know or believe I was in the dark, till I walked in the light. Now I do know an believe it
I will now go and look up all the scriptures to add in to all of this so as to add to my own learning. I know roughly where they are and the words. :-\ This is just my understanding of them [so far] please bear with this wee learner! ;D
Angie
-
Good point, Angie.
The wages of sin is death, has been twisted around to mean something totally untrue nowadays. A little leaven, clouds without water, spotted leopards, and many other pictures God shows us, to beware and watch, for they mix a little truth with lies.
Interesting discussion.
God bless,
Gary
-
Okay,
First, we weren't made NOT to sin, we were made flesh and 'subject to vanity' I quote ray when he said we were made 'sinning machines'. We were supposed to get the knowledge of good and evil, without it, we can't be made into the image of God, so there goes being tempted right out the window.
When Mathew says: '...That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart'
He is in fact talking about the lust part of it, not the looking part, when deciding where about in the proceedings you have committed adultery. It all depends on what you see, then think, once you have already looked. I do this with 'stuff' all the time. I go to the shops, can see something pleasing to the eye, [eye candy] agree that its very nice, go home and never think about it again. Now, were I to go home and sit wondering how I could possibly get it to the point that I thought of very little else, in other words 'lusted after it', then thats the bit that would be the sin. Another way to look at it is, we can agree that a simple wee bumble-bee is a beautiful sight, but would I want one in my house? No thanks! Yet the way they go around contrary to all the laws of physics intrigues me.
We are 'in the midst' of temptation all the time, certainly we can remove ourselves from it, but doesn't that only serve to tell us how weak we are? what else would we learn? How would we learn to overcome? We can resist temptation, but not by ourselves, but by having Jesus in us and us in Him - no other way round this.
We need the first part [the physical] to get to the second part[the spiritual]
It's after that, after we have experienced evil, know how it is different from good and have learned, that we move on to spiritual maturity if called by God to do so. I do believe things through faith now, that I hope will turn out to be true. God through Jesus gives us this Hope. I also know a lot of [though not all] that which is false and evil through experience
I didn't know or believe I was in the dark, till I walked in the light. Now I do know an believe it
I will now go and look up all the scriptures to add in to all of this so as to add to my own learning. I know roughly where they are and the words. :-\ This is just my understanding of them [so far] please bear with this wee learner! ;D
Angie
Greetings Angie
I had planned a day of mental numbness with no serious thought. But Nooooooooo! You have to spoil my plans with these thought provoking gems. I'll get even somehow. ;)
If you mutually fantasize about movie stars while with your spouse are you committing adultery?
Is it possible to commit a sin that isnt a sin through thought? In other words, can you possibly commit adultery without doing so in thought before the action actually takes place? If sin takes place in the mind first, then is it another sin to actually commit the deed?
Is it like two sins to think about stealing then another sin to actual take that pack of gum without paying?
Finally, if sin take place in thoughts of the mind, then is there such a thing as physical sin?
*****************************************************
Adam and Eve
I had been taught as many others that Eve actually ate some physical fruit, an apple to be exact. It wasn't until high school that I realized that the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil were just metaphors. What I have never really been able to answer precisely is this question:
What kind of "fruit" does having a knowledge of good and evil bear? If having this knowledge makes us more like God then why wouldn't we understand agape a lot better than we do?
Now do you see what rattling my cage does? Please be more careful and take pity on this lunatic. :D
Just for today, I am swearing off milk and meat today and turning into a vegetable, I mean vegetarian.
Thanks for the great posts by everone.
feat
-
This is a very interesting thread! I used to think that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was some mystical tree with this knowledge embedded in the fruit, but now I realize that the tree was just like any other tree in the garden. The knowledge of good and evil was not 'in' the fruit at all. It was the act of disobedience that taught Adam and Eve the difference between good and evil. This is the same as the Law of Moses. God told the people how NOT to live in order to teach them how to live righteously.
Brian
-
hi feat ;D
Sorry to have upset your plans for the day! ;)
you said
If you mutually fantasize about movie stars while with your spouse are you committing adultery?
Uuum.....I would say so. Does mutual [both of you doing the fantasizing] with consent, stop it being a sin. I wouldn't have thought so, simply because I believe that an act is an external expression of internal feeling of love/desire for the one you are with/committed/married to. Anything else is carnal, after the 'lusts of the flesh'. Anyway, why think hamburger when you have steak at home? :)
Is it possible to commit a sin that isnt a sin through thought? In other words, can you possibly commit adultery without doing so in thought before the action actually takes place?
What like as in, frontal lobotomy with no thoughts or memory prior to or at any point in the proceedings?
I can't imagine anyone, male or female getting away with that one whereby it would be acceptable because they didn't think about the deed before the deed was done!! [unless the acceptee was the one with the lobotomy]
Is it like two sins to think about stealing then another sin to actual take that pack of gum without paying?
I would say that it's the same sin. The eyes see, the heart [mind] wants, and the hand takes. the physical act of stealing, adultery etc. is the conclusion, the 'fruits' of the thought [sin]
Luk 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil:..."
Finally, if sin take place in thoughts of the mind, then is there such a thing as physical sin?
Yep, same answer as last one
What kind of "fruit" does having a knowledge of good and evil bear? If having this knowledge makes us more like God then why wouldn't we understand agape a lot better than we do?
Sorry, remind me what agape is [love?] :-[
Just for today, I am swearing off milk and meat today and turning into a vegetable, I mean vegetarian.
Maybe you were right the first word with these questions ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ROFL
Now do you see what rattling my cage does?
yes, but you haven't seen what rattling mine does! :D :D :D
Please be more careful and take pity on this lunatic.
not a chance! Sorry, that was the 'old' me ! ::) ;D
Angie
-
I think it is time to bring attention to being of sin and incapable of no other in defference to the act of sinning itself. If our human, flesh and bone bodies are sinful by nature as Paul so clearly states below, then what action is not of sin? I mean, even the kind words given with love, are such actions totally without sin. Are there ulterior motives that even our carnal minds cannot comprehend.
Rom 7:13- Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14- For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 - For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 - If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good.
Rom 7:17 - Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 - For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 - For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 - Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 - I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 - For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 - But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 - O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Rom 7:25 - I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
If one reads and fully comprehends the words of Paul, how possibly can one look down on any other?
Paul, does make an interesting point in vs 25: I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Here he would seemingly clearly seperate the acts of the flesh seperate from the thoughts of the mind, but I do not believe that this is what he is saying. More than likely Paul's eyes were opened to more truth than my own clouded eyes, but even he firmly believed that his body was not capable of doing the good that he sort: vs 18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not.
If Paul was unable to perform the good that he so desperatly wanted, how then can we? Does not Satan have a stronger hold on us now than then? I would believe so.
So what are we to do as hopeless sinners? We are to Pray for forgiveness, humility and wisdom so that we can clearly understand that without the love of God, we are nothing but evil doers. Sounds harsh doesn't it, but until this is learned, what have we learned. To put this plainly, I know in God's eyes that I am no better or worse than either Bin Ladan or the Pope. They are as nothing, just as I am without faith in the promise given to us all. It is this that gives meaning to my existence. And sadly, even my contious thoughts fall short. :(
Is there a greater sin than I? I think not. :(
This has been a wonderful thread and I hope my words are true, for they are as I understand them. :)
Much Love to All,
Darren
-
Feat and Angie, you all crack me up! ;D ;D ;D
Darren, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's all about being totally dependent on faith, and even the faith we have is a gift. We really can do nothing in ourselves, it's all about Him. Getting to this point goes way beyond knowing Him crucified, but being crucified with Him. Nevertheless, not our will, but His will be done.
Good post, my brother! 8)
God bless,
Gary
-
Joe Post #5,
Man this thread is way ahead of me already. But to answer your question:
“Did the speaker have any scriptural witnesses for his opinion that Adam spoke this first? It seems that this would constitute "a secondary word" wouldn't it?”
I really don’t remember him giving any other scripture for the statement. Where does it say scripture has to be the second witness. For Pharoah it was two different dreams.
Angie #6
“I think we need to listen to secondary words in the process of learning but not depend or act on them until we can check with the source or cross-reference them. “
I agree but I also believe that it is the Spirit who truly teaches us:
1JO 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
“I have read stuff here that made no sense to me at the time of reading and then weeks later after much thought, it's like a lightbulb being switched on [literally seeing the light- lol] “
The following is a prayer Paul prayed for the saints (those already walking the walk).
EPH 1:16-18 Making mention of you in my prayers that God...may give you revelation...The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
“Now I'm going to tease you a little bit about this 'retreat' you went to and ask;
was it underground? [no offence intended mind]”
I’m not offended. It’s been said you can tell the size of the believer by the size of what it takes to ‘GET’ him/her offended. I would truly hope I’m big enough to take your tease. :) Now to answer your question in point. No it wasn’t underground…it was on a mountain in Colorado. Actually another reason I wouldn’t have been offended is…well...OK….I’ll admit it….I don’t know what you’re really referring to. Is this "underground" thing something that means more on your side of the pond? :-\
-
Hello Dee, this verse immediately came to mind, I will also incluse a portion of Ray's article as well as the link you can peruse at your convenience.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
Here is some of Ray's paper "12 Truths" that is relevent to this subject;
TRUTH NUMBER 6
[A] "…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).
"…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).
[C] "And I will give power unto my TWO WITNESSES…" (Rev. 11:3).
This particular law of Scripture is constantly violated. We are to have at least a second witness to establish a Scriptural truth or doctrine.
Unfortunately, the Church does not follow this truth of God in establishing doctrine. Truth be known, orthodoxy has not even one witness to support any of their doctrines! Example: The Scriptures tell us that man is "mortal," not "immortal." They teach that man’s soul is immortal. Where do they have a Scripture to support this claim? No Scripture—no witness. Where is their second witness to this claim? No second witness. They will not be encumbered with Scriptures to support their damnable heresies and lies.
God told Adam if he ate of the forbidden fruit he would die: "And the Lord God commanded…you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17). Theologians teach that, "once we are born, we shall NEVER surely die." Say, doesn’t that sound like the very same thing the lying serpent told Eve? Check it out:
"And the serpent said unto the woman, ‘Ye shall NOT surely die"
Can we all agree that the phrase: "shall NOT SURELY die" is a contradiction of the phrase "SHALL SURELY die"?
Does the Church teach what God said or what the serpent said? Why would you prefer to believe what the serpent said rather than what God said? Am I going to fast for anyone?
So do souls actually die, or are they immortal? A "soul" in Hebrew is a "nephesh." Does the Church have "two witnesses" that souls do not die? They don’t have even one. Well then, do we have two witnesses that tell us plainly souls do die?
Yes we do:
"…the soul [Heb: ‘nephesh’] that sins, it [the soul, the ‘nephesh’] shall die. (Say, isn’t that exactly what God taught us back in Gen. 2:17? Of course). (Ezek. 18:4). Doesn’t this then contradict both the lie of Satan and the Church?
"The soul that sins, IT SHALL DIE" (Ezek. 18:20).
Jesus tells us in parable of two great witnesses:
"Then said He unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which brings forth out of his treasure, NEW AND OLD" (Matt. 13:52).
What "new and old" treasures do "scribes" preserve for us regarding the "kingdom of heaven?" Why the NEW Covenant Scriptures and the OLD Covenant Scriptures, of course. And both the Old (Deut. 17:6 & 19:15), and the New (II Cor. 13:1 & Matt. 18:16) command that we must have two witnesses to establish every Word of God.
I will keep this truth short, as it overlaps with the next spiritual truth # 7 which requires that we compare and match spiritual with spiritual.
The next time your pastor mentions "immortal souls," "Christians going to heaven," "Jesus being in hell for three days," "not all men will be saved," "Christian tithing," "consciousness in death," "resurrection of the body," "parables make the teaching clear," "man’s will being free and independent of God," and dozens of other such nonsense, ask him to give you two Scriptures to support each of his unscriptural heresies.
http://bible-truths.com/twelve.htm
Hope this helps,
Joe
-
Hi lightseeker
hope you had a productive day in the jail!
I wonder if I got you mixed up with someone else? [you not getting my teasing] Will check it out an send you a PM since to explain what I meant if you aren't who I thought you were since it would be convoluted and rather long otherwise. ;D But for now I need my bed. Soz. but I'm soooooo tired!
Angie
-
Joe Post #5,
“Did the speaker have any scriptural witnesses for his opinion that Adam spoke this first? It seems that this would constitute "a secondary word" wouldn't it?”
I really don’t remember him giving any other scripture for the statement. Where does it say scripture has to be the second witness. For Pharoah it was two different dreams.
Lightseeker,
My reply was in response to your statement.
Joe
-
Joe,
Biblically speaking, does the bible say two scriptural references for doctrine?
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation
Is this verse saying you need two verses to make a doctrine? To me this verse is saying that the person who receives the personal inspiration from God to write scripture, doesn’t necessarily have the total understanding to preach his interpretation of that scripture. An example of this principle is Paul scriptural teaching on marriage: He doesn’t know, for sure, if he is even giving correct advice concerning that scripture which he wrote (verse below) . Am I reading it correctly? I know for me personally, scripture that meant one thing years ago, as far as life application, means something else today. But both understandings met my need at the time. Does that make sense? Have you had that experience?
.
1CO 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
This is the application that comes to me with regard to 2 Peter 1:20. If I get a revelation, as to some truth that is in the bible, and I share that with someone else, whose spirit also bears witness to that truth, isn't it possible that God is speaking things that are pertinent for us today? Things which may not have been pertinent for those living before today. Didn’t Jesus even say He would send the Holy Spirit to teach things the apostles which they couldn’t bear at that particular time? (Joh 16:12-13)
Why can’t we be getting a fresh word today which isn’t even in the bible!!! Who said the bible is the ‘closed’ word of God?….Man did…not scripture! If I’m wrong correct me....with two verses ;D As far as I know, scripture only closed one book/vision in the NT and that was The Revelation. And one OT vision was sealed...Daniel 8:26.
TRUTH NUMBER 6
“[A] "…that in the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES every word may be established" (Matt. 18:16).”
(B) "…In the mouth of TWO OR THREE WITNESSES shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).
Aren't both of these references talking about judging someone for sin…and not for establishing doctrine. Doesn't the scripture have to be read in context to make doctrine out of it?
[C] "And I will give power unto my TWO WITNESSES…" (Rev. 11:3).
What is God giving the two witnesses? According to scripture it is prophesy.
REV 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy...
4395 propheteuo: to foretell events, divine, speak under inspiration, exercise the prophetic office
Do you believe we have prophets today? Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture? And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?
Joe, I’m not wanting to argue, but I do challenge all…including my pastor. Believe me, I’ve challenged him to the point of angry frustration (him not me). But you know why I’m still in that church? Because God hasn’t called me out of it, and pastor hasn’t kicked me out. Why hasn’t he? He’s admitted to me, “Dee you love God and you’re used of God.” He says it as the final word concerning our admitted differences. I love and respect him for that, and have the same feeling toward him.
-
Do you believe we have prophets today? Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture? And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?
Dee,
I believe your statement pretty much sums up our differences, perhaps I have not reached your level of enlightenment. Maybe you see some guy at a retreat spouting unscriptural supposition as prophetic, I see it as heresy.
Here is what that "2000 + year old" scripture has to say in regard to your statement;
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
You have demonstrated that the articles on Bible Truths do not carry much weight with you and your beliefs, it begs the question; Why are you here?
Please give us an honest answer,
Joe
-
Hi Joe
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
I believe that brings us full circle to the original question of why would Eve the use the additional words "...NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT"
Maybe it was a shadow? :-\
Angie
-
Lightseeker
Hi Dee
Who said the bible is the ‘closed’ word of God?….Man did…not scripture!
think you got 'man' and 'scripture' in your statement the wrong way round.
uummm...I believe God did mean that His mind doesn't change, He knew the end from the beginning, so why wait till now to add anything else?
Have you ever heard the expression, 'there is nothing new under the sun' ? Well, take out all the physical stuff, [since God is Spirit and we are to match spirit with spirit] then tell me exactly what has changed.
Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not;..."
Rev. 1:8 "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty
Do you believe we have prophets today? Are they only supposed to quote 2,000+ yr. old scripture? And from two scriptural sources to boot if revealing the truth concerning old/new doctrine?
No, yes and absolutely.
Mar 13:6 For many shall come in my name saying, [that] I [Jesus] am Christ; and [they] shall deceive many.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Hold on though, God has a lot more to say on this subject.
Eze 13:3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Eze 13:4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Eze 13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.
Eze 13:7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken?
Eze 13: 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
To me this verse is saying that the person who receives the personal inspiration from God to write scripture, doesn’t necessarily have the total understanding to preach his interpretation of that scripture
Dee, this is not right. If you look at strong's definition of the words 'of any private' you may see what this scripture is really saying:
G2398
ἴδιος
idios
id'-ee-os
pertaining to self, that is, one's own; by implication private or separate:
This isn't talking about an idividual reading the scripture who may interpret it wrong [which is guaranteed to happen in the carnal minds of man] It's telling us that no scripture, on it's own, interprets itself. So, that was why it needs to be:
2 Cori 13:1 "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
Do you honestly think God would leave his word open to such misinterpretations of mere men? I don't. He has it watertight, book-ended between these two scriptures.
And what about this one?
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Think of it this way:
Q: What are the scriptures? A: They are the inspired Word of God
Q:What is another name for the Word? Answer: Jesus.
Q:What else is Jesus? He is the truth [amongst other things]
Q:So where did He say He was? A: In the midst of them!
This is confirmation scripture that the truth of the Word is in the presence [midst]of two or three witnesses [scriptures] There are loads of scriptures that back up my wee questions/answers too, but if I spend all day looking for them and listing them, will it become any clearer than it should be already?
Angie
-
Joe,
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Here is what that "2000 + year old" scripture has to say in regard to your statement;
Are you sure that's what 2000+ year old scripture is saying? Please reason with me here. If Deuteronomy 4 meant no more words were to be forthcoming then do you still consider the later words of Isaiah as the 'word of God'? How can they be if Deut. says "No more!"? Or, based upon Deut/Isaiah is the OT the only 'word from God'? If yes, then your Thessolonians quote...along with the rest of the NT isn't scripture? Do you follow my reasoning? Do you see why I think your scriptural view just isn't convincing to me? So am I understanding something wrong, or are you? If it's me please just tell me where.
Also, please go back to my last post and tell me where I messed up concerning the out of context scriptures (IMO) you stand on as the needed confirmation to prove a doctrine. Are they out of context or not in your opinion? I pointed out that none of those scriptures you used even related to doctrine and you never addressd my apparent wrong thinking. Please address my questions. I will listen. It just looks very suspicious when you totally ignore my observations to present what appears to me as a side stepping attempt to further explain your position. I'm not trying to be caddy here...just iron trying to sharpen iron.
And iron sharpening iron IS WHY I'M HERE Joe. I am not seeking to win I am merely seeking the truth. BT has a lot of truth IMO.
-
Lightseeker
The books of the bible were in chronological order? I read otherwise
Angie
-
Bobby,
I believe there is a difference between what scripture calls 'the word of/from God' and the book of scriptures, which we call the bible. A book which doesn't have a single copy of the one true original inspired word which was 'spoken' by God to 'a man' and written on a scroll. Even Ray rightly says there isn't one true translation...so why exactly do you call the bible THE word of God?
I love this book called scripture and the bible, but I'm not into what Webster's calls Bibliolotry. That is merely worshiping the 'written letter' as though it were the 'living word' or the 'spoken word'. But you/I are to be living epistles proving that Christ is within by the evidence of Him being lived out through us.
Hello Angie, :)
Such a long post...where do I begin?
Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not;..."
66 books over thousands of years...Did everyone get left out who lived before Moses wrote? Or did God need a couple thousand more years to get His point accross? Or is His spoken word still alive and spoken to those who walk with God as Enoch did....even though there's nothing written til Moses...as far as we know.
As far as prophets...I do believe there are prophets. Scripture doesn't say anything about them disappearing. As a matter of fact it is part of the fivefold ministry which was spoken of in Ephesians as being needed til the end.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
As I read this list I can't help but say: "Are we there yet?" and the answer is: "NO!" And since I don't believe in 'cut and paste' theology then I have to believe that they (fivefold ministry) are all here serving the same purpose they have since the beginning.
Your warning quotes of Matt and Mark concerning FALSE PROPHETS merely reinforces to me that Satan is an angel of light IMITATING the true. Those scriptures don't say anything about not believing the true prophets do they? It doesn't say there aren't any true ones it says watch out for the false ones.
Your Eze. quotes about false prophets confirm what I said above. It doesn't mean there weren't true prophets THEN either...right?
Dee, this is not right. If you look at strong's definition of the words 'of any private' you may see what this scripture is really saying:
I don't have a problem with that definition. But what has that verse got to do with proving two witnesses for doctrine, which is why I was addressing it??? It doesn't have anything to do with supporting the 'two bible verses as proof for doctrin'. Does it?
2 Cori 13:1 "... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
Do you honestly think God would leave his word open to such misinterpretations of mere men? I don't. He has it watertight, book-ended between these two scriptures.
Angie, does 2 Cor say from two or three 'written verses' or does it say two or three "mouths"? And as I said before, what was the context of that verse??? It wasn't establishing doctrine...it was confirming whether Christ was IN somone...or not. And that was determined by whether or not they were sinning. Read it in context 2 Co 13:1-6, and tell me where doctrine is even close to being mentioned.
BTW I know the books aren't in chronological order. That doesn't change the point that was being made.
Well it's late and I gotta go to the jail again at 7pm and I'm still at the office.
Seeya bye,
-
Dee,
I would like to know if you have read the rules to this forum?
If so, why do you keep posting here.
This forum is for people of like mind to fellowship.
Also to discuss what we learn at bible-truths.com.
If this is not you abjective,
you should take your teaching elsewhere.
Kat
-
This going back and forth between Lightseeker (Dee) and some of you all is wierd. I detect a bit of feeling annoyance here, what with claiming Dee needs to be of like mind (on every single issue, on every point Ray discerns? Heck, I don't think even I agree with everything Ray says completely, at least at this time) as everyone else. Funny this should be happening now, since according to the star rating system, Dee has posted enough times to be a junior member!
Just my two cents. It seems to me that this forum (as well as Ray's articles) are for us to learn from. I may be wrong but I don't detect that Lightseeker is just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I may be wrong. I just hope any criticism of Lightseeker (or me for bringing this up) is done in love and fellowship.--snorky
-
snorky,
What I am trying to say,
is that this is a bible-truth forum.
If someone continually disagrees with the basic beliefs held here,
are they trying to learn or teach?
Kat
-
Hello all,
I would like to make a few observations and comments.
First, Lightseeker...you say that we shouldn't treat the word of God, the ONLY word of God that we have...as the living word. That statement in itself, sets your views completely apart from mine, and I would venture to say apart from most of the people who post here...and most assuridly Rays view.
Secondly, by what authority, or reference do you utilize in discerning a false prophet from a true prophet (assuming that they even do exist today) if NOT the word of God. I have tried to pinpoint what it is exactly that you feel we should use...our own opinions, someone elses opinions? If you feel this way, then would not any new words spoken by a "prophet" be subject to this same logic, and could they not also be declared irrelevant when they no longer seem useful or when they no longer make sense to you?
I think that this is an extremely dangerous view to hold, and one that I personally wouldn't associate with. In my opinion, trying to seperate from the written word of God, while insinuating that you follow that same God is nothing short of blasphemy.
I make these observations and statements with reservation because I know all too well that quite often what we mean to say, or what we are trying to convey can become quite muddled by the nature of this type of forum, and by the written word. I think this has been a problem with other threads where assumptions are made, and made again, and then misinterpereted because of a faulty quote, etc, etc...
Perhaps that was what you were trying to point out?
In my opinion, this type of discourse only confuses and causes resentment. I would suggest taking each single aspect of your argument to God in the form of study and comparison. In that I mean comparison with Rays teachings because that is what this forum is for...to express our understanding of his teachings. What you SEEM to be suggesting, in my opinion, does NOT follow Rays teachings.
Even if I am wrong, and am merely confused as to your intent, this thread, simply because of its tone, has become counterproductive. Do you agree?
There have been at least three witnesses to THAT, I feel.
I hope in the future that you, or anyone else will gently correct ME, should my writing skills or tone, or method of questioning (or whatever) cause any misunderstanding between brothers and sisters.
Remember lightseeker, I did say " what you SEEM to be suggesting". I am not accusing you, merely pointing out how what you say...could make someone feel. I assume you Love the Lord and are doing your best to follow him, as I am.
With Love, and respect,
Chuck
-
lightseeker
High Dee
You said to Bobby
I believe there is a difference between what scripture calls 'the word of/from God' and the book of scriptures, which we call the bible. A book which doesn't have a single copy of the one true original inspired word which was 'spoken' by God to 'a man' and written on a scroll.
The original writing were called signatures, of which there is not one scrap left. However, there were many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts made that were faithfully copied from those signatures [also a few that were not] These are not exactly what you see in your bible. So you see, the bible and the scriptures are two separate and distinct things. Ray was correct when he says there is not one true translation. You must study them, always referring back to the scriptures. Having said that, if you can't see because God has not opened your eyes to see, you can study till you are blue in the face and never see the true spiritual meaning.
66 books over thousands of years...Did everyone get left out who lived before Moses wrote? Or did God need a couple thousand more years to get His point accross? Or is His spoken word still alive and spoken to those who walk with God as Enoch did....even though there's nothing written til Moses...as far as we know.
I cant imagine how you think that everyone before moses wrote was left out, since we start with ' in the beginning',listing every generation from Adam. As far as it goes with regard to God needing a couple thousand more years to get His point accross?
You will need to take that up with Him [An while you're at it, ask why there was a 400 year gap between going down to Egypt an coming back out again]
As far as prophets...I do believe there are prophets.
Like who? Muhammed? Joseph Smith? The guy next door? If you have such a belief, why would you, unless you had someone or something in mind? :-\
explain please.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
I could be wrong here Dee but this is telling me that everything we need to know is contained in THIS book, that there is to be NOTHING added by any man. NO MORE PROPHESY. I could not stretch it to get it to mean that there will be additional prophesy in future, either written or vocal. someone having a dream does not a prohesy make. In the scriptures, the stories about dreams are parables, It's all one giant parable!
Aren't both of these references talking about judging someone for sin…and not for establishing doctrine. Doesn't the scripture have to be read in context to make doctrine out of it?
I wouldn't have thought so since we are clearly, and on may occasions told to 'JUDGE NOT'
Dee, you keep going on about context, and In every other book on the planet I would agree with you 100% But the truths of scriptures contained in the bible are to be spiritually discerned, we can't do it on our own. Yes, it will seem literal if you can't see anything else. That will only give rise to contradictions though.
You obviously have many questions and issues you would like answers to, and it is great that you do ask them. I have to say that since you seem to want to debate every single word and train of thought, perhaps you need to continue this conversation with someone much more knowledgable than I [I have only been studying the word for about 9 months]
I can only answer you so far at this time and let you know what I know to date [check back in say, 12 years] ;D In the meantime, God would be your best port of call. I hope this doesn't put you off from asking questions and seeking answers [I'm sure it wont, you remind me of a dog with a bone] ;D Lol
I really still have so much to learn and feel I have taken this topic as far as I can with you, and so now bow out to pursue other things. This has been interesting Dee and I thank you so much for taking the time your inpart your thoughts.
God bless you Dee, and may the Lord continue to enlighten you as you search for the truth :)
Angie
-
lightseeker
P.S saw this and thought of you! ;D
Col 2: Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ.
Take it easy :)
Angie
-
Lightseeker
PPS
Sorry, to clarify, I thought of it FOR you, not OF you!
Angie
:)