bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: mharrell08 on June 13, 2011, 05:25:37 PM
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living? Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?
Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching? A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day? Is all this literal or a parable?
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living? Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?
Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching? A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day? Is all this literal or a parable?
You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:
Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.
As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):
John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,
Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.
Daywalker 8)
-
mharrell,
It is very hard to conceive of God making a precursor to the carnal being that was to be the ancestor of His only begotten son.
It is hard to imagine the precursor of "adam" as an upright hominid that lived in the wild and ate grass and foraged like a deer reproducing in kind until God chose to add a sentient mind capable of language and awareness of self and its creator.
The whole idea is repugnant.
Indiana Bob
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living? Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?
Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching? A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day? Is all this literal or a parable?
You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:
Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.
As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):
John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,
Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.
Daywalker 8)
Being a "son of" can also be a parable or not literal. See Matthew 1:1. Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. That is not strictly true or literal. Adam is also the Hebrew word for "humanity".
Also your statement about Satan is an opinion. I yearn for absolute truth, not opinion. If a talking, standing serpent is not literal, which I have doubts about since I've never seen one ; how do we distinguish between literal and parable?
-
Hi Marques,
I had not thought of that verse, that does give us even more to consider.
So did God literally scoop up dirt and make Adam? That would have been contrary to how He had been doing things? We can also see where He "formed" the animals.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed(H3335) every animal of the field,
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed(H3335) man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Maybe Adam was the beginning of a different race that God brought out of the indigenous people of the time? We still have indigenous people to this day. But if so Adam was separated from them (actually he might have been an outcast, being different and all) and was brought to the "garden," there God could work with him. We know that God walked with Adam and taught/commanded him things.
Gen 2:15 And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying...
Maybe God was teaching Adam and giving him the knowledge he needed (which he passed on to his generation) of how to develop the advances needed to start the 'civilized' race of people?
Daywalker, the verse in Luke 3:38 "Adam, the son of God," seems similar to what Paul said referring to man as God's "offspring."
Acts 17:28 for in Him we live, and move, and are; as also certain of your poets have said: For of Him also we are offspring.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
mharrell,
It is very hard to conceive of God making a precursor to the carnal being that was to be the ancestor of His only begotten son.
It is hard to imagine the precursor of "adam" as an upright hominid that lived in the wild and ate grass and foraged like a deer reproducing in kind until God chose to add a sentient mind capable of language and awareness of self and its creator.
The whole idea is repugnant.
Indiana Bob
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Bob,
It is not repugnant if it is true. My problem with the first part of Genesis is that I do not know what is literal and what is parable. I lean toward it being a parable.
John
-
Literal or parable, it still leaves us with the idea that God created a lower animal species that 'evolved" into a man that was the progenitor of Jesus.
OR that God put into place circumstances that left to their natural consequences evolved into a human like being that God then selected to become the progenitor of God's only begotten son. It leaves too much to chance occurrence.
OR if not, then it has God having to experiment with a being that would be suitable to become one made in the image of God.
Why is any of this supposition necessary? Why not have a first couple and then have their children just procreate together and grow a large family of cousins.
I do not see any reason that God could not begin with two people or two rabbits or two deer etc. Why do WE have to complicate something that should be relatively simple? Why do two rabbits have to come from a "lower" animal?
Why do two humans have to come from a tribe or community of less intelligent beings and have God then develop an UPGRADE so to speak. God is perfectly capable of developing a finished product the first time.
Just my never to be humble opinion.
Thank you for your comment John, Indiana Bob
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
That does give us more to consider....
The only thing that bothers me about this theory is Eve's existence.
The scriptures make it pretty clear that she came from Adam. If women were around, why a different creation for Eve?
I guess I would be assuming women were around....???
Though Cain found a wife from somewhere....
This also brings up another question....Was marriage between men and women even something done with early man?
It would seem a lot of this is left up to science for an answer.
Antaiwan
-
You my friend have opened something that can only have one answer. "..man shall leave his father," I must believe that mans father is his former/creator, " and mother" this can only be the "ground and dust mixed with the mist."
Luk 3:38 the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I have to believe that man/adams mother is the ground/dust mixed with the mist, and the father is Jehovah
God.
Now the digging begins. I will say right up front, I accept that Genesis is an allagory. I believe that the Bible is a parable. Did all of the written words of the Bible happen, were all the folks, men of God, prophets, an actual real part of how the world, the earth has become what it is. I say yes, there is history. But history, I do not accept is what we are to glean from. It is what HE SAID, WHAT HE DID, and WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO.
I believe that we need to listen and hear and begin with this base, God is Spirit, the Words that I say are spirit, they are life. God is One. This is my trumpet that He as set before me..Eph 4:3 being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of the peace;
I may stand alone, but as of now I stand. Spirit IS.
-
This is an interesting question. It is undeniable that our physical bodies really are created out of the dust from the ground. If you remove the water, and cook us down to our constituents, our physical bodies are pretty indistinguishable from dirt. We are minerals. So the Genesis text is quite correct on we are made of dirt. So we may be literally created from the ground, in one supernatural event, as described in genesis, or if merely allegory, then it may show the physical solidarity of our bodies with the physical creation. We share very much in common with the animals, we share the beast nature that comes from the physical, with them. Hunger, thirst, reproductive urges, are all shared in common with animals all down the chain. Thankfully we have a conscience and a spiritual right and wrong sentient understanding that takes us much higher, though.
but on the other hand, the New Testament clearly talks about Adam a lot! Specially in contradistinction to Christ. The First man, the Second man, the one who has caused death to fall on all others, the one who saves all those who are under the death of the first. So would the Bible compare a real life figure..Christ; with a mythical figure, that was only an allegory? I have trouble with that. Maybe others would not. I like the simpler parallel of two men. That both were universal. If you say it is an allegory, then if others were around, at that time, how could satan tempt them all? Or is that allegory too? because then the offspring of Adam could mate with others who had not sinned in committing a transgression. Or was the entire group, around at that time, simultaneously made aware? Too many hypotheticals for me. I like and feel that the creation, an ongoing event, over millions of years, took Gods superintendence and interventions to make it happen. I believe that. I see the creation of Adam as one example of millions of interentions, throughout geological time. I do not believe that evolution has the power, in and of itself, merely coupled with natural law, without the over riding superintendence and hand of God, to make it all happen.
-
Ray wrote on this recently. It's very interesting that there's two stories of creation in Genesis and we keep looking at them as one- but what if they are not? What if man came and then Adam came? I'm not going to put my hat in the ring and say this is it, but it's pretty intriguing. And when Cain was afraid he would be put to death, who was he afraid of? Christians I know say he was afraid if the siblings he didn't have yet from Adam and Eve, but that sounds like nonsense to me. And just who was the "sons of God and daughters of men" in Genesis 6? Is the story literal? Yes. Is it symbolic? Yes. The physical first and then the spiritual is what we are taught.
I don't understand why a man leaving his father and mother isn't God telling how the story will unfold from Adam and Eve on. A man will leave his father and mother- is it written in the future tense in Hebrew? I don't know.
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
My pennies worth.
There isn't a mother for Adam I can see unless we consider the dirt to be the mother I suppose. Think I'll stick with no mother. We have Adam"s creation spelled out simply as being formed out of the dust of the earth and then later Eve being made out of Adam. I don't see this as further proof for anything other than how marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to work.
I have 3 translations that use the word "now" in Gen. 2:23. There may be more.
Look at verse 23. Adam says this is "now" (now what? a beginning? consider Gen.3:20, marriage?) which indicates to me, from this point forward a man shall leave his father and mother. In verse 24 we have the "therefore" which indicates "for this reason" for what reason? The reason given in verse 23, the "now". From this point forward this is how it is gonna work, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave, be joined, as if they are the same flesh and bone joined to one another, a close nit relationship not to be separated.
The point Jesus was making to the Pharisees is all about Marriage, once united, joined together as one flesh and bone, it is never meant to be separated. He was telling them in the strongest manner possible that they didn't know squat about how marriage is supposed to work.
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
What beginning? The beginning of Marriage, the first one recognized.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now (now what, still part of me, my wife, my woman, the beginning in Mat. 19:8 ) bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore (for this reason, marriage will work like this) shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly) unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Then again, if anyone wants to look at Gen. 2:24 as a parable or the whole book as a parable for that matter, it can lead down many paths. I'm not saying it's one or the other, just that this is how I understand Gen. 2:24 and what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees.
Marques , I didn't intend to try explaining away the possibility you bring up with my limited and simple understanding but I just don't see Adam having a mother at all. As always with scripture I know there is more than meets the eye.
-
The whole human race had their start with Adam and Eve is what the church teaches! That Adam was literally formed from the dirt and gave life is what the church teaches! One thing I have learned from Ray is that if the church teaches it.... well it's probably not right, as they receive their understanding from the father of liars.
John 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do... for he is a liar and the father of it.
It seems we still cling to those old ideas that we were raised up believing. How many of us believed the flood was worldwide before? Then after Ray showed us his research of what 'seemed' obvious in Scripture, who of us still believe the waters covered the whole earth?
What about the creation days, that seemed to be without question... 6 literal day. But now we know there is a great deal more to it, billions of years more to it.
So why would this account of Adam be any different? It is quite clear that there were other indigenous (hunter gathers) people on the earth way before the time of Adam.
We need to look at this subject with an open mind. There is no reason to fight one another over this idea, we are here to reason these things out and let the spirit reveal what is true.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
I recently read a book by a Christian scientist who was the head of the "Human Genome Project" that basically mapped out the human dna. If you haven't read his book or listened to his lectures on You Tube, i H-I-G-H-L-Y recomend it. (you can email me for his name and info as i know we are not allowed to post links here: lecallicoat@hughes.net). the scientific efidence is so clear and so undeniable that a 'man-like' creature has been on the earth for tens of thousands of years, and came about by the process of evolution. also that 'adam and eve' could not have been 'less than' a gene pool of approximately 10 thousand. remember this is written by a CHRISTIAN scientist who totally believes in God, but that He used the process of evolution to creat man and all living species. very very thought provoking book. just my 2 cents worth.
lauriellen
-
Kat,
I can see Adam being separated/outcast especially if he had desires different from those around.
Everyone would have been a hunter and gathering type and Adam comes along and starts talking about tilling the ground to grow your own food. Think about how that must of sounded to everyone around.
It could also be possible that at this time he took his wife with him, something no one has done before, and left the group.
(therefore leaving his father and mother)
Its hard for me to believe biology separated Adam and his wife but that their belief is what caused this separation.
Adam would be the first of man to believe in God(the God of Abraham, not some other god)
Eve just as well(The mother of all living)Why? because she believed too.
The problem I see in genesis is that it generally talks about man(as a whole, the human race, mankind) and then throws around a personal name such as Adam, which means the same thing. This alone can be confusing.
Antaiwan
-
A lot of good points being made in this thread and this subject really intrigues me! ;D
I believe those the Lord has chosen are inspired to think "outside the box" when it comes to spiritual matters. Those in the church are "in the box" and that box is dark and deceived. As Kathy reminded us, if the church teaches it, that's a good reason to take a second look. ;)
René
-
could it be that when God 'breathed' into "Adam" the 'breath of life' and he became a 'living soul' (all symbols), that perhaps for the first time 'man' became 'self aware' and was giving a consciouseness that set him apart from all the other 'creatures' for the first time?
-
Jesus is "awake".
Adam is still sleeping. ~ :D
Arc
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living? Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?
Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching? A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day? Is all this literal or a parable?
You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:
Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.
As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):
John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,
Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.
Daywalker 8)
Being a "son of" can also be a parable or not literal. See Matthew 1:1. Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. That is not strictly true or literal. Adam is also the Hebrew word for "humanity".
Also your statement about Satan is an opinion. I yearn for absolute truth, not opinion. If a talking, standing serpent is not literal, which I have doubts about since I've never seen one ; how do we distinguish between literal and parable?
John, as if I yearn for opinion and not absolute truth? Let's be fair, your assessment of the Genesis story being a parable is just as much "opinion" as my statement on Satan. Though let me also add I didn't come to this "opinion" without reason, but I used a Scriptural example for why I feel as I do.
True, Jesus is called the son of David though He wasn't literally the son of David. But does this fact mean or even suggest that Jesus didn't actually exist at all? Of course not! Likewise, Adam being the "son of God" could indeed be figurative, yet does that mean Adam, the man, never existed at all? I am aware that Adam in the Hebrew means "humanity", and I'm not dogmatically denying the possibility of the Genesis story being a parable...I just haven't been convinced yet.
Godspeed,
Daywalker 8)
-
There is another thought that comes to mind, in this discussion. We know all the pre ancestors to modern man were mortal. They all had death and decay residing in them, and they all went to the dust at death. Now let us consider this scripture...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. Obviously, all the ape and pre human hominids were experiencing death and dying. So how does that verse make any REAL sense, if Adam was just one of them? Death would have already been alive and well, and in full operation, in him. I suppose one could say he merely gained an understanding that death was operating in him, when his eyes were opened, so the allegory is one of mere understanding and not a definitive change in him. I agree with the fact that Adam did have a carnal mind, before the transgression, but he had NOTactually disobeyed, up until the transgression. There is something very important about the act, the work, the actual committing of the transgression. And the scriptures state that death would not start in him UNTIL he partook. Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die. So even if you do want to exclude physical death from this verse, and merely make it spiritual(which is a possible interpretation) it still does not fit well with the other verses that Paul wrote in the new testament. It sure seems like Paul had all death in mind when he wrote what he did.
Even the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (death, not neverending torment in hell) I think Jesus saves me from all the manifestations of death, the death that results from transgression.
And the new testament scriptures also state that it was through the transgression that death passed to all men, not his inheritance from his "parents". ...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. This verse clearly implies that without the sin by Adam death would not now be operating in man. We inherit death from Adam, however. The inheritance of death is not from his progenitors, it is from Adam to the whole world, to us.
-
This verse clearly implies that without the sin by Adam death would not now be operating in man. We inherit death from Adam, however. The inheritance of death is not from his progenitors, it is from Adam to the whole world, to us.
That's not exactly true Doug, the wages of sin is death. As all have sinned, all inherit death by sin not by Adam. Wherever there is sin/transgression, there is death working in one's members [Rom 7:13].
-
That's not exactly true Doug, the wages of sin is death. As all have sinned, all inherit death by sin not by Adam. Wherever there is sin/transgression, there is death working in one's members [Rom 7:13].
I was speaking more broadly, like when Paul wrote...1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
We do inherit from Adam, whether one wants to call it sin, or death, the result is the same.
-
Come to think of it, if there had already been other people (the world?) around at the time of Adam’s creation (calling?), wouldn't it fit so perfectly with the way that God works things…
...the many and the few
...the called and the chosen
...Israel and the Gentiles
...“Be ye separate”
...“Come out of her my people”
-
We do inherit from Adam, whether one wants to call it sin, or death, the result is the same.
True, the result is the same. I found this email from Ray where he speaks of Adam's mortality being passed onto the human race:
http://bible-truths.com/email5.htm#Adam------------------------------------------
Dear Barb:
As with ALL major doctrines, the Christian Church has not a clue as to this subject of "original sin."
The doctrine taught is that Adam and Eve were PERFECT (after all, could God create something that was NOT perfect? Were they not created in God's OWN IMAGE)?
Well, they were "perfect" in the same way that Satan (a liar and a murderer from the very beginning) was perfect -- PERFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH GOD CREATED THEM.
Adam and Eve ALREADY had lust and disobedience in their hearts BEFORE the serpent approached them. Eve LUSTED BEFORE she ever actually ate of the fruit. Small technicality for our Christian friends.
Now then let's read Rom. 5:12 together:
"Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Now then, WHERE does that verse say that Adam's "sin was passed on to all in the world?" Was "sin" passed on? NO! "DEATH" was passed on.
Are we condemned because of "ADAM'S SIN?" NO! "...for that ALL have sinned." All have sinned their OWN individual sins, they are not condemned because of Adam's sin, but they did receive "death" from Adam in that "mortality" WAS passed on to the whole human race, because Adam did NOT partake of the "TREE OF LIFE," but rather sinned which brought the penalty God promised of "death."
A better translation helps our understanding:
"Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind on which all sinned..." (Concordant Literal New Testament).
Rom. 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..."
They were made sinners by VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THEY RECEIVED ADAM'S MORTALITY [DEATH] NOT HIS SIN. We sin because we are mortal [dying]. We have NO SPIRITUAL STRENGTH to combat our carnal, sinning, DYING, FLESH. Hence all sin because THEY ARE MORTAL. Adam sinned because HE WAS MORTAL. "It is appointed unto ALL men once to die"
But there are TWO DEATHS -- spiritual and physical. Jesus Christ said: "Let the DEAD bury the DEAD." Two kinds of "dead" in ONE VERSE. The SPIRITUALLY DEAD, who bury the PHYSICALLY DEAD!
Hope that helps your understanding a little better. One more point: Any human being from any generation in the history of the human race, if put in the garden under the same conditions as Adam, would have ALSO SINNED THE SAME WAY. Adam sinned not because he could have chosen NOT TO SIN, but because he was made too spiritually weak to avoid or conquer sin. God MADE Adam subject to VANITY and CORRUPTION (and "not willingly"). See Romans 8:18-23).
God be with you,
Ray
I think we're saying/meaning the same thing. :)
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living? Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?
Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching? A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day? Is all this literal or a parable?
You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:
Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.
As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):
John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,
Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.
Daywalker 8)
Being a "son of" can also be a parable or not literal. See Matthew 1:1. Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. That is not strictly true or literal. Adam is also the Hebrew word for "humanity".
Also your statement about Satan is an opinion. I yearn for absolute truth, not opinion. If a talking, standing serpent is not literal, which I have doubts about since I've never seen one ; how do we distinguish between literal and parable?
John, as if I yearn for opinion and not absolute truth? Let's be fair, your assessment of the Genesis story being a parable is just as much "opinion" as my statement on Satan. Though let me also add I didn't come to this "opinion" without reason, but I used a Scriptural example for why I feel as I do.
True, Jesus is called the son of David though He wasn't literally the son of David. But does this fact mean or even suggest that Jesus didn't actually exist at all? Of course not! Likewise, Adam being the "son of God" could indeed be figurative, yet does that mean Adam, the man, never existed at all? I am aware that Adam in the Hebrew means "humanity", and I'm not dogmatically denying the possibility of the Genesis story being a parable...I just haven't been convinced yet.
Godspeed,
Daywalker 8)
Hi Daywalker,,
I didn't mean to cause offense. You are a scholar and gentleman.
The Scriptures are documents of spiritual truths that can only be spiritually discerned with the Spirit of God.
The topic of our actual beginnings is a topic that I have been interested in all my life.
Literal or parable, or a combination of both? I suspect we may not have the complete answers this side of the Resurrection.
Peace to you.
John
No worries, John, we're good! Like I said I don't deny the possibility of it being a parable (at least partially) at all; I was just sharing a few problems I've run into that I've yet to find answers for in support of the parable theory (I call it 'theory' because at this time no one has shown me Scriptural support yet). Anyway, I agree with you on the resurrection too; I can't begin to imagine the extreme amount of enlightenment we will receive in the next life.... I hope the brains of our resurrection bodies are much bigger and better than our current ones! :D
Daywalker 8)
-
I haven't commented in a while, but one thing I remember about Ray's teachings is him constantly distinguishing between flesh and spirit. For example:
Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
Romans 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Romans 7:11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.
Are we to take these verses to mean that Paul literally died? Or is this speaking of something spiritual? And if it is spiritual, how would it apply to the "death" spoken of in the story of Adam and Eve? Does the commandment from God to Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil parallel the commandment spoken of by Paul? Is physical death really the issue here? Or was it spiritual death that passed on to all mankind from the point that God gave his commandment in the garden?
Another verse to think about regarding the difference between physical and spiritual death:
I John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.
Is John saying that anyone who does not love is physically dead? Were those who now love once physically dead and now physically alive again?
On a related vein...if the death and resurrection of Jesus applies to all men and women who have ever lived, including those who lived before he died and rose again, would the same apply to the "death" brought in by Adam's sin? i.e...Could the "death" spoken of in relation to Adam and Eve have passed to all men before and after Adam's disobedience (assuming there were men before Adam)? If that is true, would those who were physically alive before Adam experience that "death" once they have been resurrected to physical bodies and had an opportunity to be exposed to God's commandment?
I don't know. Don't really have a lot of definitive answers. Just things to think about.
Eric
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
Joh 6:63 ...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Hey Marques,I hope you can see some of the Spiritual implications involved with your question.
Thanks...
Peace...Mark
-
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh
When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.
Joh 6:63 ...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?
Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Hey Marques,I hope you can see some of the Spiritual implications involved with your question.
Thanks...
Peace...Mark
No, that wasn't related to my question but thank you anyways.
-
At Ray's conf. in Nashville he talked about the Clovis people who were in America/Canada 14,000 years ago. The church teaches Adam is about 6,000 years ago!
When I had my DNA done for genealogical purposes it said I was from the Hunter/Gatherers in the Ukraine area about 20,000 years ago.
Well, my 2 cents, I agree w/ Ray on this, not the church.
Did Moses write Genesis?? Far as I know there is no proof of this. How did the first 5 books of the Torah come down thru thousands of years intact?? 400 years in Egypt would have to infiltrate the brains of those Hebrews wouldn't it?? The first 3 chaps of Gen. are kinda confusing and actually shows creation out of order of days. Did the Hebrews want to make sense of their beginnings like all other major people groups?? Or did God choose them to make Himself known to mankind? Thereby he could then be the first man as Christ is the 2nd man....those aren't literal statements but spiritual.
Lots of questions, good commentary, good thread people!
I read that the composite of our bodies are the same elements that were in the Big Bang!
Cain left and went to cities!! Lots of people on the planet before 6,000 years ago- but finally a group was hearing about the One True God. Maybe thats it.
-
According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law. It's a really weird law, but it's not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book. You might find that the number one most popular word is "the" (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word "a" (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be "elephant", and which appears just once.
Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from "1" for "the", and "2" for "a", right down "1,000" for "elephant". The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of "the", then 1,800 appearances of "a", down to one appearance of "elephant".
If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).
So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into "words" each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for "words" 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long. They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages!
There seems to be some sort of language buried in the so-called junk DNA! Certainly, the next few years will be a very good time to make a career change into the field of genetics.
So now, around the edge of the new millennium, we have a reasonable understanding of the 3% of the DNA that makes amino acids, proteins and babies. And the remaining 97% - well, we're pretty sure that there is some language buried there, even if we don't yet know what it says. It might say "It's all a joke", or it might say "Don't worry, be happy", or it might say "Have a nice day, lots of love, from your friendly local DNA".
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience
Jesus is the "missing" link ~ :) ...He's not really "missing'" ~ :D
Arc
-
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So God created humanity - male and female, right?
But guess what? Adam was not male or female, he was both male and female.
from http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=3720.5
How did he know it was bone of his bone? How could he look at Eve and say, you came out of me? What did he see? God didn’t say, 'Adam I know your going to wonder where this woman came from, I put you to sleep and I took a rib, I made her.' No, he could tell, he looked and saw and he said that’s me, you come from me. How did he know that? He looked, he had something before he went to sleep, he had something and when he woke up and God brought him to the woman, he didn’t have it anymore. She had it! What do you suppose that was? He (just like God) was male and female. God is male and female, Adam was male and female. God took the female part and made a woman out of it. Adam saw that what he had was now gone, it’s over there. She came from me, that’s bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, she came out of me.
So my question is:
Did God create a bunch of males and females in the first place, and Adam was the only one who's both male and female?
OR
Did God create a bunch of people who were both male and female(hermaphrodites??), and then took out their female (or male) part to create another human, just like what He did to Adam?
I am inclined to think Adam was the only one who's both male and female, hence he's different and and an outcast, people might not understand his condition, that also explains "If women were around, why a different creation for Eve?" Because no one wanted him, probably not even his biological parents, he was despised and rejected. But giess what? God chose him and took him to the garden.
1 Cor 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
Does it make sense? ???
-
The whole human race had their start with Adam and Eve is what the church teaches! That Adam was literally formed from the dirt and gave life is what the church teaches! One thing I have learned from Ray is that if the church teaches it.... well it's probably not right, as they receive their understanding from the father of liars.
John 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do... for he is a liar and the father of it.
It seems we still cling to those old ideas that we were raised up believing. How many of us believed the flood was worldwide before? Then after Ray showed us his research of what 'seemed' obvious in Scripture, who of us still believe the waters covered the whole earth?
What about the creation days, that seemed to be without question... 6 literal day. But now we know there is a great deal more to it, billions of years more to it.
So why would this account of Adam be any different? It is quite clear that there were other indigenous (hunter gathers) people on the earth way before the time of Adam. Why would God need to create a person (Adam) from scratch, so to speak? He already had all of these people that He had already created. It is quite easy for me to see how He would use these people to give birth to and care for the baby Adam and then separate Adam from them at some point. There are no Scriptures that dispute this, there are just preconceived idea that do.
We need to look at this subject with an open mind. There is no reason to fight one another over this idea, we are here to reason these things out and let the spirit reveal what is true.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
I may have read this but please give me a refresher. Thanks "He already had all of these people that He had already created." Kat
-
You know this whole subject is just ripe for speculation. We can all go off in a thousand tangents.
Until God gives us understanding, we don't really know what is literal, what is symbolic, or what is a combination of both.
The whole story could be an allegory that teaches profound spiritual truths.
Adam is also the Hebrew name for humanity. Adam could be a stand in for the human race. Eve is the mother of all living. For sure, at some point, there had to be a first man and first woman, or there would have been no reproduction of the human race.
Jesus always taught in parables in the New Testament. He is the Word of God. Why would He have changed His modus operandi in the Old Testament and not taught in parables too. New Testament parables---Old Testament literal truth?
For sure, the fundamental purpose of the Scriptures is to show spiritual truths, that only God will reveal to those to whom it is granted.
I like that. I for one am lead to lean for the parable view.
You stated "Eve is the mother of all living." for me that is interesting. That word "living" is H2416 chay From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); is the same word "life" of breath of life.
So knowing this I dont accept the notion that the "breath of life" is the somehow God's Spirit. My God is not part of Adams Eve, the mother of all living.
Eve is the mother of the alive. That breath of life for me was the ignition that started the respiratory system that keeps the living soul/breathing creature LIVING.
Having said that when I read Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. I read "...and the breath shall return unto God who gave it."
I hope I said that clearly enough.
-
I would like to thank all the members for their comments. Good discussion without any hurt feelings. :)
With that being said, I think we should end this thread on a good note. Thanks again to all.