What is the correct view on genesis

[Giuliano]

Unfortunately Giuliano, we cannot escape our opinion. Every time we read a passage from the Bible or any other source, we add our experience, education, and emotion to the text - even when we are reading it to ourselves. It is a good practice to pay careful attention to the text and absorb the literal meaning, but do not fool yourself into thinking you are doing so without adding your opinion. Don’t be like modernist scientists, who believed their theories, experiments and data were free from bias.

I advise reading the Bible knowing we most likely have wrong opinions. . . with the hope that we read something that corrects us and tells us where we're wrong.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Whose reproof or correction? I want to start with myself. I may be on the wrong track if I read it so I can reprove or correct others, especially if read it and never found out where I was wrong.

As for my opinions? I've been known to thank people when they showed me where I was wrong. It's a beautiful thing. I was wrong before I met them, and they gave me something better than I had before I met them. I don't take my ideas that seriously. If we feel we can't rise above our opinions, we will stall spiritually.

A big problem is when people think they've arrived at truth and can't learn anything more. They mistake their opinions for facts. If a thought crossed their minds, they think it must be true.

 

[Giuliano]

"Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? "
This is something I liken to when Jesus cast out the demons possessing the man and sent them into the swine...who then, were driven into the water to drown...was that the swines fault?

Great question. I think again the Covenant God made with Noah and animals (discussed in post 150) comes into play. The clean animals agreed to help man by being sacrifices for sins that were repented for; the unclean animals bore the sins men hadn't repented of. People couldn't handle those demons. The pigs knew what to do with them and kept their bargain or covenant made with God. They will have their reward someday too.

And, also, the "serpent" must have once had legs as God cursed it to crawl on it's belly for ever and to eat the dust. Not saying that I understand all of this by no means yet, all I can say is that God certainly places humans into a much more important status than animals. It is confusing as, when we read of Baals donkey speaking as to why he whipped and hurt him, God sure seemed to be on the animals side? Things that make me go "hmm".

How about wings? Winged serpents are mentioned only once in the Bible; but they're well known in many cultures and sad to say, some cultures worshiped them the way Jews did the serpent on the pole before it was destroyed to stop them.

I think the serpent lost its wings (or at least two of them) -- and Jesus is meant to replace the serpent. Hence:

Malachi 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

The Greeks seemed to have known something about it, and the caduceus we see in doctors' offices almost show it.

 

[Giuliano]

I see what you are saying here John, and truth it is! YET-being an animal lover, the verse about the woman and Jesus calling her a dog just kind of always made me sad. I can't see Him using a slur towards her. Maybe it was not per se a "slur" yet, what else could it have been?
I suppose it's that I see all animals as being innocent since they live on instinct alone and, do not have the capacity to be 'evil'. Silly, yes I know but, there ya have it!

Was she a dog when he said that? I think she pretty much was -- and was changed. After all, Jesus did give her what she asked for. That tells me she stopped being a dog. She was like Peter who knew how to profit from reproof when Jesus called him "satan." When Jesus appears to be insulting some people, it's because he knew they could benefit by having their flaws pointed out -- they'd not argue and deny things -- they change for the better.

Speaking of dogs, they too are unclean animals. They too can bear some sins of men and women and capture them, thus temporarily removing them from the world. So Jezebel got eaten by dogs. Well done, dogs! People couldn't deal with, but the dogs could. By coincidence (?) Jesus was in the same areas Jezebel came from when he talked about dogs.

 

[Giuliano]

To an observant Jew, swine were filth. They vacuumed up garbage, rotting flesh, etc. It's the perfect place to store demons as well. Christian doctrines are the source of most confusion. If Jesus made swine clean, then he could just as likely be a swineherd as a shepherd, and the story makes no sense if Jesus (the good shepherd) cast demons into sheep.

Good post. I agree. I think that's why the dogs ate Jezebel. Good place for her demons. Some good can come of it. Don't forget pearls come from unclean animals. . . . All that filth they eat, and they can make pearls out of it.

 

[Giuliano]

I would only point out that the "nachash" is the same literal "shining Seraph"/figurative serpent. However, I am not able to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements.

The apparent contradictions multiply when you see that both Jesus and Satan are referred to as lions and that Jesus compared himself to Moses' serpent on a pole. If you calculate the value of words using gematria, you find "messiah" and "nachash" both equal 358.

Here's my opinion. Their role or position is similar if not the same. The serpent was meant to cover (as the covering cherub) Adam who would then cover Eve. He didn't. He fouled things up by covering Eve. This left the man and the woman without the proper covering. I see the serpent was meant to act as the Christ covering -- but we see an "antichrist" manifestation. (Antichrist come in the flesh?) Eve got fooled because she thought "below" meant she was inferior. It didn't. If anything being lower was a better chance to serve. What is lowered to serve is exalted.

 

[Giuliano]

"Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? "
This is something I liken to when Jesus cast out the demons possessing the man and sent them into the swine...who then, were driven into the water to drown...was that the swines fault? And, also, the "serpent" must have once had legs as God cursed it to crawl on it's belly for ever and to eat the dust. Not saying that I understand all of this by no means yet, all I can say is that God certainly places humans into a much more important status than animals. It is confusing as, when we read of Baals donkey speaking as to why he whipped and hurt him, God sure seemed to be on the animals side? Things that make me go "hmm".

Maybe his donkey cared about him. Maybe animals can be used by God to reprove people? I have a feeling Balaam's donkey will have her reward for keeping the covenant made with Noah and the animals.

 

[shnarkle]

I see what you are saying here John, and truth it is! YET-being an animal lover, the verse about the woman and Jesus calling her a dog just kind of always made me sad. I can't see Him using a slur towards her. Maybe it was not per se a "slur" yet, what else could it have been?
I suppose it's that I see all animals as being innocent since they live on instinct alone and, do not have the capacity to be 'evil'. Silly, yes I know but, there ya have it!

If one loves an animal, they aren't likely to eat that animal's flesh. It's meant to be a slur, but the greater point of the story reveals that it doesn't matter what one's station is in life; what matters is the faith one is given to receive the gospel message. Paul affirms this as well with his comments on those who are slaves, etc.

 

[shnarkle]

The apparent contradictions multiply when you see that both Jesus and Satan are referred to as lions and that Jesus compared himself to Moses' serpent on a pole. If you calculate the value of words using gematria, you find "messiah" and "nachash" both equal 358.

I'm not seeing a multiplication of contradictions here. Could you elaborate on how this is relevant to what I posted?

Here's my opinion. Their role or position is similar if not the same. The serpent was meant to cover (as the covering cherub) Adam who would then cover Eve. He didn't.

Where did you get this idea that the serpent was meant to cover Adam?

I see the serpent was meant to act as the Christ covering -- but we see an "antichrist" manifestation. (Antichrist come in the flesh?)

This appears to be a tautology as antichrist means "instead of". Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, not the serpent.

Eve got fooled because she thought "below" meant she was inferior. It didn't. If anything being lower was a better chance to serve. What is lowered to serve is exalted.

They were both fooled, but then so was the nachash as well.

 

[Nancy]

Maybe his donkey cared about him. Maybe animals can be used by God to reprove people? I have a feeling Balaam's donkey will have her reward for keeping the covenant made with Noah and the animals.

♥

 

[Nancy]

Great question. I think again the Covenant God made with Noah and animals (discussed in post 150) comes into play. The clean animals agreed to help man by being sacrifices for sins that were repented for; the unclean animals bore the sins men hadn't repented of. People couldn't handle those demons. The pigs knew what to do with them and kept their bargain or covenant made with God. They will have their reward someday too.
How about wings? Winged serpents are mentioned only once in the Bible; but they're well known in many cultures and sad to say, some cultures worshiped them the way Jews did the serpent on the pole before it was destroyed to stop them.

I think the serpent lost its wings (or at least two of them) -- and Jesus is meant to replace the serpent. Hence:

Malachi 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

The Greeks seemed to have known something about it, and the caduceus we see in doctors' offices almost show it.

Oh wow...I had never thought of wings...that would make much more sense, esp. after reading your post. How interesting!

 

[Nancy]

If one loves an animal, they aren't likely to eat that animal's flesh. It's meant to be a slur, but the greater point of the story reveals that it doesn't matter what one's station is in life; what matters is the faith one is given to receive the gospel message. Paul affirms this as well with his comments on those who are slaves, etc.

Agreed. And, to think that originally both humans and animals were to eat of the fruit of the trees and the food from the ground. Now a day's, the soil is so used up of any nutrients, it is expensive to eat all organic fruit, veggies and grains...but then, God will bless our food to our bodies when we give thanks. That is JMHO

 

[shnarkle]

Agreed. And, to think that originally both humans and animals were to eat of the fruit of the trees and the food from the ground. Now a day's, the soil is so used up of any nutrients, it is expensive to eat all organic fruit, veggies and grains...but then, God will bless our food to our bodies when we give thanks. That is JMHO

I must politely disagree that it is expensive to eat organic fruit, vegetables or meat. it isn't even expensive to grow them. It is expensive to purchase them. My garden costs me practically nothing in comparison to what other people spend on organic produce. My neighbors will verify this fact with their gardens as well. We're all growing heirlooms which are not only inexpensive, but incredibly superior in quality to what is available at the grocery store, or even the local farmer's markets. When fruit trees mature, the harvest is practically free, and will continue to produce for the rest of your life.

My food bill used to be one of the biggest expenditures on my bank statements along with gas. What I discovered is that most of the driving I was doing was simply to and from the grocery store. I would run other errands as well, but when I don't have to drive to the store for food, I literally save thousands of dollars a year on food and gas alone. I'm in much better health as well, not just from eating superior produce, but from working with the soil. I actually love working in the garden. it isn't really work at all. it's incredibly relaxing.

 

[Giuliano]

I'm not seeing a multiplication of contradictions here. Could you elaborate on how this is relevant to what I posted?

If you don't see a connection, forget I mentioned it.

Where did you get this idea that the serpent was meant to cover Adam?

We reading about the covering cherub without being told what it means.

We are told something in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 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.

If that was in Hebrew, we see "adam" means "man." Not the merely physical man since that's another word.

This appears to be a tautology as antichrist means "instead of".

I don't care what it's called if people get the point.

Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, not the serpent.

I know that. Maybe the serpent could have sacrificed himself but refused.

They were both fooled, but then so was the nachash as well.

The way you write that makes me think you believe Adam and Eve were both. Adam was not deceived. The Jews say the serpent could not have deceived him. I agree, that's what I think too. At any rate, Adam was not deceived.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Many mysterious in the Bible about women depend on how the serpent can deceive them more easily than men. That also means when a woman become undeceived and finds God, she's won a battle with the serpent. Jesus had several such women as ancestors. Ruth comes to mind. She won her battle with the serpent that started in Eden. The other "disreputable" women in his ancestry also did and came under the proper authority of a godly man.

Men today still have something of the fallen Eve in them, so they can be deceived; but it's still easier to deceive women than men. Some men are great at it. If a man wants to have sex with a woman, all he has to do is tell her with his serpent tongue, "Baby, I love you." She believes it and then wonders what happened when he ditches her after he gets what he wants. That's also why it can be dangerous to have women in church hierarchy. Women can be tricked more easily than men by pointing out the good in something, tricking them into disaster. Eve was fooled by how the fruit looked -- it looked pleasant and good. It was pleasant and good in some ways. When a man says, "Baby, I love you," that sounds good. Women in charge of a church can cause problems by seeing only the good in something, not suspecting evil is lurking.

Adam could not have been deceived by the serpent.

 

[shnarkle]

If you don't see a connection, forget I mentioned it.

A connection isn't necessarily a contradiction.

We reading about the covering cherub without being told what it means.

We are told something in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 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.

I'm not seeing where it says the serpent is the head or covering of Adam.

If that was in Hebrew, we see "adam" means "man." Not the merely physical man since that's another word.
I don't care what it's called if people get the point.
I know that.

Adam doesn't necessarily mean "man". Depending on the context, it is a direct reference to a specific man,, i.e. "the man, Adam" etc.

Maybe the serpent could have sacrificed himself but refused.

Why would God ask the serpent to sacrifice himself when Christ's sacrifice was sufficient?

The way you write that makes me think you believe Adam and Eve were both. Adam was not deceived. The Jews say the serpent could not have deceived him. I agree, that's what I think too. At any rate, Adam was not deceived.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I wasn't suggesting that Adam was deceived. The fool says in their heart that there is no God, but they don't have to do that through deception. They can just as easily do it through their own unrighteousness.

I'm pointing out that he was there with Eve, and sinned. He's just as guilty as she was, if not more so Given that he not only wasn't deceived, but allowed Eve to be deceived while he stood there, and then sinned intentionally knowing that what he was doing was wrong.

 

[amadeus]

I see what you are saying here John, and truth it is! YET-being an animal lover, the verse about the woman and Jesus calling her a dog just kind of always made me sad. I can't see Him using a slur towards her. Maybe it was not per se a "slur" yet, what else could it have been?
I suppose it's that I see all animals as being innocent since they live on instinct alone and, do not have the capacity to be 'evil'. Silly, yes I know but, there ya have it!

No, they are never purposely evil. But... some of them may be trained to act in better or worse ways according to man. Two of the smarter ones according to what I learned in school were dogs and pigs. Remember who was in the lead of the animal revolt in George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm"? The pigs, who later on ended up in cahoots the enemy, the men, the lowest dirtiest animal of them all... in spite of, and/or as a result of, his brains.

As to the slur, that, I believe, was really for our benefit. God would have known the woman's heart, even as He knows your heart toward what men call animals.

 

[Giuliano]

I'm not seeing where it says the serpent is the head or covering of Adam.

I did not say it says that directly. It's something that has to be seen by gathering various passages together.

Adam doesn't necessarily mean "man". Depending on the context, it is a direct reference to a specific man,, i.e. "the man, Adam" etc.

Look up the meaning of the word adam. Don't take my word for it, and it may help sort things out. The reason the title "Son of Man" is important is because it means Jesus was in the correct image and likeness of God which had been given to Adam (Man). Jews understood it and it made them angry since they knew what he was claiming.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Enowsh or Enos means "mortal man" -- less spiritual than adam.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Draw a comparison to the children of Abraham. Some were his children after the flesh; but they were not his children by the spirit. Abraham had two sons but God told him to take his only son. "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah. . . ." Ishamael was his son after the flesh but not after the spirit. His mother was still a pagan at the time. She converted later; but she was still under the "wrong covering" when Ishmael was conceived.

The correct "image and likeness of God" given to Adam had been lost. Some holy men repaired it in part; but it was not perfectly restored until the Holy Spirit covered Mary -- and the seed of the imperfect fallen Adam was not transmitted by an earthly father.

Why would God ask the serpent to sacrifice himself when Christ's sacrifice was sufficient?

You got what I said reversed. I did not say Christ sacrificed himself and then God asked the serpent to. I said perhaps if the serpent had sacrificed himself, Jesus wouldn't have needed to correct things and then offer himself.

I wasn't suggesting that Adam was deceived.

You wrote "both" and I didn't know what that meant.

The fool says in their heart that there is no God, but they don't have to do that through deception. They can just as easily do it through their own unrighteousness.

I'd connect the two. Their unrighteousness is what convinces them in their hearts. They wish there were not a God who will judge them, so they imagine a universe without one so they sin all they want because there isn't a God looking at them.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

I'm pointing out that he was there with Eve, and sinned. He's just as guilty as she was, if not more so Given that he not only wasn't deceived, but allowed Eve to be deceived while he stood there, and then sinned intentionally knowing that what he was doing was wrong.

I think maybe the serpent was guilty before he met Eve. He was given a final chance to repent and do the right thing but didn't.

Why was he there? So Adam could exercise authority by telling him if he stayed in his fallen state, he'd get rid of him.

I don't know if I'd use the word "sin" for Adam, Eve or the serpent. "Transgressed" maybe, "made a mistake" yes, but I'd be cautious about saying Adam and Eve or even the serpent sinned since Genesis doesn't say so. Cain sinned. Genesis says so. That is the first time sin is mentioned in the Bible. I'm not saying they didn't sin, but I also wouldn't say they did since I'm not sure they did. I don't know, so I hesitate to use the word.

 

[Nancy]

No, they are never purposely evil. But... some of them may be trained to act in better or worse ways according to man. Two of the smarter ones according to what I learned in school were dogs and pigs. Remember who was in the lead of the animal revolt in George Orwell's book, "Animal Farm"? The pigs, who later on ended up in cahoots the enemy, the men, the lowest dirtiest animal of them all... in spite of, and/or as a result of, his brains.

As to the slur, that, I believe, was really for our benefit. God would have known the woman's heart, even as He knows your heart toward what men call animals.

"But... some of them may be trained to act in better or worse ways according to man."
I guess this could apply to humans too, lol.


"As to the slur, that, I believe, was really for our benefit. God would have known the woman's heart, even as He knows your heart toward what men call animals."
Leave it to you John, to give me an aspect that never once crossed my mind.

 

[Nancy]

I must politely disagree that it is expensive to eat organic fruit, vegetables or meat. it isn't even expensive to grow them. It is expensive to purchase them. My garden costs me practically nothing in comparison to what other people spend on organic produce. My neighbors will verify this fact with their gardens as well. We're all growing heirlooms which are not only inexpensive, but incredibly superior in quality to what is available at the grocery store, or even the local farmer's markets. When fruit trees mature, the harvest is practically free, and will continue to produce for the rest of your life.

My food bill used to be one of the biggest expenditures on my bank statements along with gas. What I discovered is that most of the driving I was doing was simply to and from the grocery store. I would run other errands as well, but when I don't have to drive to the store for food, I literally save thousands of dollars a year on food and gas alone. I'm in much better health as well, not just from eating superior produce, but from working with the soil. I actually love working in the garden. it isn't really work at all. it's incredibly relaxing.

I totally agree with you here. My issues would be first off...they would have to be raised because of surgeries and injuries from my past, and I would have to grow a green thumb, lol. I also live in the city and, we have many critters here as well but, I suppose there is chicken wire could be used. When first moving in here, I DID grow a garden, very small though and had Heirloom Tomatoes, green beans, and Romaine lettuce...needless to say, it only yielded a few edible green beans and a few tomatoes...the lettuce was a total loss...Oh well, maybe this winter I'll do a bit of research on this. Thanks for the info!

 

[Giuliano]

As to the slur, that, I believe, was really for our benefit. God would have known the woman's heart, even as He knows your heart toward what men call animals.

Who do you think the multitudes were who followed him after the miracle in Canaan? Jews or Gentiles?

I think it was mostly Gentiles. Right before that the Jews had been giving Jesus a hard time and he left them to visit the Gentiles. I think Heaven has a time table -- and things either on time or earlier (cut short). There was a time planned for the message to go to the Gentiles. When Jesus saw the faith of this Gentile and she wanted rid of the devil, I think she repented and that put thing ahead of schedule. Jesus could go faster than the schedule but not slower. The Father cut the short short for when it came possible for Jesus to minister to Gentiles. The spirit of Jezebel was defeated by that woman. (The struggle is always between the serpent and the woman.)

I think Jesus knew the woman in Samaria was ready to repent and come under the Christ covering, so he went there even if there weren't really Jews. The end result was that many believed on him.

John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

His original mission as I see it was to Jews, and then they were supposed to spread it to Gentiles; but things got ahead of schedule. The Father cut some time short. . . . and Jesus appeared to change his mind.

Jews have an interesting idea about when Messiah will come. They say he must come no later than 6000 years after Eden. He could come exactly after 6000 years; but he could also come anytime before then. My guess is they weren't expecting him as early as around 4000 after Eden; nor would I, I guess. I think it shows how far ahead of schedule things really were; but then again, there remains stubbornness in men, and it may 6000 years before he comes for them.

 

[Waiting on him]

Maybe his donkey cared about him. Maybe animals can be used by God to reprove people? I have a feeling Balaam's donkey will have her reward for keeping the covenant made with Noah and the animals.

Genesis 49:11-12 KJV
[11] Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: [12] His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.


Tecarta Bible