What is the correct view on genesis

shnarkle said:

Not quite. In the Hebrew, the word is "naXash", and means " a shining one; a burning one". It also refers to snakes because of the burn of their bite. It's a play on words, but to then assume that Eve was holding a discussion with a snake is to return to the error of literalism. We don't come to the same conclusion when Jesus says to tell "that old fox Herod...etc." The lion of Judah isn't referring to some manifestation of a lion either.

Satan seeks power and authority, but this title betrays his fate. He would never willingly submit to such a position of subjugation. It isn't really possible to effectively emphasize the fact without figuratively portraying him as a serpent licking dust.

Click to expand...

I do not see how people take Genesis so literally, especially if they've read Revelation where the serpent continues the battle with the woman.

Some things are obviously not meant to be taken literally as in your example about "that old fox Herod." To take things so literally is to make spiritual truths into fables -- fabulous things.

"ByGrace" said:

I totally agree that before the fall Adam and Eve were clothed in light.
I cannot remember where I read it, but once I read that blood was is a lower form of light. Maybe it wasn't red before the fall...maybe it was pure light and then fell into red when sin entered ....who knows ...we don't

I believe Adam returned to being 'dust' at the fall. He lost the light.

Click to expand...

I also think he died the very day as promised. Then it was a matter of time before the body of dust returned to the dust.

And that is why The Serpent would eat dust...he does every day...going after people to bring misery, pain, division , wars, and to devour.
It is his food.
As you know , in the 80's Dave and I were once ministering deliverance from the demonic for a year or so. One evil spirit said -" Sorrow, self pity and pain are like candy to us. " They are all liars so we stopped them bragging...who knows, but to me that confirms 'eating dust'....access to mankind to cause sorrow and confusion.

Just a thought....

Click to expand...

That's a interesting thing the evil spirit admitted. I guess it thought it could brag and get away with it.

It's curious that human blood isn't red unless it has "air" in it. It's rather bluish when returning to the heart -- as we can see by veins.

Giuliano said:

I do not see how people take Genesis so literally, especially if they've read Revelation where the serpent continues the battle with the woman.

Some things are obviously not meant to be taken literally as in your example about "that old fox Herod." To take things so literally is to make spiritual truths into fables -- fabulous things.

Click to expand...

Quite true, which is why the fable of talking serpents has become so well accepted by those ignorant of figurative speech. The writers of the Christian scriptures were steeped in their own Hebrew writings, and while they're written in Greek, they still retain their Hebraisms. There is no reason to assume that when Paul refers to "that old serpent, the devil and Satan", he is referring to an actual serpent being manifested. Even the description of him being "subtle" is a word play with "wise".

In Numbers, the terms "Seraph" and "NaXash" are used synonymously. God instructs Moses to construct a pole and place a Seraph upon it, and Moses complies with God's command by constructing "a naXash of brass". Even the word "brass" is a cognate of the word e.g. "nehushtan" (e.g. 2 Kings 18:4)

Giuliano said:

It's curious that human blood isn't red unless it has "air" in it. It's rather bluish when returning to the heart -- as we can see by veins.

Click to expand...

This is a legend, and probably due to those textbooks we all had when we were in grade school. The color we see through our skin is due to relative perception and the abililty of light to penetrate skin. The closer to the surface a vein or artery is, the more red it will appear while those slightly deeper will appear blue. All blood is red, and blood that is returning to the heart is actually more red than what leaves the heart.

Nancy said:

I've often wondered the same Helen. It is not totally spiritual and it is not totally natural!

"There are many levels that the Holy Spirit speaks to us..."

Tru dat me sisser! This also brings to mind that most of us can be in such different places in our walks. No body can cause us to grow in His knowledge any faster than the Holy Spirit will reveal to us personally. And, some sincere Christians can be dull of mind...slow to pick up on things. It's hard to believe there are many followers out there who are on the same place within the path...some grow quicker than others and, for a myriad of reasons. JMHO

Click to expand...

"ByGrace" said:

Amen @Nancy Good word.

So many seem to struggle over portions of the bible ...saying -"Is this a spiritual meaning or a literal story?"
If they came to understand that it is always both, the struggle would be over.
We can't have the one without the other (Well we can, and some do) yet we quickly become unbalanced if we do.

Anyone can read the bible as a literal story...but a true follower with read with the Holy Spirit and see wonderful gems that God has hidden in there for us to find. ( living Manna )

Click to expand...

Very good, Helen! I have long been watching for both parts. I remember a number of years ago when I realized that the types and shadows were to be found not only in the OT of things in the NT, but in both the OT and the NT with regard to the reality of God. Some people get upset by that idea. They don't like the idea that a ritual is only symbolic or a shadow of the reality.

@Nancy at times I am one of those "dull of mind - slow to pick on things". Some of the things I believe now took many years before I would even admit them possibilities. Now, it seems that the more I learn the more there is remaining. Is the remainder really growing? Probably not, but our perception of it is getting clearer and we are realizing really how little we really do know... I am very glad to see my old friend, @Giuliano here. I had forgotten the depth he was sometimes able to expose in the things of God.

shnarkle said:

This is a legend, and probably due to those textbooks we all had when we were in grade school. The color we see through our skin is due to relative perception and the abililty of light to penetrate skin. The closer to the surface a vein or artery is, the more red it will appear while those slightly deeper will appear blue. All blood is red, and blood that is returning to the heart is actually more red than what leaves the heart.

Click to expand...

I checked that out. You're right.

Arterial blood - Wikipedia

Arterial blood is the oxygenated blood in the circulatory system found in the pulmonary vein, the left chambers of the heart, and in the arteries.[1] It is bright red in color, while venous blood is dark red in color (but looks purple through the translucent skin). It is the contralateral term to venous blood.

This post throws me a bit on some things but I will make the effort because you have my attention.

Giuliano said:

I see the man going down hill so far that his own blood was in such bad shape that some animals had it while he didn't. Thus the clean animals agreed in the covenant made then to be eaten if needed. (Eating meat without a lot of blood could give man what he needed since you can't get all the blood out.) They groaned but did it until Jesus removed that burden from them. I also think man's access to the Divine Light was cut off to the lights established in the firmament of Genesis 1. Now they got light through the rainbow.

Click to expand...

It has been a while since I looked at the animals in that way. I, of course, do see the beastly nature of men... which is supposed to be changed... God has made such a change a real possibility with the sacrifice of Jesus, the power of the Holy Ghost and the written scriptures.

"And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." Gen 9:9-10

The idea of needing to in effect borrow from the so-called lower animals with their permission makes some sense out the need to use them for sacrifices. I am not completely sold on that one, but it is being held in abeyance. But having said that I recall these verses:

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." Ecc 3:18-19

Man has slid down far since his disobedience in Eden so that indeed in his flesh alone without God he has NO preeminence above the beast.

I see the fire separating things when the red heifer was burned. The ashes were "lively spiritual dust" that consecrated every other sacrifice; and men also took them and put them on their heads the way people do on Ash Sunday today. Jesus is compared to that red heifer.

Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

Numbers 19:3 And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face:​

Click to expand...

When people were there that red heifer was extremely important for the moment but now as you say it is Jesus, the real thing. From the type or shadow to the reality.

Now we ourselves are to be or are being baptized with the real fire about which John the Baptist told them...

The word Adam is composed of two parts: A, which is the letter signifying breath or the Holy Spirit, and "dam" which means blood. When Adam fell, he was no better than the animals -- we might even say he was worse. Animals were definitely more righteous than men in the days of Noah; and in the way animals resemble man, they could bear his burden temporarily. They couldn't fix man's fallen spiritual nature, but they could temporarily bear the load of sin.

Click to expand...

While it makes some sense, I don't see all of these details about the animals specifically in scripture. [The covenant with the animals is the hard thing to understand. Communication is a problem but then Balaam's donkey comes to mind.] The fact is they did sacrifice the animals and it did at least hold things off until the real sacrifice of Jesus was accomplished.

Man, mortal man, must be baptized by the Fire of Heaven then -- so we see fire at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit lit on them all. We also see it was in the form of tongues. The satanic tongue that Adam and Eve exhibited when trying to excuse themselves to God has to be renewed, purified, replaced by new tongues. As James said man cannot bridle his own tongue. Speaking in tongues, other languages, is one thing -- an outward sign but speaking with "new tongues" is even better. God must bridle the Satanic tongue seen in Adam and Eve the way we see Him purifying Isaiah's tongue -- there it was with a "burning coal." Again fire.

Click to expand...

The fire that burns away the binding ropes of three Hebrews freeing them in Daniel 3 is a type in the OT of what must occur for each of us. All the unnecessary trappings and bindings of men must be burned up. We see them in the OT sacrifices as per the law given to Moses again where certain animal parts were burned up, while certain parts were to be eaten by the priests. This would be the separation of the ways of men from the Way of God; the separation between the words of men and the Word of God. When and if we are His sheep we will always know the difference for we will know His voice:

"And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." John 10:4-5

And then too will we speak but with which tongue... our own devil's tongue or with that purified tongues that speaks only the Word of God. Actually, while we are in process, when the overcoming in a person is incomplete, probably sometimes there will be a mixture of the two tongues. This is that doublemindedness against which James warns... "...purify your hearts, ye double minded." [James 4:8]

Is it "knowledge of good" and "knowledge of evil" -- or is it "knowledge of good mixed together with evil"? Eve had some "knowledge of good." She could see the fruit was good. I think she also understood it was wrong to eat the fruit -- she had some knowledge about evil. What stunned her was trying to understand when the two were mixed. She knew about it after eating but couldn't handle it. Yes, they were like God then, but God can handle good mixed with evil. I see the doublemindedness of man as another "gift" from the serpent.

Click to expand...

The Word of God alive in us is "Good" only... but as you say again "is it 'knowledge of good mixed together with evil' "? Most certainly until and if we have overcome completely our little world of me as Jesus did. We still have dark places within us that are uninhabitable by God... but is this not to be a part of the overcoming process making us into a place where Jesus may lay his head?

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matt 8:20

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

"He must increase [in me], but I must decrease [in me]." John 3:30. This speaks of the "new man" and the "old man" of me. If we are growing the old man is being killed by the new man. We are, or should be, by the power of God in us, killing our own beasts. This is part of how we should be growing.

shnarkle said:

Quite true, which is why the fable of talking serpents has become so well accepted by those ignorant of figurative speech. The writers of the Christian scriptures were steeped in their own Hebrew writings, and while they're written in Greek, they still retain their Hebraisms. There is no reason to assume that when Paul refers to "that old serpent, the devil and Satan", he is referring to an actual serpent being manifested. Even the description of him being "subtle" is a word play with "wise".

In Numbers, the terms "Seraph" and "NaXash" are used synonymously. God instructs Moses to construct a pole and place a Seraph upon it, and Moses complies with God's command by constructing "a naXash of brass". Even the word "brass" is a cognate of the word e.g. "nehushtan" (e.g. 2 Kings 18:4)

Click to expand...

Yes, we can't forget the serpent on the pole.

If you use "count" the value of the letters in Hebrew of "serpent", you get 358. That number is also the number for "annointed" or "Messiah." Is there anything to that? I'd say so since Jesus compared himself to the serpent on the pole that Moses had made that you mention.

Notice that the serpent is cast down in Genesis -- maybe lost his wings or at least some of them; and then Jesus said he had to be raised like the serpent on a pole. There is a "good" serpent and then there are "bad" ones -- we see that in Exodus. I'd say the "right" one gets his wings back and something "bright" appears.

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.

Messiah must replace the fallen serpent. There is no way around it -- the serpent was in the Garden where everything had been pronounced "very good." The serpent was supposed to serve a good purpose; but no one exercised dominion over it. Instead Eve allowed it to exercise dominion over her. All three fell: Adam, Eve and the serpent.

Giuliano said:

Yes, we can't forget the serpent on the pole.

If you use "count" the value of the letters in Hebrew of "serpent", you get 358. That number is also the number for "annointed" or "Messiah." Is there anything to that? I'd say so since Jesus compared himself to the serpent on the pole that Moses had made that you mention.

Notice that the serpent is cast down in Genesis -- maybe lost his wings or at least some of them; and then Jesus said he had to be raised like the serpent on a pole. There is a "good" serpent and then there are "bad" ones -- we see that in Exodus. I'd say the "right" one gets his wings back and something "bright" appears.

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.

Messiah must replace the fallen serpent. There is no way around it -- the serpent was in the Garden where everything had been pronounced "very good." The serpent was supposed to serve a good purpose; but no one exercised dominion over it. Instead Eve allowed it to exercise dominion over her. All three fell: Adam, Eve and the serpent.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the Seraph/naXash on the pole is all in how one looks at it. Christ proclaims the necessity for self sacrifice. With John's gospel, Christ's glory is in the crucifixion. It is through self sacrifice that we are healed/resurrected to eternal life, but to our fallen carnal nature, it is a ghastly excruciating death. The Spirit is set free through self sacrifice; the self doesn't even exist to begin with. The Spirit cannot die while dying to self is the only way to see this existential fact. Christ does not replace the serpent, the serpent can only be seen from a fallen perspective while Christ can only be seen in, with, and through Christ.

From John's perspective it really isn't a sacrifice at all There's an old saying that goes something like this: " I wouldn't sacrifice one bag of my garbage to save the world". The idea here is that it isn't a sacrifice to begin with.

Paul makes the same point with regards to the suffering, trials, tribulations which don't compare to the riches of the kingdom.

amadeus said:

This post throws me a bit on some things but I will make the effort because you have my attention.

Click to expand...

amadeus said:

It has been a while since I looked at the animals in that way. I, of course, do see the beastly nature of men... which is supposed to be changed... God has made such a change a real possibility with the sacrifice of Jesus, the power of the Holy Ghost and the written scriptures.

"And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." Gen 9:9-10

The idea of needing to in effect borrow from the so-called lower animals with their permission makes some sense out the need to use them for sacrifices. I am not completely sold on that one, but it is being held in abeyance. But having said that I recall these verses:

"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." Ecc 3:18-19

Man has slid down far since his disobedience in Eden so that indeed in his flesh alone without God he has NO preeminence above the beast.

Click to expand...

And Solomon goes on about who knows that the spirit rises? Who knows indeed? He who knows will have the situation corrected and know.

When people were there that red heifer was extremely important for the moment but now as you say it is Jesus, the real thing. From the type or shadow to the reality.

Click to expand...

Now we ourselves are to be or are being baptized with the real fire about which John the Baptist told them...

While it makes some sense, I don't see all of these details about the animals specifically in scripture. [The covenant with the animals is the hard thing to understand. Communication is a problem but then Balaam's donkey comes to mind.] The fact is they did sacrifice the animals and it did at least hold things off until the real sacrifice of Jesus was accomplished.

Click to expand...

There are curious passages that include animals but people usually read them to mean people only.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The animals are included because there was good news for them too. They no longer needed to "groan" as much. Jesus stopped a lot of groaning.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Jesus contains within himself the proper pattern for "every creature."

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

And then we read about animals praising God.

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Jesus was more "lowly" than some may think. To be able to command something, you need to be able to put yourself in its shoes. If we look down in contempt at something, it means we think we're superior -- and the truth is we won't understand it. Jesus knows what being a sheep is like, he knows what being a lion is like, he even knows what being a rock is like. He could also move up the ladder of awareness. Up and down. He moved down and became lower than the angels. Then he moved back up to being better than the angels. He even was willing to experience what death was -- not resisting, not imagining, but experiencing it. The correct awareness meant he could control it. That's how I see it anyway.

The fire that burns away the binding ropes of three Hebrews freeing them in Daniel 3 is a type in the OT of what must occur for each of us. All the unnecessary trappings and bindings of men must be burned up. We see them in the OT sacrifices as per the law given to Moses again where certain animal parts were burned up, while certain parts were to be eaten by the priests. This would be the separation of the ways of men from the Way of God; the separation between the words of men and the Word of God. When and if we are His sheep we will always know the difference for we will know His voice:

Click to expand...

"And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." John 10:4-5

And then too will we speak but with which tongue... our own devil's tongue or with that purified tongues that speaks only the Word of God. Actually, while we are in process, when the overcoming in a person is incomplete, probably sometimes there will be a mixture of the two tongues. This is that doublemindedness against which James warns... "...purify your hearts, ye double minded." [James 4:8]

Click to expand...

It is a continuing process, isn't it? James was not writing to "fake" Christians or condemning anyone. I don't think so. He was urging them to be mindful of the need to keep improving.

The Word of God alive in us is "Good" only... but as you say again "is it 'knowledge of good mixed together with evil' "? Most certainly until and if we have overcome completely our little world of me as Jesus did. We still have dark places within us that are uninhabitable by God... but is this not to be a part of the overcoming process making us into a place where Jesus may lay his head?

Click to expand...

This is where I think what Peter wrote comes in about "fervent" charity covering a multitude of sins. The Holy Spirit can burn away those dark spots even if we don't know where or what they are, if only we keep the Flames of Love burning.

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matt 8:20

Click to expand...

Unless an animal is willing to share with him for a while. I think maybe those animals were more discerning and sharing than the humans. Surely they deserved a reward. I think of that "no room in the inn" when Christmas is coming and ask, "What if Jesus wanted to visit me and found no more room in my heart than he has already? Can I empty out some of the rubbish and make more room?"

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Click to expand...

"He must increase [in me], but I must decrease [in me]." John 3:30. This speaks of the "new man" and the "old man" of me. If we are growing the old man is being killed by the new man. We are, or should be, by the power of God in us, killing our own beasts. This is part of how we should be growing.

Click to expand...

I think that applies, and I think there is an additional way to read it -- some principles have more than one application. There also comes a time when one has achieved the goal set for him by God. He steps aside to let others fill his shoes. He moves up and they move up. It may look as if they're moving down -- but that's describing appearances. One gets smaller on earth in order to get bigger in Heaven. Thus Jesus "diminished" his role on the earth so his disciples could move up.

I think it is a rule that someone can't go up unless he has a replacement. I doubt that Elijah could have gone up in the chariot unless he had given his mantle to Elisha first. God must always have at least one righteous man on the earth. The mantle is not always passed in an observable way the way Moses chose Joshua. The "light" was growing dim when Eli was priest, and his two sons were wicked. I give a spiritual meaning to:

1 Samuel 3:1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.
2 And it came to pass at that time, when Eli was laid down in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim, that he could not see;
3 And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;

Back to your point now: There were Jewish leaders who knew how to enter the kingdom and would not. They wanted to hang onto their earthly positions, being carnal in nature. They also wanted to keep the people ignorant so they couldn't enter the kingdom. They were so scared of losing their positions.

John 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

They could not conceive that they could increase themselves if they wanted Jesus to increase. All they could see was how they would decrease in the carnal world. What a pity. Not too much longer and what they feared came to pass.

Job 3:25 For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.

shnarkle said:

I suspect that the Seraph/naXash on the pole is all in how one looks at it. Christ proclaims the necessity for self sacrifice.

Click to expand...

We see that on the cross, don't we -- when the fallen serpent nature is offered up along with everything else. It is raised up so people can "see" what it for what it is and then get rid of it in themselves. As long as the serpent is not lifted up, it will continue to bite the heel.

When did Satan return to Jesus? After the first encounter, it's said he "departed from him for a season." How long? When he did come back? I'd say he came to the garden of Gethesmane -- another serpent in the garden.

I think there was a part of Jesus in Gethesmane that wanted to hang onto life. He knew he should master that (he was tempted in all things), so I think he was tempted in this. He made the right decision by saying, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

Giuliano said:

I do not see how people take Genesis so literally, especially if they've read Revelation where the serpent continues the battle with the woman.

Some things are obviously not meant to be taken literally as in your example about "that old fox Herod." To take things so literally is to make spiritual truths into fables -- fabulous things.

Click to expand...

History begins with Abraham.

GodsGrace said:

History begins with Abraham.

Click to expand...

Interesting statement...

Giuliano said:

We see that on the cross, don't we -- when the fallen serpent nature is offered up along with everything else. It is raised up so people can "see" what it for what it is and then get rid of it in themselves. As long as the serpent is not lifted up, it will continue to bite the heel.

Click to expand...

Yes, a potent reminder to confess our sins one to another. People look back at the church's "mortification of the flesh" as being somehow barbaric, but it's necessary when one is immersed in sinful flesh instead of simply aware that we're born into sinful flesh.

I think there was a part of Jesus in Gethesmane that wanted to hang onto life. He knew he should master that (he was tempted in all things), so I think he was tempted in this. He made the right decision by saying, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's a huge part of the equation, but I think there's also the fact that he's experiencing what everyone must experience, and knowing that many will not be able to break free of "the lust of the eye". He's also experiencing what those who will be condemned by his own words must experience for themselves. Heavy the head that bears the crown...

GodsGrace said:

History begins with Abraham.

Click to expand...

I agree that things start getting more "material" with Abraham -- there is a sort of dividing line there; but then there are some things after that I don't think should be taken as "material" facts. Jonah and Hosea come to mind. Those are visions.

I also don't think Ezekiel was told to eat food baked in human dung literally in the physical world. The Jews certainly don't read it that way, and neither do I. That was in a vision.

There's debate about Job. Debates about Job can get heated. I take that all spiritually. I doubt there ever was a physical man Job. I read it as a prophecy about Israel. Thus Elihu (a variation of Elijah) comes before the LORD appears to Job.

I think a new age started with Abraham, and that accounts for the shift you noticed.

shnarkle said:

Yes, a potent reminder to confess our sins one to another. People look back at the church's "mortification of the flesh" as being somehow barbaric, but it's necessary when one is immersed in sinful flesh instead of simply aware that we're born into sinful flesh.

Click to expand...

Some people can get carried away with it. Some never master the sinful flesh but begin to enjoy the pain in a kind of masochism without truly "killing" the flesh. They think they can retain the pleasures of the carnal body if they make up for it through pain. They never arrive at the point where they can say, "No" and mean it. More double mindedness.

I'm sure that's a huge part of the equation, but I think there's also the fact that he's experiencing what everyone must experience, and knowing that many will not be able to break free of "the lust of the eye". He's also experiencing what those who will be condemned by his own words must experience for themselves. Heavy the head that bears the crown...

Click to expand...

Your mentioning the crown reminds me of thorns. I believe Jesus took the crown of thorns and changed it into a crown of life. If we think the thrones in Genesis means physical ones only, we may miss the spiritual meaning behind the physical thorns put on Jesus' head.

There is a tradition that one of the Roman soldiers later converted and became a saint. Is it possible? I think so. I think the only ones condemned by his words were those who knew what they were doing. The rest could be saved.

amadeus said:

Very good, Helen! I have long been watching for both parts. I remember a number of years ago when I realized that the types and shadows were to be found not only in the OT of things in the NT, but in both the OT and the NT with regard to the reality of God. Some people get upset by that idea. They don't like the idea that a ritual is only symbolic or a shadow of the reality.

@Nancy at times I am one of those "dull of mind - slow to pick on things". Some of the things I believe now took many years before I would even admit them possibilities. Now, it seems that the more I learn the more there is remaining. Is the remainder really growing? Probably not, but our perception of it is getting clearer and we are realizing really how little we really do know... I am very glad to see my old friend, @Giuliano here. I had forgotten the depth he was sometimes able to expose in the things of God.

Click to expand...

For sure John! I often wonder if there will be no end to the knowledge of Him, even when all is said and done, and we will simply continue to grow...just wool gathering there.
If we ever think we have it ALL...we will become complacent and stop dead in our growth. Not to mention, pride will step right in there if we "think" we know all Truth already...maybe some do yet, I cannot see that being a reality. So, every time I "think" I have something down pat...I find that is so not true as, He shows me something more and usually it is far from what I "thought" I had right.
In His Name!
nancy

Giuliano said:

Spiritual rivers may do that; but no worldly rivers behave so. The Flood did not change everything. The river seen in both Genesis and Revelation is still there.
It depends on how you're defining "literal." If by that you mean an earthly tree, it's not literal. If you mean the heavenly tree, then it's literal.

Let me guess: You also think it was Satan? Do you think Satan is a serpent made out of earthly dirt? Do you think serpents eat dust? If you think the serpent was Satan, is he eating dirt now? Come now! It was a spiritual being -- manifesting as a serpent.

Things can be true without having them mean material things. Do you think God has a physical body that came down? Of course not -- it's describing something spiritual. It may be "literally" true in the spiritual sense; but it's literally false in the material sense since God could not possibly come down to see.
The question is if they are "literally" true in the material sense, in earthly terms. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not a physical serpent like the kind we humans see with our physical eyes.

Click to expand...

Sorry but the flood did change everything. It changed the atmospheric conditions. It changed the age of man. It changed the locations of the waters. Before all waters were gathered into one place. (Gen. 1:9). After the flood that would be different.

"Although in one 'place,' the waters had assembled in numerous distinct basins, so that God called this 'gathering-together of the waters Seas' (i.e., a plural term). These were, of course, not the same as our present seas, since the antediluvian arrangement of continental and marine areas was completely changed at the time of the Flood." (The Genesis Record, Henry M. Morris, Baker, 1976, p. 62)

And before you find the river you speak of in (Revelation), there are great geographical changes in the earth. (Zech. 14:4) (Rev. 16:17-20) Point being, just because you don't see such a river now, doesn't mean there wasn't one, and that there will be one. Literally. And where do you get the idea 'spiritual rivers' do that? Oh, that's right. When you interpret spiritually you can make it say whatever you like.

Yes, I believe the serpent was possessed by satan and used by him. The serpent eats dust, as he doesn't have much choice with his head flat on the ground. Well, satan is a 'spiritual being'. If he used the serpent to manifest himself through, what is the difference?

The serpent in the garden when first used by satan was not exactly as we know him now. Because before he was used by satan he was not crawling on his belly eating dust. That came after God cursed him.

Well, it didn't say God came down in a body. It said God came down. Literally. What's the problem? Just because God didn't have a physical body doesn't mean He didn't come down to see.

Was Adam and Eve literal? I mean did they really exist? How about Cain and Abel? Literal? Or just good stories for us to learn some nice truths from?

Stranger

Giuliano said:

And Solomon goes on about who knows that the spirit rises? Who knows indeed? He who knows will have the situation corrected and know.
There are curious passages that include animals but people usually read them to mean people only.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The animals are included because there was good news for them too. They no longer needed to "groan" as much. Jesus stopped a lot of groaning.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Jesus contains within himself the proper pattern for "every creature."

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

And then we read about animals praising God.

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Jesus was more "lowly" than some may think. To be able to command something, you need to be able to put yourself in its shoes. If we look down in contempt at something, it means we think we're superior -- and the truth is we won't understand it. Jesus knows what being a sheep is like, he knows what being a lion is like, he even knows what being a rock is like. He could also move up the ladder of awareness. Up and down. He moved down and became lower than the angels. Then he moved back up to being better than the angels. He even was willing to experience what death was -- not resisting, not imagining, but experiencing it. The correct awareness meant he could control it. That's how I see it anyway.

Click to expand...

I have noticed the inclusion of animals in many passages myself. My primary focus with them was toward the beasts that are in each of us. I studied that quite a bit, but haven't really gone into the actual animals much. My primary thought about it in the past was in looking at what an unbelieving man is and what he should be. What he should be ideally according to scripture is a creature with the attitude of one of these supposedly "lower animals" combined with the abilities and gifts that the man made in the image of God would have.

I have also related to it in the words of Jesus when he said we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. The little child is still untainted because of his youth and lack of exposure to the negative indoctrination of his parents and other older more experiences people. In that the child resembles those we call "lower animals".

Another place I have thought about it is on the three levels of saved being on the ark that Noah built. I have thought of them as the unclean beast being the newly converted/saved man with no knowledge yet, but saved [=in 1st heaven]. The clean beast being a man who has begun to clean up his act but still needing more work on the inside [=2nd heaven]. The man at the top (only 8) would the one who has already overcome the world penetration the 2nd veil [=3rd heaven]. I read as people with beasts needing cleaning and killing, but if we were to consider them with you idea of actual "lower animals" we might come up with something quite different. But, of course animals don't get elevated from unclean to clean to men... unless you have seen something else...

Perhaps becoming as a little child could be related to becoming as a docile beast... such as a sheep?