Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
I suppose hermeneutics would be determined by how literal an individuals interpretation of scripture is.
THE TRUTH ABOUT ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN
- Thread starter fellow
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Waiting on him
Well-Known Member
Hi Fellow.
I also view verses like the one you posted above as literal.
I take it a step further though...
I believe Satan is the Earthly Father of the entire Human Race, and thus the 'Seed of the Serpent' is referring to Male Seed...
Our Earthly Mother is Mystery Babylon. The 'Seed of the Woman' is the Ovum or Egg Cell of every Woman...
Most folks don't understand that the word 'Enmity' can also mean Conception...
Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel"
The next verse underscores what the Enmity of the above verse actually is ...
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"
Again, it is alluded to here...
Ephesians 2:15
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace"
See how Enmity is related to "Two shall be one flesh"?
Most Christians are simply too proud and arrogant to admit how fallen they really are...
Psalms 51:5
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"
So to summarize what happened in the Garden of Eden...
Adam and Eve were Soul and Spirit only. They had no Body, or more specifically, they had no 'Covering' as of yet.
Since Adam and Eve had no Covering, they were described as 'Naked'.
The Two Trees were provided so that Adam and Eve could ultimately choose which Covering they were to receive or be 'born again' from.
Thus...
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil = Born again of corruptible flesh
Tree of Life = Born again of incorruptible flesh
Adam and Eve of course chose to be born again of corruptible flesh.
And so...
The Seed of the Serpent (Sperm) combined with the Forbidden Fruit (Ovum) to produce a Fertilized Egg.
The only thing missing was a Soul and Spirit to 'partake' of said Fruit and enter into the Egg.
That is where Adam and Eve comes in. Once they partook of the Fruit/Egg Cell, they literally became 'Born Again' into the corrupted 'Covering' we all have to this day...
Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them"
The 'Coats of Skin' was not animal skins to clothe them to keep them warm or whatever.
The Skins were literally the Body that we have now...
2 Corinthians 5:2-3
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven"
"If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked"
Thus 'Naked' means no Body or no Covering.
Adam and Eve were Soul and Spirit only. They had no Body, or more specifically, they had no 'Covering' as of yet.
Since Adam and Eve had no Covering, they were described as 'Naked'.
The Two Trees were provided so that Adam and Eve could ultimately choose which Covering they were to receive or be 'born again' from.
Thus...
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil = Born again of corruptible flesh
Tree of Life = Born again of incorruptible flesh
Adam and Eve of course chose to be born again of corruptible flesh.
And so...
The Seed of the Serpent (Sperm) combined with the Forbidden Fruit (Ovum) to produce a Fertilized Egg.
The only thing missing was a Soul and Spirit to 'partake' of said Fruit and enter into the Egg.
That is where Adam and Eve comes in. Once they partook of the Fruit/Egg Cell, they literally became 'Born Again' into the corrupted 'Covering' we all have to this day...
Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them"
The 'Coats of Skin' was not animal skins to clothe them to keep them warm or whatever.
The Skins were literally the Body that we have now...
2 Corinthians 5:2-3
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven"
"If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked"
Thus 'Naked' means no Body or no Covering.
Just my humble opinion...
I believe Sarah is the Tree of Life.
God represents Abraham and Jesus represents the Lamb or more specifically, Abraham's Seed...
Revelation 22:1
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb"
Next to Jesus is the Tree of Life representing Sarah...
Revelation 22:2
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations"
Notice Sarah has a 'Monthly Cycle'. She has a period. Get it?
The Wedding is Abraham and Sarah. The 'Supper' is Sarah consummating the marriage by conceiving the Saved into their Glorified Bodies...
Galatians 4:26
"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all"
New Jerusalem is Sarah's Temple Body. The Tree of Life is her Ovaries inside of her Womb.
Sarah's 'Pearly Gates' are her Yoni that the Saved (as Soul and Spirit) enter into to partake of the Fruit of Life and become Born Again of the Glorified Body.
Thus, it is the opposite of what happened in the Garden of Eden.
Seed of the Serpent is now Blood of the Lamb (Abraham's Seed)
Seed of the Woman Mystery Babylon is now Fruit of the Tree of Life (Seed of Sarah)
Conception takes place and the Saved (Soul and Spirit) combine with the Fertilized Egg.
The Saved now become 'grafted in' to all of Israel.
You are completely off your rocker!
Your hermeneutics are outrageous, that they will constantly lead you into the utmost delirium, and bastardization of Scripture.
Once you start exegeting the Bible in such a literal and isolated manner, you will never achieve a comprehensive and cohesive theology.
Others have already pointed out the irrationality in your logic, by explaining how the principles that you apply in one context, if applied elsewhere, will ultimately distort pre-established maxims of God's Word i.e. Messianic Prophecy, Christ's lineage, Cain's ability to resist evil and choose righteousness, the true meaning of the Tree of Good & Evil...
Indeed it is spiritual, it is called being possessed! Have you read where Jesus was told by a mother that her daughter was possessed?
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
You may have to get real deep into scriptures to follow the lineage of Cain.
Esau was told not to take a wife of Canaan, do you catch that name 'Canaan'
Gen 28:6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;
Esau did and that is just the start of his children.
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
You may have to get real deep into scriptures to follow the lineage of Cain.
Esau was told not to take a wife of Canaan, do you catch that name 'Canaan'
Gen 28:6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;
Esau did and that is just the start of his children.
You are overlooking one verse that reproves how you are applying His words.
Genesis 4:1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
So there was no physical union between Eve and Satan. It is because of man in becoming a sinner is how the devil's seed is established physically in mankind as fallen sinful flesh. Her seed, the prophesied Christ seed, will destroy the works of the devil in our lives of those who believe in Jesus Christ.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
Yes. This is the first Messianic prophecy in the Bible. It was fulfilled when Jesus rose from the dead, signalling Satan's total defeat by taking the keys of death and hell out of his hands. Although Satan is still the god of this world until the second coming of Christ, he has no power at all over converted Christian believers, and he knows it. The Scripture says that the demons tremble because they know their future.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Like it or not, Cain is never call a child of the devil or a son of the devil.
And Eve was never said to have "known" the devil, or be a wife to the devil.
Cain and Abel were twins;
Their mother Eve, their father Adam.
Cain being born First, and being said of Cain:
Gen 4:
[1] And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
It was the LORD that Eve credited for her having her son Cain... not the devil.
The Scriptures jump to Cain and Able past childhood to working.
First, Cain, the elder, a tiller of the ground, (which such work was a curse toward Adam, for having eaten of the tree of Good and Evil.)
Second, Able, the younger, a keeper of animals, (animals that God called Good.)
God had given the Fruit of the Tree for them to eat, and was called good.
Gen 1:29
Cain brought food from the cursed ground as an offering to the LORD.
Abel brought a firstling of his flock as an offering to the LORD.
Not hard to comprehend:
The First has an entitlement predisposition, had works, comparatively easy to raising and caring for a firstling, and expected a reward for little effort.
The theme of Scripture ends with the same lesson...No one is entitled...WORKS are rewarded according to effort exerted, and pay attention to what Works please and Glorify God.
And the calling of the "devil" as ones "father" is in direct purportion to one taking on the "characteristics" of the devil...
Entitled, supposed deserving, easy, something for nothing reward attitude.
Glory to God,
Taken
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
How come you refer to Cain and Abel as "twins" when you then say Cain is the elder and Abel is the younger?
101G
Well-Known Member
not trying to intervine on your conversation, which is a good one. Cain was born first, or came through the birth canal first. supportive scripture, Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.How come you refer to Cain and Abel as "twins" when you then say Cain is the elder and Abel is the younger?
Genesis 4:2 "And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground".
Notice, she bared again, but without KNOWING her husband, which is taken as she had twins.
PICJAG.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
It's not about Cain. It's about Jesus.
The ultimate seed of the woman would be Jesus Himself. Therefore, we have in Genesis 3:15, the first promise of a Redeemer. It is the beginning of a long line of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. The Promised One would be from the woman's seed an indication of the eventual virgin birth of Christ.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
Here is an excellent video about the lecture of a PhD geneticist to show that there was a real Adam and Eve, and that the actual scientific evidence disproves Evolution's suppositions. It shows me that Evolution is a demonic lying delusion, and this is why evolutionists are adamant about their beliefs and deliberately ignore any scientific evidence to the contrary.
Professing Christians who don't believe in a real Adam and Eve can't be saved, because without Adam and Eve's disobedience we can't have original sin, and therefore don't need a Saviour. Therefore for the Theistic Evolutionist, Jesus and His finished work on Calvary has no relevance for them.
Professing Christians who don't believe in a real Adam and Eve can't be saved, because without Adam and Eve's disobedience we can't have original sin, and therefore don't need a Saviour. Therefore for the Theistic Evolutionist, Jesus and His finished work on Calvary has no relevance for them.
Taken
Well-Known Member
How come you refer to Cain and Abel as "twins" when you then say Cain is the elder and Abel is the younger?
Knew once, Conceived, bared twice, Cain first, then Able.
Gen 4
[1] And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
[2] And she again bare his brother Abel.
Glory to God,
Taken
101G
Well-Known Member
GINOLJC, to all.
First, I have heard of many like topic, being discussed, which disprove ape and man closeness in DNA. but when the Lord revealed to me that Adam, the first man, was formed on day 3 that, for me, put an end to any notion that human descended from animals.
but on the other hand, I must disagree with the speaker on evolution. please hear me out, #1. I don’t believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. #2. I do believe in evolution by God. here’s the reasons why I beleve this way. A. evolution is biblical. the speaker made a mistake in her address that God made all life form after their “own kind”, this is correct, but it don’t answer or address the variety of species. well the Bible do. scripture, Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so”. so it was the “EARTH” that brought forth, read it again for clarity. now, Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”. here again it was the "waters" that brought forth. so the Kind was establish first, and then the variety was by God ever evolving hand guiding all the variety of species we have even today. which bring us to the second reasons. B. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made”. clearly this scriptures establish evolution at the beginning by the introduction it’s kind, but his guiding hand introduce the variety of species we see today, or once lived, by the EARTH, and the WATERS.
so evolution is a truth, for if it was made, God hand guided it. be it Micro evolution, (which I believe in), or Macro evolution, (which I do not believe in), evolution of animals are establish in the bible.
Now for man/mankind. scripture, Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”. so clearly all men that dwell on the face of this planet is from "ONE" BLOOD, and that ONE BLOOD came from the first man Adam. if one say other wise one is calling God a lair. I believe God.
PICJAG.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
The Bible does not speak of "species" but of "kinds". Another video I watched explained, using the example of dogs, how that the dog is one "kind" but it encompasses every one from the wolf to the domestic dog. He says that only a pair of dogs went on the ark, but contained all the DNA coding for every breed of dog existing. As dogs multiplied, their environment determined which DNA information was used and what was lost. For example, in the northern colder regions, DNA for long hair breeds stayed while the DNA for short hair died out as short haired dogs did not survive in the cold. So, the different breeds of dog did not evolve, but it was different DNA codes were activated. For something to evolve, DNA has to be added to an organism, but DNA science has proved that DNA cannot be added to an organism from outside of it. It can only be subtracted, causing the formation of a different breed of dog.
The non-addition of DNA from one organism to another, causing more complicated organisms to evolve from simpler ones makes it totally impossible. This means that each separate organism has its own DNA which adapts to its environment, causing different "breeds" of the same kind of organism. A fish is a fish and will never change from being a fish, but different environments causes the changes into different types.
Evolution involves the survival of the fittest. Therefore it must involve imperfection and death right from the start. But when God created the world and all that is in it, He saw that it was good, very good. Because imperfection and death are not good, we see that these are inconsistent with God saying that what He created was "very good".
But we know that imperfection and death came into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and as Paul says, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses".
So there are some totally proven scientific facts concerning DNA that show that evolution could never have occurred, and that each organism was created according to its kind. Genetic science also proves that man could not have come from apes, because the difference in DNA structure is at least 45% different. The problem is that the 65% of the DNA structure that is different, is ignored by evolutionists because it does not fit their suppositions, and they come up with a guesswork theory that somehow something magically happened to make the DNA of apes and humans so similar and one could have evolved from the other. But as we have seen, DNA cannot be added to change the kind of an organism, so it was impossible for the extra DNA to form a human from an age to be added.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
It is interesting that Darwin, having not known about many areas of the world and the type of animals it contains, formed his theory on just having knowledge of 15% of all animal species. Therefore he was ignorant of 85% of the animal species of the world. So, statistically, his theory was founded on a very small population. It is the same as doing a poll of a city concerning an issue and coming to a conclusion based on just 15% of the people who live there. Anyone viewing the results would see them as unreliable because not enough people were polled to get a substantial result. Therefore, it can be argued quite successfully that Darwin's theory was built on a very unreliable foundation, and not scientifically viable.
Paul Christensen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 2, 2020
- 3,068
- 1,619
- 113
- 77
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
I have another comment - that scientists can only prove something through observation and conducting experiments. This means that they know how the universe and everything in it operates, but because none of them were there when the world was created and were not able to observe or conduct experiments, they don't actually know how things were created.
Even the prominent evolutionists say they don't actually know how the universe was created. They can only suppose that it might have been created through evolution.
It is interesting that the majority of young people who were involved in church, and who left it, were taught evolution by their church, making it one of the principal reasons why these young ones lost their faith. Many have said that if the church itself doesn't believe the Bible, what hope have they of believing it for themselves. Those who are concerned say that if the trend continues, in two generations, most young people growing up will be lost to the church.
It is interesting that in every place in the Bible where it refers to "day" it is seen as a 24 hour day, but the concept of a 24 hour day in Genesis 1 is opposed, even by many in the church! It has been shown that if there is a reference to evening or morning, or both, it shows a 24 hour day. Other uses of "day" such as "the day of the Lord", does not refer to a 24 hour day but a general time, because it doesn't mention either evening or morning. So, as in Genesis 1 where evening and morning are mentioned, it has to refer to a 24 hour day.
Another interesting fact I discovered was the pictures of a star forming. We have plenty of telescope pictures of a star ending in a supernova. A cosmologist showed pictures of a star forming to prove how that a star can form from a cloud of gas. What was discovered was that is pictures were a computer simulation, making his example of a star forming was just in his computer and nowhere else. To date, there is no telescope image of a star forming anywhere. As I have said before, to prove something, it must be observed, as through a telescope to an actual star forming, otherwise it cannot be scientifically proved. This is just one example of a deceptive photo which ordinary people not knowing that it was merely a computer simulation, could believe it was real, which it was not.
Similar threads
