What is the correct view on genesis

[shnarkle]

Under the New Covenant, humans are saved by faith.

We're saved by faith under the old covenant as well. There is no other way to be saved. The only ingredient missing from the Old Covenant was faith. When faith is added, there are no more transgressions.

 

[Hawkins]

We're saved by faith under the old covenant as well. There is no other way to be saved. The only ingredient missing from the Old Covenant was faith. When faith is added, there are no more transgressions.

So you mean to say there's no difference between the New and the Old covenant? The fundamental difference between the New and Old covenant is Law and faith. So Law has a role in the Old covenant even in terms of salvation. They don't belong to the discussion of this thread though.

 

[shnarkle]

So you mean to say there's no difference between the New and the Old covenant?

I just posted the only difference. Did you read what I posted?

The fundamental difference between the New and Old covenant is Law and faith. So Law has a role in the Old covenant even in terms of salvation.

It is the same role in the New Covenant as well.

They don't belong to the discussion of this thread though.

I'm simply replying to what was already posted.

 

[Giuliano]

You want literal? I'll give you literal.
. . . .

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

Literal? What rivers do you know start off at one source and then become four? Why is this same river seen in the Holy City in Revelation? Why is the Tree of Life also in the Holy City? Hmmm.

How does light appear before the lights are set in the "firmament" of heaven?

Talking serpents?

And if they were literal in the material sense, where's the doctrine? It has to be more than a mere assortment of historical "facts." It has to have a spiritual meaning. Passages in the Bible may or may not be literal facts, but the spiritual significance is what matters.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What's next? Will people think God is near-sighted and needs spectacles since Genesis says he "came down to see" what was going on at the Tower of Babel.

 

[Giuliano]

The ones who take it literally are right. God will never condemn someone for taking a parable literally, but He will condemn people who only take His literal Word metaphorically.

Taking things too literally is taking them by the letter and not the Spirit.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Odd then that you read Genesis by the letter and condemn people who don't. If I were you, I'd also ask myself if you know the Mind of God that well that you know who He will condemn? You look on shaky ground to me. We will all be judged as we have judged others. I wouldn't want God to judge me for making a mistake on how to read a passage, so I wouldn't judge others if I think they're making a mistake.

I also ask you where's the doctrine in your reading it literally?

 

[Helen]

Literal? What rivers do you know start off at one source and then become four? Why is this same river seen in the Holy City in Revelation? Why is the Tree of Life also in the Holy City? Hmmm.

How does light appear before the lights are set in the "firmament" of heaven?

Talking serpents?

And if they were literal in the material sense, where's the doctrine? It has to be more than a mere assortment of historical "facts." It has to have a spiritual meaning. Passages in the Bible may or may not be literal facts, but the spiritual significance is what matters.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What's next? Will people think God is near-sighted and needs spectacles since Genesis says he "came down to see" what was going on at the Tower of Babel.

Agree!!

 

[Helen]

The ones who take it literally are right. God will never condemn someone for taking a parable literally, but He will condemn people who only take His literal Word metaphorically.

Why...it is not 'either V or" but both.

There are many levels that the Holy Spirit speaks to us... He is not suck within = literal OR Spiritual.

The bible is a spiritual book which can only truly be understood spiritually.
Even within every literal verse or story...there is always a spiritual message. David and Goliath ...it wasn't just a literal happening....
It goes for the whole bible.

1 Cor 15
46 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." = BOTH.

 

[Nancy]

Why...it is not 'either V or" but both.

There are many levels that the Holy Spirit speaks to us... He is not suck within = literal OR Spiritual.

The bible is a spiritual book which can only truly be understood spiritually.
Even within every literal verse or story...there is always a spiritual message. David and Goliath ...it wasn't just a literal happening....
It goes for the whole bible.

1 Cor 15
46 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." = BOTH.

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

 

[Helen]

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 )

 

[Nancy]

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 )

"but a true follower with read with the Holy Spirit and see wonderful gems that God has hidden in there for us to find. "

And to think that so many people find the bible boring! It is LIVING and so very active. It is exciting! A true treasure chest ♥
xo

 

[amadeus]

Why...it is not 'either V or" but both.

There are many levels that the Holy Spirit speaks to us... He is not suck within = literal OR Spiritual.

The bible is a spiritual book which can only truly be understood spiritually.
Even within every literal verse or story...there is always a spiritual message. David and Goliath ...it wasn't just a literal happening....
It goes for the whole bible.

1 Cor 15
46 "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." = BOTH.

Yes, what part of the whole of scriptures is not a part of Jesus once it is quickened within us?

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

And until it is quickened within us, it remains a parable, the whole of scripture:

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matt 13:34

 

[Stranger]

Literal? What rivers do you know start off at one source and then become four? Why is this same river seen in the Holy City in Revelation? Why is the Tree of Life also in the Holy City? Hmmm.

How does light appear before the lights are set in the "firmament" of heaven?

Talking serpents?

And if they were literal in the material sense, where's the doctrine? It has to be more than a mere assortment of historical "facts." It has to have a spiritual meaning. Passages in the Bible may or may not be literal facts, but the spiritual significance is what matters.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What's next? Will people think God is near-sighted and needs spectacles since Genesis says he "came down to see" what was going on at the Tower of Babel.

I don't know of any river at this time that has one source but became four. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. Understand the geography of the earth was different then. The flood changed everything. And concerning the river in Revelation, the same is true. The geography has changed tremendously. I have no doubt it is to be taken literally.

Concerning your question about the Tree of Life, just because you have a question about it doesn't mean it is not literal. Even if you don't have an answer that satisfies, that doesn't mean it is not literal.

Concerning the talking serpent, why would any believer doubt that? Of course it was true, and literal.

Concerning Babel, God uses this type of language to meet man's understanding. And it describes a literal action and event by God. It got His attention, and He came and dealt with it. All literal.

Of course we obtain spiritual truth from these literal events. That doesn't make them any less literal.

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

I don't know of any river at this time that has one source but became four. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. Understand the geography of the earth was different then. The flood changed everything. And concerning the river in Revelation, the same is true. The geography has changed tremendously. I have no doubt it is to be taken literally.

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.

Concerning your question about the Tree of Life, just because you have a question about it doesn't mean it is not literal. Even if you don't have an answer that satisfies, that doesn't mean it is not literal.

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.

Concerning the talking serpent, why would any believer doubt that? Of course it was true, and 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.

Concerning Babel, God uses this type of language to meet man's understanding. And it describes a literal action and event by God. It got His attention, and He came and dealt with it. All literal.

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.

Of course we obtain spiritual truth from these literal events. That doesn't make them any less literal.

Stranger

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.

 

[Giuliano]

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 )

A new question came to my mind after this thread. What does it mean that Adam was told he would return to dust and the serpent that he would eat the dust? I don't have an adequate explanation; but it looks like Satan can "steal" and "eat" something when people die. What is this "spiritual dust" that Adam was made from? Yes, I know our physical bodies return to physical dust; but the serpent wouldn't be interested in that.

I begin to think we all have this spiritual dust within us -- it starts off dark but can be made Light. It starts off dead but can be made alive. Adam found that alive dust can also become dead dust. I think Adam and Eve were clothed in Light myself, sparkling points of lively dust -- and when the Light went out, their nakedness bothered them. This spiritual dust seems connected it with the resurrection.

 

[amadeus]

A new question came to my mind after this thread. What does it mean that Adam was told he would return to dust and the serpent that he would eat the dust? I don't have an adequate explanation; but it looks like Satan can "steal" and "eat" something when people die. What is this "spiritual dust" that Adam was made from? Yes, I know our physical bodies return to physical dust; but the serpent wouldn't be interested in that.

I begin to think we all have this spiritual dust within us -- it starts off dark but can be made Light. It starts off dead but can be made alive. Adam found that alive dust can also become dead dust. I think Adam and Eve were clothed in Light myself, sparkling points of lively dust -- and when the Light went out, their nakedness bothered them. This spiritual dust seems connected it with the resurrection.

I am not certain this is an answer to your question, but it is a consideration:

Who might the serpent might be? Who is it that was given dominion?

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen 1:28

"And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." Luke 4:6

Jesus told us we need to eat his flesh [John 6:53], but what is it that we [everyone born of woman] have been eating instead? That wrong tree from the start. Perhaps I have not connected all of the dots, but I would not be surprised to find that the "knowledge of good and evil" is equal to the ways of man, the ways of the flesh and that the flesh is equal to the dust...

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:17

And then prior to Noah's time, we were to be vegetarians, but it could be understood that we are not to eat of the ways that man call life, which he speaks regularly by his mouth and his actions:

"And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food." Gen 1:29 [MKJV]

With Noah there was a change made, but what did it mean besides the apparent physical dietary change from vegetarian to meat eater?

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Gen 9:3-4

Are not men even today continuously eating/consuming the words and ways of other men and even of themselves?

"Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:" Isaiah 9:19-20

 

[Giuliano]

With Noah there was a change made, but what did it mean besides the apparent physical dietary change from vegetarian to meat eater?

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Gen 9:3-4

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.

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:

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.

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.

I would not be surprised to find that the "knowledge of good and evil" is equal to the ways of man, the ways of the flesh and that the flesh is equal to the dust...

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.

 

[shnarkle]

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.
The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not a physical serpent like the kind we humans see with our physical eyes.

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.

 

[shnarkle]

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.

Some have noted it as a Hendiadys of evil enjoyment. I would tend to agree, but also see it as a fall into the error of interacting in, or with the world through the intellect instead of a direct connection. They no longer mediate reality directly, but have fallen into the error of trusting their faculties to mediate reality. For fallen humanity, reality is now presented through the senses rather than to the senses.

Those who are redeemed from this error no longer await a kingdom that comes through observation, but enter into God's kingdom by the power of his spirit who reveals all things.

 

[Helen]

A new question came to my mind after this thread. What does it mean that Adam was told he would return to dust and the serpent that he would eat the dust? I don't have an adequate explanation; but it looks like Satan can "steal" and "eat" something when people die. What is this "spiritual dust" that Adam was made from? Yes, I know our physical bodies return to physical dust; but the serpent wouldn't be interested in that.

I begin to think we all have this spiritual dust within us -- it starts off dark but can be made Light. It starts off dead but can be made alive. Adam found that alive dust can also become dead dust. I think Adam and Eve were clothed in Light myself, sparkling points of lively dust -- and when the Light went out, their nakedness bothered them. This spiritual dust seems connected it with the resurrection.

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.
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....

 

[shnarkle]

A new question came to my mind after this thread. What does it mean that Adam was told he would return to dust and the serpent that he would eat the dust?

Adam was created to reflect God. He is created in God's image which is eternal, but he begins to see that he is a separate individual which is a contradiction in terms. His thoughts have become fragmented, and are beginning to fragment his reality. Instead of identifying with God's image, he begins to identify with the body which was never eternal or immortal. Adam was the first to engage in identity politics, and God simply respects his wish, and points out that his new identity is mortal.

The Satan seeks praise, and authority. Eating dust is the antithesis of that.