The Gardener

[bbyrd009]

Not sure I follow but what was "dust" before the ground was cursed.

well that is a different "dust," see, ha adamah, not afar/aphar, which you might consider an irrelevant distinction like most ppl, plus you might be taking "cursed" more literally than "for your sake" means to convey, which can also be rendered "from your perspective" or "as far as you are concerned."
There is much debate as to whether the earth was ever actually cursed by God, highlight/search some relevant links for more. I personally doubt it, and i now believe perspectives were being addressed

so to answer your Q, ha adamah, ground, or dirt, was still dirt after it was "cursed, for your sake," and you are left to answer what "afar ha adamah" is for yourself; a redundancy, or a meaningful inclusion. And i wish i could tell you that "the Israelites would have understood afar ha adamah to mean _______," but no one can do this with any amount of confidence i guess.

all i can say is that the "dust" that satan was going to be eating was not dirt (ha adamah), but ve-aphar, note also in here all the supposedly "cursed" cattle, along with every other 'beast of the field,' etc ("cursed" is prolly, surely being used in a diff way than we now mean iow)

Genesis 3:14 Lexicon: The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

 

[VictoryinJesus]

well that is a different "dust," see, ha adamah, not afar/aphar, which you might consider an irrelevant distinction like most ppl, plus you might be taking "cursed" more literally than "for your sake" means to convey, which can also be rendered "from your perspective" or "as far as you are concerned."

so to answer your Q, ha adamah, ground, or dirt, was still dirt after it was "cursed, for your sake," and you are left to answer what "afar ha adamah" is for yourself; a redundancy, or a meaningful inclusion. And i wish i could tell you that "the Israelites would have understood afar ha adamah to mean _______," but no one can do this with any amount of confidence i guess.

all i can say is that the "dust" that satan was going to be eating was not dirt (ha adamah), but ve-aphar, note also in here all the supposedly "cursed" cattle, along with every other 'beast of the field,' etc ("cursed" is prolly, surely being used in a diff way than we now mean iow)

Genesis 3:14 Lexicon: The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Okay. You lost me. Do mean afar off and near ...the distinction between?

 

[bbyrd009]

What "dust" was Adam originally made of? Where did this original dust come from, the garden of eden? What was this dust of abundance and increase that was watered by a constant mist (pre)fall? Would that dust be of the same decay and worm ridden earth as now? I do think I get what you are hinting at. They would sweep the dust from the floor of the temple and carry it without the gate. Was Adam originally made of the dust of heaven (man with God)?

well i guess you already know my take on "dust of the earth," imo this was the best, timeless way to say "the dusting that was unique to earth, that did not fall from the universe via gravity (i guess several tons of inert "dust" just falls to earth every day via this method...40,000 tonnes or so a year apparently), so, not that dust iow; more like the dust that worms are after, imo, yes.

i would hesitate to label it "dust of heaven" where Scripture has labelled it "dust of the earth," tho i get you there. Imo a lot of people are vigorously wasting your tax dollars trying to find a certain "dust" from heaven, see, so the one can easily get confused with the other

 

[bbyrd009]

Okay. You lost me. Do mean afar off and near ...the distinction between?

ha no sorry, "afar" meaning "aphar" as can be seen here, when you Lex "dust"
(iow click one of these links and read down the verse until you get to "dust," which is rendered from "aphar,")

Genesis 2:7 Lexicon: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Genesis 3:14 Lexicon: The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

 

[bbyrd009]

Numbers 5:17-18
[17] And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: [18] And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord , and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:


I don't know. Questions unanswered. What about you?

that dust is he aphar i guess, but you have chosen a symbolically laden verse to try and extract dust from imo, we got "holy water" going on there, in one of only two vv that contain it, we got "tabernacle" going on, we got "bitter water" somehow being made from "holy water" and "dust from the floor of the tabernacle," so while i could go on for pages about all the symbolism in here, i still would not end up giving a very acceptable "answer" i guess lol. You might note that highlighting/searching any of these phrases brings up some quite interesting links that would surely serve to expand your perspective better than i could. But everyone is guessing, near as i can tell anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

"
There's no indication that God made Adam from the dust of the earth (a word that should have occurred between words 3 and 4). In stead it reads that He made Adam "dust of the earth,"

might also apply, my poor grasp of ancient Hebrew tells me that the "of" after "formed Adam" in Adam's creation may very well be a helpful scribe addition, as i don't see "ha" or any other participle connection there (as is apparent in from the ground, ha adamah) but i'm not a scholar.
Genesis 2:7 Lexicon: Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Abraham's offspring are "the dust of the earth," etc, so the phrase seems to be being either deliberately obscured, or more likely was a common euphemism at one time, like "pulling my leg" or whatever, that meant basically "ubiquitous matter that could be found anywhere

 

[bbyrd009]

also, snakes were not reviled then as they are today, they were more like revered and even worshipped, considered prudent and crafty. My current Right Pastor suggests that snakes being observed to flick their tongues at the ground, to "smell" it, = "eating dirt" to the ancients, even though they knew better even then--iow, poetic license is being employed to illustrate spiritual principles, and the writers knew that snakes did not literally eat dust, just as worms do not, etc

 

[VictoryinJesus]

also, snakes were not reviled then as they are today, they were more like revered and even worshipped, considered prudent and crafty. My current Right Pastor suggests that snakes being observed to flick their tongues at the ground, to "smell" it, = "eating dirt" to the ancients, even though they knew better even then--iow, poetic license is being employed to illustrate spiritual principles, and the writers knew that snakes did not literally eat dust, just as worms do not, etc

Which would leave one to argue God literally meant snakes eat dirt and if He meant it literally, then God wouldn't know His own creation. Or snakes rebelled and refused to eat dirt. It can't always be literal is the point. So what else do we force and refuse to accept when it doesn't align with what we think we already know?

 

[bbyrd009]

Which would leave one to argue God literally meant snakes eat dirt and if He meant it literally, then God wouldn't know His own creation. Or snakes rebelled and refused to eat dirt. It can't always be literal is the point. So what else do we force and refuse to accept when it doesn't align with what we think we already know?

ya...i can tell that you are at a point where any new knowledge will only contest your previously held beliefs, and knowledge brings sorrow is about to manifest for you if it hasn't already lol. Few "believers" ever Wander, i guess is another way to put it. This is a kind of painful phase, usually marked by an abandonment of your current walk i guess, things that were meaningful tend to lose their meaning, whether God even exists or not is questioned, etc.

Which is a good thing, as we usually start with a concept of God that fits our perspective at the time, and old guy--white guy, of course--with a beard, sitting on a literal throne, etc, literally forsaking Christ on the cross "bc He bore our sins," all that will be re-evaluated, you can even highlight/search in here for links to others who have done the same,

forsaking Christ on the cross "bc He bore our sins - Google Search

 

[bbyrd009]

Which would leave one to argue God literally meant snakes eat dirt and if He meant it literally, then God wouldn't know His own creation. Or snakes rebelled and refused to eat dirt. It can't always be literal is the point. So what else do we force and refuse to accept when it doesn't align with what we think we already know?

so at this point i would ask if you have fallen off the cliff yet? Does this ring any bells? There might be better ways to put it, kings reduced to eating grass might be invoked, here's one that seems apropos :)
Nebuchadnezzar ate Grass (from "God as a Gardener")

of course you are not openly prideful, but nonetheless some of this will apply, the point being you might likely question your sanity at some point here soon, begin losing interest in long-held habits that previously defined you, etc, "your kingdom will be removed" iow, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

well, i mean life as you know it and have gotten comfy with is prolly over lol, but then everyone is different, you might have a different experience. However, not caring anymore about stuff that used to be really important, or at least considered your bailiwick/responsibility, this is possible/likely, peers might be wondering if you are on drugs, etc

so, a mid-life crisis, perhaps is another way to put it, although i note differences in a seeker's crisis, so i don't know if they are the same exactly

 

[VictoryinJesus]

so at this point i would ask if you have fallen off the cliff yet? Does this ring any bells? There might be better ways to put it, kings reduced to eating grass might be invoked, here's one that seems apropos :)
Nebuchadnezzar ate Grass (from "God as a Gardener")

of course you are not openly prideful, but nonetheless some of this will apply, the point being you might likely question your sanity at some point here soon, begin losing interest in long-held habits that previously defined you, etc, "your kingdom will be removed" iow, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

well, i mean life as you know it and have gotten comfy with is prolly over lol, but then everyone is different, you might have a different experience. However, not caring anymore about stuff that used to be really important, or at least considered your bailiwick/responsibility, this is possible/likely, peers might be wondering if you are on drugs, etc

so, a mid-life crisis, perhaps is another way to put it, although i note differences in a seeker's crisis, so i don't know if they are the same exactly

Yes to all of the above. It's more than a mid-life crisis. I define it as God seizing you by the throat and dragging you out. Most won't like that. It may have been more subtle for you. I Completely understand about the eating grass. I may still possibly be insane.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

so at this point i would ask if you have fallen off the cliff yet? Does this ring any bells? There might be better ways to put it, kings reduced to eating grass might be invoked, here's one that seems apropos :)
Nebuchadnezzar ate Grass (from "God as a Gardener")

of course you are not openly prideful, but nonetheless some of this will apply, the point being you might likely question your sanity at some point here soon, begin losing interest in long-held habits that previously defined you, etc, "your kingdom will be removed" iow, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

well, i mean life as you know it and have gotten comfy with is prolly over lol, but then everyone is different, you might have a different experience. However, not caring anymore about stuff that used to be really important, or at least considered your bailiwick/responsibility, this is possible/likely, peers might be wondering if you are on drugs, etc

so, a mid-life crisis, perhaps is another way to put it, although i note differences in a seeker's crisis, so i don't know if they are the same exactly

Great sorrow. But at the same authentic joy for the first time.

 

[bbyrd009]

I may still possibly be insane.

lol. have you re-experienced any "bad" habits, promiscuity or whatever your bag was?
Satan being released again for a short season, iow? That usually accompanies this i guess

 

[VictoryinJesus]

lol. have you re-experienced any "bad" habits, promiscuity or whatever your bag was?
Satan being released again for a short season, iow? That usually accompanies this i guess

Now you have lost me.

Correction: when I compared it to God grabbing you by your throat and dragging you out. That doesn't do Him justice: it was not Him but my reluctance that caused me harm. If given the choice now, I would go through the past couple of years again. Willingly.

 

[bbyrd009]

Now you have lost me.

Correction: when I compared it to God grabbing you by your throat and dragging you out. That doesn't do Him justice: it was not Him but my reluctance that caused me harm. If given the choice now, I would go through the past couple of years again. Willingly.

hmm, interesting. well, not really too surprised i guess, everyone changes differently.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

hmm, interesting. well, not really too surprised i guess, everyone changes differently.

You know the throat thing really bothered me last night. I couldn't forget how all this time I have described my first encounter with God, when God is mercy. I kept asking God: Why it was so bothersome and brought up now? I never discussed any of it with my husband. Not a single word. This morning my husband said, out of no where, "a man shouldnt grab another man by the throat." And he gave these two passages:

1 Timothy 5:21-22
[21] I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. [22] Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

Matthew 18:27-28
[27] Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. [28] But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

Mercy.

 

[bbyrd009]

This morning my husband said, out of no where, "a man shouldnt grab another man by the throat."

apropos of nothing? hmm, interesting. i guess "uprooting trees" might be an equivalent reflection too; but other trees are just cut down, and allowed to shoot from a stump? i see that i may have needed the first, while maybe you only needed the second, something like that

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I would agree with you that the creation story is not a literal account but a metaphor. The truth is wrapped up in the story, sadly today it would appear that the modern evangelical fundamentalist is more interested in whether the story is literally true and miss the message within the story.

The story of Jonah is a classic one. This is a story about Gods heart for people, sadly the litralists get all lost and side tracked in whether of not a man can live in a whale. Who cares that's not what the story is about. The Bible is a spiritual book that can only be interpreted spiritually through a Biblical world view. It was never meant to be interpreted literally.

Spot on I agree totally with you totally on all that.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

they had a different perception of snakes than we do, i guess

There is a Biblical reason, I just wonder if anyone here knew why Holy Moses did as such.
I know the reason.

They had snakes in the desert that caused extreme pain it is said of that people were getting bitten, the perception of snakes were no different to nowadays but their is a point to this holding up of such a thing as Moses did.

The Old Testament can give great strength to understand the New Testament fully.

 

[bbyrd009]

There is a Biblical reason, I just wonder if anyone here knew why Holy Moses did as such.
I know the reason.

They had snakes in the desert that caused extreme pain it is said of that people were getting bitten, the perception of snakes were no different to nowadays but their is a point to this holding up of such a thing as Moses did.

The Old Testament can give great strength to understand the New Testament fully.

ya, Nehushtan is a good lesson, i'll grant.

"Holy" Moses?