A Different Look at Genesis - Part 2

[Trekson]

Windmill, your question - "Would you please explain how this is relevant to what you quoted from my post."
H3117 - Day - literal=as you say, figuratively - age, always, continually, everlasting. Where do you see that there is no possibility of long lengths of time? I would consider the minimum 6000 yrs. since creation to be a long length of time but perhaps God does not.

 

[Stranger]

We don’t know how long Adam was in the garden alone before God made Eve. I would guesstimate about five hundred years, if we consider a thousand yr. “day”. That gives Adam time to work and cultivate the garden until God decides that he needs a “companion/helper”. I believe that until the fall God’s creation was eternal and I believe that included plant and animal life as well. We also don’t know how long they both lived in the garden before the fall. I believe it's possible they could have lived thousands of years in the garden because they were created as eternal beings with access to the Tree of Life. In fact, before sin entered into the world everything was eternal because there was no death. Everything that God created was very good! There was no rot and decay among the plant life. From Gen. 1:29-30 it can be assumed that there were no meat eaters and everything that ate had a vegetarian type diet.

God told everything He created to be fruitful and multiply and I believe that was meant for Adam and Eve as well. Here are a couple of things you may not have considered before and were the catalysts for writing this paper. I was asking God for wisdom and knowledge concerning this issue and He led me to Gen. 3:16 and to look at it differently. One, is that as perfect human beings, they most likely had use of 100% of their brain, whereas science tells us that presently we only use about 10% of our brain. Imagine their intelligence! Sometimes they are pictured as doe-eyed innocents lost in a majestic garden and other times they’re pictured as little more than ignorant cave people but I believe both of those pictures vastly under-estimate the perfection of God’s creation.

Here is another thing that is never spoken of. Did you know that Eve must have had children before the fall because as part of their judgment in Gen. 3:16, God changed the parameters of child birth? “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.” If she had never had children how would she know the difference? How can something be “multiplied” from nothing?

I think if we reverse engineer this verse we can assume that prior to the fall childbirth was virtually painless and the length of pregnancy was much shorter. I believe it is very possible that they had hundreds or thousands of children before the fall!

As many of the prophetic fulfillments echo historical timing, I would guesstimate they lived around 3500 yrs. (3 ½ days/years) in the garden before the fall. This would bring Earth’s age closer to 16,000 yrs. or more, which falls closer in line with scientific theories regarding the dates of their evolution of man. The biblical record of childbirth just starts after the fall, when death entered into the equation and "time" began to matter! The day of the “fall” can also be considered as Adam’s birthday, as that is the day he and the rest of humanity began to die.

Recognizing this possibility solves three of the mysteries that surround the stories in Genesis. The first is that this would explain the “others" that Cain was concerned about (Gen. 4:14). The second would be the identity of the “sons of God” that mated with the daughters of men in Gen. 6:4. The third would be where the “giants” came from that are also found in vs. 4.

Is it possible that in God’s mind He separated the children of Adam and Eve into two groups? Perhaps the ones conceived before the fall which were eternal and had no prior knowledge of evil He considered “children of God” and those conceived after the fall would be considered the “children of men” because they lost access to the Tree of Life and were no longer His children but the children, so to speak, of the Evil One now that they had received the basic sin nature that we all would inherit.

Speaking to that issue, I’m not a scientist but it’s my opinion that both of those trees had genetic/dna consequences. The Tree of Life extended their lives and added to their aspect as eternal beings, which was one of the aspects of the likeness of God in which they were created. From their partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the only way it made them more like God was the newly acquired knowledge and awareness of evil. That knowledge, I believe, was also inherently passed down through the generations via our gene pool passed down through the man’s seed. That is why God had to use His seed and a virgin so Jesus could be born w/o that basic sin nature. It was the only way He had a chance to live a sinless life and thus become the pure and spotless Lamb that was sacrificed for our sakes.

This also explains why they were so long-lived before the flood. It took time for the eternal aspect of their DNA to degrade down to the point where our life span had decreased to 120 years or less.

I also believe the antediluvian civilization because of the sons of God were far more advanced then we give them credit for and thankfully most of that knowledge was lost in the flood. As man was created in God’s image we most likely received the desire to explore and create as well. Imagine the things we could come up with if we had access to 100% of our brain. I believe they excelled at agriculture and animal husbandry and as herbalists and many other “earth” sciences that we lost because of the flood.

When evil came upon the earth it wouldn’t surprise me if their knowledge took a darker turn towards genetic manipulation and plant based chemistry. Perhaps they are the ones that created the ancient carnivores like T-Rexes, maybe in an effort to eradicate bothersome creatures who were ruining their planting efforts, and such and it’s not impossible that they mixed human and animal DNA to come up with the creatures from Greek Mythology as well, whose stories were passed down from the sons of Noah which were added to or changed as what happens when tales are passed down through the generations. Let’s not forget the possibility of plant-based chemical enhancements and DNA manipulation that could create the “giants” and “men of renown” also from Gen. 6:4.

I’m not declaring everything in this article to be the truth but as seekers of the truth shouldn’t we consider all the possibilities that are out there? These are just some of the thoughts I’ve pondered over the years on this, to me, very interesting topic. I do have one question for those who have a leaning towards evolution. What would the “half-life” register of a creature with either eternal or partial eternal DNA? It wouldn’t surprise me if it registered a couple hundred million years or more!​

Interesting theory. But it raises questions. What happened to those born of Adam prior to the fall? They were not sinners connected to Adam after the fall. They shouldn't die as death is the result of sin. If these are the 'sons of God' in (Gen.6:1-2), there is no law given that they should not mix with those of Adam after the fall. Thus no sin.

If you consider that the 'sons of God' all sinned when they mixed with those of Adam after the fall, and that was sin, it was not the sin of Adam. If they are not of Adam in the fall, then they cannot be in Christ saved by faith. For it says, in Adam all die. (1 Cor. 15:22) "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive." And you are saying some did not die in Adam.

Stranger

 

[101G]

Figurative language of known meaning is literal.

The woman is Israel

The 12 stars the 12 tribes

The sun Jacob

The moon Rachel

The Dragon Satan

One third of the stars are the angels that rebelled in the war in heaven

GINOLJC, to all.

First thanks for the reply,
Second, do you have scriptures to back up your assertions?

next I will say this, "not saying that you're right or wrong", but consider this.

for example, you said that the "Moon" is Rachel. ok, I say the moon is symbolic for the Law of Moses, which is at the woman feet. my scriptures to back up this assertion that I have posted is found in the book of
Psalms 119:105 "NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path". as the moon was at the woman feet, how do we know this? scripture,
Proverbs 6:23 "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life"

so the commandents is a "Lamp", and "the Law" is a Light. at the feet a guide to walk, or "LIVE" by. the commandments and the Law is a "LIGHT"

see CoreIssue, Israel walked by a dim light, here symbolic of the moon which is a lesser light, at the woman feet, than the sun which is superior at the woman's head. and that same dim light many walk by today, and they are not all Jews? why because the same vail is over their faces causing them to see dimly. supportive scripture scripture,
2 Corinthians 3:14 "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:15 "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

CoreIssue, let the Holy Spirit interperted the word of God for you. no, we might go off on a tangent sometimes, and might miss the mark sometimes, we're nit perfect... yet. but the Holy Teacher will correct us. as I said, there is no shame in correction. the main thing is to get is right.

so the moon here in Revelation chapter 12 is not Rachel. but if you have scriptures to support your position please post them.

 

[CoreIssue]

Hi Corel, First, I agree with your view on Rev. 12.
Isaiah 45:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 For this is what the Lord says—he who created the heavens,he is God;he who fashioned and made the earth,he founded it;he did not create it to be empty,but formed it to be inhabited—he says:“I am the Lord,and there is no other.

Created - H1254 - to cut down, select, choose, dispatch, do. Formed - H3335 - squeeze into shape, mould…, potter, purchase. Looking at these two words I get that he reshaped (molded) the earth by cutting off all the rough edges making it relatively smooth as a potter would with a lump of clay. As the universe is also his creation there are things that have a noble purpose (suns, moons) and things that have an ignoble purpose (asteroids, space dust, etc.)

This is in reference to Genesis 1 not Genesis 2. God created the earth from nothing. You're talking about the condition it was in after it was devastated.

The sun and the moon did not exist in Genesis 1.

Isaiah's pointing out God did not create it to be in the condition it was in after the war.

He created it to be inhabited and it was by the pre-Adamic.

What you're saying reduces God. He had no need to create a mud ball and then mold it. He created the whole universe which is testimony in and of itself that he went to the right to the end result with no intermediate steps initially.

All that happened after as part of his plan. Which is still progressing today.

At the end he will blow it all apart and put it back the way it started without any intermediate steps.

 

[CoreIssue]

I have read genesis chapters 1+2 many times and I have neve encountered any verses there that support this idea of 'The reforming of the earth from its devastated state of the war in heaven'.
Where do you find this idea?

Did you read the Isaiah verse I posted? How about the verses from Revelation?

You think God needed to start with a mud ball?

Who says everything was said in Genesis 1?

Commentaries by CoreIssue

 

[Trekson]

GINOLJC, to all.

First thanks for the reply,
Second, do you have scriptures to back up your assertions?

next I will say this, "not saying that you're right or wrong", but consider this.

for example, you said that the "Moon" is Rachel. ok, I say the moon is symbolic for the Law of Moses, which is at the woman feet. my scriptures to back up this assertion that I have posted is found in the book of
Psalms 119:105 "NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path". as the moon was at the woman feet, how do we know this? scripture,
Proverbs 6:23 "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life"

so the commandents is a "Lamp", and "the Law" is a Light. at the feet a guide to walk, or "LIVE" by. the commandments and the Law is a "LIGHT"

see CoreIssue, Israel walked by a dim light, here symbolic of the moon which is a lesser light, at the woman feet, than the sun which is superior at the woman's head. and that same dim light many walk by today, and they are not all Jews? why because the same vail is over their faces causing them to see dimly. supportive scripture scripture,
2 Corinthians 3:14 "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:15 "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

CoreIssue, let the Holy Spirit interperted the word of God for you. no, we might go off on a tangent sometimes, and might miss the mark sometimes, we're nit perfect... yet. but the Holy Teacher will correct us. as I said, there is no shame in correction. the main thing is to get is right.

so the moon here in Revelation chapter 12 is not Rachel. but if you have scriptures to support your position please post them.

Symbolism is a slippery slope that leads to false theologies. In Rev. Whenever obvious symbolism is used, it is explained somewhere within the text. If you can't find an obvious answer, it's literal not symbolism and in Rev. 12 there are obvious clues that lead to Israel, imo.

 

[Trekson]

Corel, Your quote, "The sun and the moon did not exist in Genesis 1."

Really??? Have you read Gen. 1 lately? Vs. 16 is a clue.

 

[101G]

Symbolism is a slippery slope that leads to false theologies. In Rev. Whenever obvious symbolism is used, it is explained somewhere within the text. If you can't find an obvious answer, it's literal not symbolism and in Rev. 12 there are obvious clues that lead to Israel, imo.

this is why it's symbolic, are you saying that Israel is the woman?

 

[CoreIssue]

Corel, Your quote, "The sun and the moon did not exist in Genesis 1."

Really??? Have you read Gen. 1 lately? Vs. 16 is a clue.

Sorry, I meant Genesis 1:1

 

[Trekson]

this is why it's symbolic, are you saying that Israel is the woman?

yes

 

[CoreIssue]

Genesis 37:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

In the OT Israel is the wife of God.

Jeremiah 3:14 New International Version (NIV)
14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion.

 

[Trekson]

Sorry, I meant Genesis 1:1

I'll get back to you on that. I'm doing a little revision and secondary speculation.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Did you read the Isaiah verse I posted? How about the verses from Revelation?

You think God needed to start with a mud ball?

Who says everything was said in Genesis 1?

Commentaries by CoreIssue

john 1.v3:Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
God made everything by his command and sustains everything by his word.
The plain reading of gemesis is of a creation formed in 6 days, that the only destruction was the flood.
Any other reading into scripture of long ages is to accomodate evolution.

 

[101G]

yes

God is Married to his church, (Spiritually, or metaphorically speaking), but Israel was divorce, and not Judah. remenber, the nation was split into two kingdoms. the northern 10 tribes, (called Israel) and the two southern tribes of Judah, and Benjamin. so which one is the woman?. let's check the record.

Jeremiah 3:6 " The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also”.

we can see clearly that God not only put Israel, (the 10 northern tribes), away, but divorce her. but what about Israel sister Judah?. Isaiah 50:1 " Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away”.

here we see God did not divorce Judah, only put her away. big difference from divorce, and if a man put away his wife and not divorce her he can take her back.

so in conclusion the woman here is Judah, (the remnant), where the virgin Mary come from, and our Lord sprang out of. as the apostle Paul said, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda”, Hebrews 7:14.

so clearly from scriptures, the woman here in Revelation chapter 12 is the remnant, Judah, the church in the wilderness.

so, the woman having a child is legitimate, she has a husband, and not a whore.

but if you have something difference to support you assessment, I'm open to hear it.

 

[Trekson]

God is Married to his church, (Spiritually, or metaphorically speaking), but Israel was divorce, and not Judah. remenber, the nation was split into two kingdoms. the northern 10 tribes, (called Israel) and the two southern tribes of Judah, and Benjamin. so which one is the woman?. let's check the record.

Jeremiah 3:6 " The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also”.

we can see clearly that God not only put Israel, (the 10 northern tribes), away, but divorce her. but what about Israel sister Judah?. Isaiah 50:1 " Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away”.

here we see God did not divorce Judah, only put her away. big difference from divorce, and if a man put away his wife and not divorce her he can take her back.

so in conclusion the woman here is Judah, (the remnant), where the virgin Mary come from, and our Lord sprang out of. as the apostle Paul said, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda”, Hebrews 7:14.

so clearly from scriptures, the woman here in Revelation chapter 12 is the remnant, Judah, the church in the wilderness.

so, the woman having a child is legitimate, she has a husband, and not a whore.

but if you have something difference to support you assessment, I'm open to hear it.

I would say read the rest of the chapter from vss. 11-18. The bill of divorce is no more.

 

[101G]

I would say read the rest of the chapter from vss. 11-18. The bill of divorce is no more.

if you're speaking of the book of Jeremiah? if so that's future, hence the reason why the Woman is giving BIRTH.

Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jeremiah 3:16 "And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

"no more bill of divorcement?". where is that at?

 

[Trekson]

if you're speaking of the book of Jeremiah? if so that's future, hence the reason why the Woman is giving BIRTH.

Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jeremiah 3:16 "And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

"no more bill of divorcement?". where is that at?

Speaking of the north who you say were divorced (which was past tense, btw) (even if that we're true that doesn't mean there couldn't be reconciliation) however, Jer. 3:11-14 -
"And the Lord said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. 12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. 13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the Lord. 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married (present tense) unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:"
This doesn't sound to me like something that God has made a permanent situation. Rev. 7, lists the tribes of His remnant of Israel and most of the ten tribes are listed. Also, the prophetic books of Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were written after Jeremiah and all speak of Israel in the present/future tense. They are simply not "done with" as you want them to be.

 

[Trekson]

I'll get back to you on that. I'm doing a little revision and secondary speculation.

Still working on that revision but I've been sick lately, but I will get back to it.

 

[101G]

Speaking of the north who you say were divorced (which was past tense, btw) (even if that we're true that doesn't mean there couldn't be reconciliation)

GINOLJC, first thanks for the reply, second, hence the REASON for the NEW COVENANT. supportive scripture,
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah".

notice the HOUSE, not only the NATURAL TRIBS but all who are under their roof, as with Abraham. meaning all who believe, scripture,
Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call".

question, "is the Lord God still calling people unto himself today? yes even while we speak.

and to do this with the House of Iarael, and the House of Judah, all must be BORN again. for he, God is building a Church, that is NEW. hence we must "DIE"... water baptism, and rise again just like the Lord Jesus, ... a NEW CREATION, the NEW MAN.

hence
Romans 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Romans 7:2 "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Romans 7:3 "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man".

this is the reason why God as a man died so that he could marry "another", his new bride his Church.

so Israel (the North) husband, died, and hence the woman in Revelation Chapter 12 is liget in giving birth to the man child, who is still married to God, the remnant

 

[Trekson]

this is the reason why God as a man died so that he could marry "another", his new bride his Church.

so Israel (the North) husband, died, and hence the woman in Revelation Chapter 12 is liget in giving birth to the man child, who is still married to God, the remnant

Rom. 7:3-4 - "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married (belong) to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

I believe the word "married" here is a mistranslation. The Greek is "ginomai" G1096. This word is used 100's of times in the NT and this scripture is the ONLY place it is translated as "married". All the other times the word for "married" is used it's G1060 (gameo). The other most common translation of this passage is the phrase "belong to" which has a different connotation than "married". This is the first time I've heard your conclusion. Most others erroneously consider Israel to be the wife of the Father and the church to be the wife of the Son thus creating an eternal separation which is contrary to everything that's in God's plan, imo.

I don't believe any "divorce" was finalized. I believe it was used more as a threat then a reality because in the next chapter God pleads with Israel to return to Him. I don't think God contradicts Himself so the whole reason for the Book of Hosea is to show how forgiving God can be towards an adulterous wife. You also need to realize that when God uses the phrases married, wife, etc. regarding Israel it is not a reality, it is done so as an allegory, imo., showing how united they should be. It's all a picture of the intimate closeness that God desires with His creation. I'm sorry but the reason you're offering for Christ's death on the cross isn't a realistic picture of the truth f scripture at all, imo.