Adam and Eve, The True Adult Story

[2nd Timothy Group]

There is nothing in this world I think that you could say to me to make me think that God's desire for man was that we would live in sin, doing what is evil.

I see. That's all I ever needed to know. We won't need to have further discussion after this post.

Isaiah 45:7 HNV - "I form the light, and create darkness; I make shalom, and create evil. I am the LORD, who does all these things."

 

[marks]

We won't need to have further discussion after this post.

As you wish.

God brings calamity. Men do wrong. God is not the author of sin.

Much love!

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

As you wish.

God brings calamity. Men do wrong. God is not the author of sin.

Much love!

Yeah, the "Love" is really deep.

 

[marks]

Yeah, the "Love" is really deep.

I'm sorry, I thought you were done with me. You came back to give an insult? Why?

In my commitment to give to you some gift or benefit!

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

I'm sorry, I thought you were done with me. You came back to give an insult? Why?

In my commitment to give to you some gift or benefit!

Sir. I cannot say anything to you because your ears are closed. I cannot communicate with anyone whose ears are closed shut.

 

[justbyfaith]

Knowing you and I will sin

The doctrine of the inevitability of sin is a false doctrine and heresy; though it seems that it is taught in many churches today.

 

[marks]

Sir. I cannot say anything to you because your ears are closed. I cannot communicate with anyone whose ears are closed shut.

Well that's convenient! Say you will not reply, then reply with an insult. I ask you why, you decline to answer, just another insult . . . My ears are shut.

And you sound so certain of yourself!

Much love!

 

[marks]

I've had a good time telling people, "I have a mind like a steel trap!! If anything disturbs it, it snaps tightly shut, and is very hard to reopen!"

 

[marks]

The doctrine of the inevitability of sin is a false doctrine and heresy; though it seems that it is taught in many churches today.

You can be the first one here to say that you have ceased from sin.

Scripture teaches us that we remain in conflict with our flesh until our resurrection, and only then the corruptible puts on incorruption.

Let's drill in a little bit.

Why are you quoting a snippet of my post, and then restating that snippet into what you state to be false doctrine and heresy? Then saying that is taught in many churches today?

Are you just using a bit of my post to springboard into asserting your own unrelated point of view?

Because the context of my post was a bit different:

2nd Timothy Group said: ↑

I can't take this any other way than to suggest that God has always known what would happen, here on earth, and that He would make it happen.

(to which I wrote) Knowing you and I will sin is a very different thing than approving of our sin as if it were something good, and causing our sin, as if it were something God would do.

Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, and for that He receives the glory. If Jesus is the author of our sin, what then?

Much love!

Are you suggesting that when I wrote that God knew we would sin, that this is heresy? Did you not understand what I was saying? Or meaning to just label me heretic? As if I were saying, "Sin is inevitable"?

Just wondering out loud here . . .

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

You can be the first one here to say that you have ceased from sin.

If I did that, I would not any longer be a candidate for perfection (Philippians 3:12-15).

Are you just using a bit of my post to springboard into asserting your own unrelated point of view?

Yes, that is what I was doing.

I was not intending necessarily to label you as a heretic.

I was merely saying that the doctrine of the inevitability of sin is false doctrine and heresy.

I think a case can even be made that you were not purporting such a doctrine.

 

[marks]

Yes, that is what I was doing.

I was not intending necessarily to label you as a heretic.

I was merely saying that the doctrine of the inevitability of sin is false doctrine and heresy.

I think a case can even be made that you were not purporting such a doctrine.

Thank you for your honesty. I'd just the same prefer to not be misrepresented for your own ends.

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

Thank you for your honesty. I'd just the same prefer to not be misrepresented for your own ends.

Much love!

Not my own ends...but for the end that the gospel may be more succinctly proclaimed.

 

[DNB]

You are, in respect, saying the bible lies.

No, we are saying that you do!

 

[101G]

This is how lies get started,

Esau took wives of Cain and these children went on to become Babylonians who went with the true Jews to rebuild the temple and called themselves Pharisees.

incorrect, Esau never took wives of Cain. let get it right, Genesis 36:1 "Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom."
Genesis 36:2 "Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;"

see, one need to go back to the sourse of the lie, "Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan" NOT Cain. Canaan came from Noah, who can be trace back to Seth, not Cain a lie runs when the head of it is not checked.

now if you just made a mistake, and we all do, then correct it.......

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[DNB]

Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled (seduced) me, and I did eat (had sex with him.)
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or orally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one
to tranlate - Cain's father was the wicked one, the devil.

You are out of your flippin' mind, like seriously!

 

[marks]

Not my own ends...but for the end that the gospel may be more succinctly proclaimed.

Right, whatever, I find it rather disengenuous.

By responding to my out of context quote, you make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not.

You may think that your end justifies your means, I don't.

Much love!

 

[101G]

You are out of your flippin' mind, like seriously!

agreeed, if eat here in Genesis 3 means, (having sex), then I guess Adam had sex with the the Ground, Genesis 3:17 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[marks]

I was not intending necessarily to label you as a heretic.

Just noticed that . . . not necessarily? Meaning maybe?

Are you listening to yourself?

 

[justbyfaith]

Right, whatever, I find it rather disengenuous.

By responding to my out of context quote, you make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not.

You may think that your end justifies your means, I don't.

Much love!

I would only refer you to Psalms 119:165 (kjv) and Matthew 11:6 (kjv).

Just noticed that . . . not necessarily? Meaning maybe?

Are you listening to yourself?

In that I called what you may have been preaching heresy.

Obviously, if what you are preaching is heresy and I say as much, there is a sense in which I am labeling you a heretic.

Not intentionally, mind you; for from my perspective I am merely calling out a heretical doctrine for what it is.

You would not be labeled as a heretic if you did not ascribe to that doctrine.

 

[DNB]

agreeed, if eat here in Genesis 3 means, (having sex), then I guess Adam had sex with the the Ground, Genesis 3:17 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

Exactly. How biased, isolated, non-definitive and inviable did this guy exegete the text??? Even if his ascription of meaning that he applied to 'deceive' and 'eat', was conceded to him, he only proved that they were optional renderings, not that they were the authors intent be necessity.
Context is king, and he ignored all the related text that undermine his absurd position.

...the irony that he stated, '...to deny it, is to deny God's Word..' . Man, how many times have I heard that from the worst exegetes on the site...