Eve in the Garden

Trekson said:

Well, that's certainly not assured. We are only told what happened after the fall, there could be tens of thousands of years and children unaccounted for.

Click to expand...

There's no Biblical evidence of what you are saying here.

amadeus said:

Infants are already dead at birth to a natural mother in the sight of God. They remain so until and if they receive the Life which Jesus brought. Infants who die physically are not dead because of their own sins. They are simply dead! Those who are dead cannot bring forth Life while they remain dead.

Click to expand...

When Adam sinned he brought sin and death upon humanity. That means death comes in many different forms. War, sickness and disease, old age, murder, accidental death, genetic disorder etc. Baby's or infants can be born dead or die in a woman womb before birth.

Trekson said:

Well, that's certainly not assured. We are only told what happened after the fall, there could be tens of thousands of years and children unaccounted for.

Click to expand...

We agree, the bible clearly states Eve was having children before the fall.

PICJAG.

Dave L said:

Paul says they are dead because of Adam's sins. Adam proved we are a wicked species when tested under the best conditions.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand your point. We are a wicked species? Adam and Eve were not wicked prior to their disobedience:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Gen 1:31

God provided men with the ability to create wickedness or to become wicked and they used their ability that way, but this did not make them intrinsically wicked as I understand it. This was them using the dominion that God had given them in a manner He warned them not to follow.

CoreIssue said:

You do not know the meanings of Word and word.

Click to expand...

I believe what the scriptures say and like I said the Angel told Mary that the child she would give birth to will be called holy God's Son, not God or a God man. Jesus said himself that he was God's Son. He didn't say he was God or a God man. It's obvious you don't care what is written down in God word, but I do.

101G said:

We agree, the bible clearly states Eve was having children before the fall.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Where does the scriptures say that?

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

I believe what the scriptures say and like I said the Angel told Mary that the child she would give birth to will be called holy God's Son, not God or a God man. Jesus said himself that he was God's Son. He didn't say he was God or a God man. It's obvious you don't care what is written down in God word, but I do.

Click to expand...

not to interrupt your conversatation, but how are you using the term Son of God, biologically or Spiritually?.

PICJAG

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

Where does the scriptures say that?

Click to expand...

Upon the fall of man, we have this record. Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Here the Hebrew words for “sorrow” and “conception” are,

Sorrow: H6093 עִצָּבוֹן `itstsabown (its-tsaw-ɓone') n-m.
worrisomeness, i.e. labor or pain.

Labor and pain, labor pain.

Conception: H2032 הֵרוֹן herown (hay-rone') n-m.
הֵרָיוֹן herayown (hay-raw-yone')
pregnancy.

And God said that he would “greatly multiply” her labor pain, and pregnancy. Here’s the revelation, one cannot multiply something that not happen. One can multiply when something has happen.

So by God multiplying Eve Labor and Pain in pregnancy, she had to already had a pregnancy in order for it to be increased or multiplied. So clearly the scriptures states Eve had children in the Garden before she had Cain and Able outside the Garden. Cain and Able are only the First to be born in sin, or dead to God. Hence the reason why we after this line from Adam must be “Born again”.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

When Adam sinned he brought sin and death upon humanity. That means death comes in many different forms. War, sickness and disease, old age, murder, accidental death, genetic disorder etc. Baby's or infants can be born dead or die in a woman womb before birth.

Click to expand...

This may be so insofar as the flesh of men and what they call "life" is concerned as you believe it, but I see something else which you apparently do not believe or consider. What I see is that Life was lost to men until Jesus brought it back as a possibility through his sacrifice and by means of that first Holy Spirit outpouring as per Acts chapter 2. This loss of Life applies to every person born to woman except Jesus' birth to Mary in Bethlehem.

Natural birth gives Life, real Life, to no one! This is why it is necessary for us to born from above [or "born again"].

Trekson said:

Well, that's certainly not assured. We are only told what happened after the fall, there could be tens of thousands of years and children unaccounted for.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There is zero mention of children in the garden. If there were they did not eat from the tree so they would've still been in the garden and no guard been put on it and it would've been populated afterwords for who knows how long.

Zero record in the Bible of any descendents of Adam and Eve except those listed in Genesis.

That kind of impact on history could not have gone unnoticed.

101G said:

not to interrupt your conversatation, but how are you using the term Son of God, biologically or Spiritually?.

PICJAG

Click to expand...

I believe that God's Only-begotten Son existed in heaven before he became a 100% perfect sinless human. Meaning as a spiritual being in heaven with God his father he was God's Only-begotten Son (only son). We have to remember though that the Angels in heaven are also called sons of God. So the term Only-begotten Son is applied only to this spiritual being making this spiritual being the only one produced by God so this term can't be applied to the other spiritual beings.(Angels).


That his sonship did not begin with his human birth is seen from Jesus’ own statements, as when he said, “What things I have seen with my Father I speak” (Joh 8:38, 42; compare Joh 17:5, 24), as well as from other clear statements of his inspired apostles.—Ro 8:3; Ga 4:4; 1Jo 4:9-11, 14.

In view of the plain evidence of the Scriptures Jesus is not merely God’s unique or incomparable Son but also his “only-begotten Son,” hence descended from God in the sense of being produced by God. This is confirmed by apostolic references to this Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and as “the One born from God” (Col 1:15; 1Jo 5:18), while Jesus himself states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Re 3:14.

Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence. (Joh 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps 90:2) It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the Word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. The term “beginning” is used in various other texts similarly to describe the start of some period or career or course, such as the “beginning” of the Christian career of those to whom John wrote his first letter (1Jo 2:7; 3:11), the “beginning” of Satan’s rebellious course (1Jo 3:8), or the “beginning” of Judas’ deflection from righteousness. Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16) in that he is the only one of God’s sons, spirit or human, created solely by God, for all others were created through, or “by means of,” that firstborn Son.—Col 1:16, 17.

So Jesus, of course, continued to be God’s Son when born as a human, even as he had been in his prehuman existence. His birth was not the result of conception by the seed, or sperm, of any human male descended from Adam, but was by action of God’s holy spirit. (Mt 1:20, 25;Lu 1:30-35; compare Mt 22:42-45.) Jesus recognized his sonship in relation to God, at the age of 12 years saying to his earthly parents, “Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?” They did not grasp the sense of this, perhaps thinking that by “Father” he was referring to God only in the sense that the term was used by Israelites in general. Lu 2:48-50.

First thanks for your reply. second,

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

I believe that God's Only-begotten Son existed in heaven before he became a 100% perfect sinless human. Meaning as a spiritual being in heaven with God his father he was God's Only-begotten Son (only son).

Click to expand...

if he was a spiritual being, "WITH" God who is a Spirit and the OLY being, then you have two Spiritual being, and that's anti bible. for there is only ONE being, every one and thing else is his creation.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

We have to remember though that the Angels in heaven are also called sons of God.

Click to expand...

NEVER, Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?".
and please don't try to use Job 38 and 7.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

So the term Only-begotten Son is applied only to this spiritual being making this spiritual being the only one produced by God so this term can't be applied to the other spiritual beings.(Angels).

Click to expand...

true, because the title "Son" is not a biological offspring term. but a Spiritual term of "character", or "characteristics" of the ONLY TRUE and LIVING GOD. Son do not identify a person, but describe a characteristics of a person.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence.

Click to expand...

1. the Lord Jesus is not created, First is in preeminence. Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence".

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

(Joh 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning.

Click to expand...

no, read 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life". well John was not in the beginning, even in Genesis, the answer is clear. the beginning of the WORD, God in flesh. supportiver scripture, Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". the Son of God is flesh, whih had it's beginning at John 1:1.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

So Jesus, of course, continued to be God’s Son when born as a human, even as he had been in his prehuman existence. His birth was not the result of conception by the seed, or sperm, of any human male descended from Adam, but was by action of God’s holy spirit. (Mt 1:20, 25;Lu 1:30-35;

Click to expand...

you got that right.
see, the title "Son" is not a person, but a person characteristics, and this person is God himself.

LISTEN, the Lord Jesus is God "own" arm correct .... correct, scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me". God's "OWN" ARM? who is God's "OWN" ARM? scripture, Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him". STOP, God's own ARM is a he?, yes, the Lord Jesus who is God himself in flesh.
supportive scripture, Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

so is God "Born", we hope you say no. because God is not begotten.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

Jesus recognized his sonship in relation to God, at the age of 12 years saying to his earthly parents, “Did you not know that I must be in the house of my Father?” They did not grasp the sense of this, perhaps thinking that by “Father” he was referring to God only in the sense that the term was used by Israelites in general. Lu 2:48-50.

Click to expand...

the Lord Jesus is the "objective" of God who is the "Subjective", understand now? God did his own will in Flesh.
Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

PICJAG.

101G said:

Upon the fall of man, we have this record. Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

Here the Hebrew words for “sorrow” and “conception” are,

Sorrow: H6093 עִצָּבוֹן `itstsabown (its-tsaw-ɓone') n-m.
worrisomeness, i.e. labor or pain.

Labor and pain, labor pain.

Conception: H2032 הֵרוֹן herown (hay-rone') n-m.
הֵרָיוֹן herayown (hay-raw-yone')
pregnancy.

And God said that he would “greatly multiply” her labor pain, and pregnancy. Here’s the revelation, one cannot multiply something that not happen. One can multiply when something has happen.

So by God multiplying Eve Labor and Pain in pregnancy, she had to already had a pregnancy in order for it to be increased or multiplied. So clearly the scriptures states Eve had children in the Garden before she had Cain and Able outside the Garden. Cain and Able are only the First to be born in sin, or dead to God. Hence the reason why we after this line from Adam must be “Born again”.

Click to expand...

Genesis 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

New Living Bible Genesis 3:16- Then he said to the woman I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.

Other Bibles say similarly concerning Genesis 3:16. I disagree with anyone who reasons that just because God increased Eve pain in pregnancy that means Eve had children before she sin.

first thanks for the reply, second, you have a right to believe what you want.

BARNEY BRIGHT said:

I disagree with anyone who reasons that just because God increased Eve pain in pregnancy that means Eve had children before she sin.

Click to expand...

this is a scientific fact. if I was sitting still, (no movement) in a car, I cannot increase my speed until I move.

but as said you have a right to your own oponion. ......

PICJAG.

About 30 years after his birth as a human, when he was immersed by John the Baptizer, God’s spirit came upon Jesus and God spoke, saying: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Lu 3:21-23; Mt 3:16, 17) Evidently Jesus, the man, was then “born again” to be a spiritual Son with the hope of returning to life in heaven, and he was anointed by spirit to be God’s appointed king and high priest. (Joh 3:3-6; compare 17:4, 5.


A similar expression was made by God at the transfiguration on the mount, in which vision Jesus was seen in Kingdom glory. (Compare Mt 16:28 and 17:1-5.) With regard to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, Paul applied part of Psalm 2 to that occasion, quoting God’s words, “You are my son, I have become your Father this day,” and he also applied words from God’s covenant with David, namely: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son.” (Ps 2:7; 2Sa 7:14; Ac 13:33;Heb 1:5; compare Heb 5:5.) By his resurrection from the dead to spirit life, Jesus was “declared God’s Son” (Ro 1:4), “declared righteous in spirit.”—1Ti 3:16.

Thus, it is seen that, even as David as a grown man could ‘become God’s son’ in a special sense, so, too, Christ Jesus also ‘became God’s Son’ in a special way, at the time of his baptism and at his resurrection, and also, evidently, at the time of his entrance into full Kingdom glory. What this means regarding Hebrew 1:5 is that Jehovah God called his Only-begotten Son a son in a special way that he did not apply to the Angels. This doesn't mean that Angels are not sons of God because Job 1: 6,7 and Job 2:1,2 shows they are.

While I agree God's Only-begotten Son is superior to all others in creation that doesn't mean God's Only-begotten Son wasn't created or produced by God. The scripture Colossians 1:19 which you conveniently left out shows that it was God's decision to make his Only-begotten Son superior to all others in creation. God isn't given this superiority he has always had this superiority or divine fullness because he is God. Colossians 1:18 shows that God's Only-begotten Son was the first to be resurrected from the common grave of mankind and given immortality and inherit incorruption.

I think God is speaking to us all the time - we just need to be awake and attentive. He uses his creation to speak to us - I think it is dualistic to divide messages from man and messages from God. If the message you are receiving helps you love others perfectly it is from God - everything else is just static

You say Jesus isn't created, but the scriptures continue to show that God is the only one who isn't a created being or doesn't have a beginning. Jesus isn't God. Colossians 1:15 shows that Jesus is the first born of creation.

Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·kheʹ] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·kheʹ. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)