What is the correct view on genesis

[GodsGrace]

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.

It's not a shift I noticed...it's what I learned from those that know more than I do.
And I agree with what you've said....but some feel very threatened by this idea.

 

[shnarkle]

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.

There are also those who revel in their faults and foibles. They become obsessed with confessing their sins; a form of false piety.

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.

What thrones in Genesis are you referring to?

 

[aspen]

I think Abram brought a lot of inspired stories out of Ur. I do not think Noah, Job, or Jonah we’re living people - I think they were important characters within inspired stories

 

[amadeus]

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.

Just so! Mostly people read as a rebuke to get people to change their ways, but considering it as a reminder to keep improving may be a better take on it.

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.

Again this is where it should be. The work within us must continue, but we wanting the best of both worlds will effectively quench the Holy Spirit which means stopping all of the work to clean the garbage out of us and replace it with the good things of God. Quenching the Spirit at the very least is applying a flame retardant instead of allowing the evil things within us to be burnt up.

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?"

Again I don't know about animals needing to be willing. Rather maybe we simply need to be following the example of an animal in his similarities to a little child. But... I still cannot get my head around the animals having a willingness to be of help to the extent of making themselves available for sacrifices.

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.

It may indeed be as I put it with your added perspective. Yes, Jesus diminished so they we could be moved up as we worked from the bottom.

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.

A need for a replacement is another thought. While Elijah had to do that, it was not his idea. And God picked Elisha as He also chose Joshua for Moses.

God is the one kept the scarlet/crimson thread intact continuously by, as you say, always having not less than one man of God on the highway of holiness.

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;

Amen!

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.

What was true of the Jewish leader then is also true of many Christian leaders today. There really is nothing new under the sun as far as carnal man is concerned. Yes, what a pity!

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.

On me... or on Us! We look around and see, if we have eyes for it, what Jesus saw when he cried for Jerusalem:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt 23:37

 

[shnarkle]

I think Abram brought a lot of inspired stories out of Ur. I do not think Noah, Job, or Jonah we’re living people - I think they were important characters within inspired stories

When the Jews returned after the Babylonian captivity they may have even brought their stories of Abraham from there as well. "Abraham's bosom" is an idea they brought with them from Babylon.

 

[Giuliano]

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

If you want to think serpents eat dirt, you can do that.

You can also not take Genesis "literally" when it says serpent and say it wasn't the serpent but Satan possessed the serpent. I'd call that "adding" to the Word, but you can do that if you think it's required.

 

[aspen]

When the Jews returned after the Babylonian captivity they may have even brought their stories of Abraham from there as well. "Abraham's bosom" is an idea they brought with them from Babylon.

I believe the stories are inspired; whether they are literal or not doesn’t really interest me

 

[Stranger]

If you want to think serpents eat dirt, you can do that.

You can also not take Genesis "literally" when it says serpent and say it wasn't the serpent but Satan possessed the serpent. I'd call that "adding" to the Word, but you can do that if you think it's required.

I didn't say it wasn't the serpent. The serpent was literal. satan was literal. That is not adding to the Word of God. That is believing what the Word of God says.

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

I didn't say it wasn't the serpent. The serpent was literal. satan was literal. That is not adding to the Word of God. That is believing what the Word of God says.

Stranger

Sure it's adding. Genesis mentions only the serpent. It says the serpent was "wise." You don't seem to believe it. You say, "How could a serpent be wise? That can't be true. It must have been Satan possessing it." God also punished the serpent. Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? If Satan deceived the serpent, why didn't God punish Satan? Genesis mentions only the serpent, not the serpent and Satan. You're making things more complicated than they should be. It's hard enough to understand as written, why make it harder by introducing something that isn't there?

The serpent was meant to be there so Adam could exercise dominion over it. Instead it exercised dominion over Eve. Jesus did exercise that dominion. That is why the "first Adam" was a living soul and the second Adam was a "quickening spirit." The first Adam could have done it but failed. He did not exercise his authority God gave him. Everything in the Garden was "very good" when considered as a whole, including the serpent.

 

[Giuliano]

Just so! Mostly people read as a rebuke to get people to change their ways, but considering it as a reminder to keep improving may be a better take on it.

Again this is where it should be. The work within us must continue, but we wanting the best of both worlds will effectively quench the Holy Spirit which means stopping all of the work to clean the garbage out of us and replace it with the good things of God. Quenching the Spirit at the very least is applying a flame retardant instead of allowing the evil things within us to be burnt up.

We see then that quenching the Spirit harms us, not God.

Again I don't know about animals needing to be willing. Rather maybe we simply need to be following the example of an animal in his similarities to a little child. But... I still cannot get my head around the animals having a willingness to be of help to the extent of making themselves available for sacrifices.

It is a hard concept to get a handle on; but covenants are valid only when all parties agree to them.

If you look at the lists of clean and unclean animals, I think you'll find that the clean animals are all vegetarians -- the way man was before the Flood. To a large degree, the unclean animals carried the burden of sin too -- the ones that weren't repented of. We see that in the two goats. Sins of ignorance got put onto the goat that went out into the wilderness. The goat that got sacrificed was good only for sins people repented of.

Notice too a curious thing about Goliath who wanted to corrupt the clean animals by feeding them human flesh.

1 Samuel 17:44 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.

Is there a connection with the "mark of the beast"? There are several sixes about Goliath; and David took aim at his forehead. I see Goliath as being like the people of Noah who wanted to invoke evil so that "all flesh" was corrupted. I think that includes the animals since they were preserved.

A need for a replacement is another thought. While Elijah had to do that, it was not his idea. And God picked Elisha as He also chose Joshua for Moses.

Or was he testing Elisha? Was he secretly pleased when Elisha was determined to persevere?

What was true of the Jewish leader then is also true of many Christian leaders today. There really is nothing new under the sun as far as carnal man is concerned. Yes, what a pity!

On me... or on Us! We look around and see, if we have eyes for it, what Jesus saw when he cried for Jerusalem:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt 23:37

The tragedy continues, but I think God's side has been winning from the beginning. It's tempting to see evil as triumphing, but that's an illusion. It boils up, gets revealed and collected and disposed of. Yet the tragedy does continue.

 

[Giuliano]

I believe the stories are inspired; whether they are literal or not doesn’t really interest me

You are following sound advice:

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

How could it benefit me to know if it's historical fact that Joseph had a coat of many colors?

 

[Giuliano]

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.

What? He couldn't see what was going on earth since He was in Heaven and had to come down to see?

 

[aspen]

I agree that all hermeneutics is adding to scripture with the intention of aiding understanding. I do not think the admonishment about adding to scripture ever applied to any book beyond Revelation. Indeed, we need to place ourselves into the shoes of every person mentioned in the Bible - hopefully, someday it will become our own autobiography, so to speak.

 

[Stranger]

Sure it's adding. Genesis mentions only the serpent. It says the serpent was "wise." You don't seem to believe it. You say, "How could a serpent be wise? That can't be true. It must have been Satan possessing it." God also punished the serpent. Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? If Satan deceived the serpent, why didn't God punish Satan? Genesis mentions only the serpent, not the serpent and Satan. You're making things more complicated than they should be. It's hard enough to understand as written, why make it harder by introducing something that isn't there?

The serpent was meant to be there so Adam could exercise dominion over it. Instead it exercised dominion over Eve. Jesus did exercise that dominion. That is why the "first Adam" was a living soul and the second Adam was a "quickening spirit." The first Adam could have done it but failed. He did not exercise his authority God gave him. Everything in the Garden was "very good" when considered as a whole, including the serpent.

Where did I say 'How could a serpent be wise'? I never said that. I said the serpent was literal. satan used the serpent. satan also is literal. God cursed the serpent. Why? Because He wanted to. satan was already cursed and his doom is set. God cursed the earth also. So?

If all we had was the book of Genesis, then we well might not know the activity of satan behind the serpent. But we have more. (Rev. 12:9) "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan....." Also, (Rev. 20:2), "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

Plus, (Ez. 28:13) "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God". this is speaking of satan.

Just like further Scripture showed you that the earth is not the same prior to the flood, and will not be same once Christ returns, so further Scripture shows your mistake here.

I have no problem with the literalness of Adam and Eve and what occurred in (Genesis). Or with the literalness of Jesus Christ and what He did. I have a problem with your so called 'spiritual' method of interpreting.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

What? He couldn't see what was going on earth since He was in Heaven and had to come down to see?

The fact that He did see what was going on on earth, is what motivated Him to come down. That God has a place where He dwells, doesn't make Him any less God. That God can move from one place to another, doesn't make Him any less God.

Were Adam and Eve literal people? How about Jesus Christ?

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

What? He couldn't see what was going on earth since in Heaven and had to come down to see?

I agree that all hermeneutics is adding to scripture with the intention of aiding understanding. I do not think the admonishment about adding to scripture ever applied to any book beyond Revelation. Indeed, we need to place ourselves into the shoes of every person mentioned in the Bible - hopefully, someday it will become our own autobiography, so to speak.

Quite right that refers to that book only.

While you are right about that, you've added to what I wrote, assuming I meant Revelation when I did not.

But now look at passages from the beginning and end of Revelation.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Three steps are needed to be blessed: Reading, hearing, and keeping the things. Reading the written words is the first step. Is the second step hearing those humans words spoken aloud, or is it hearing what the Spirit says? It's the second.

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Revelation 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

We could read the book a thousand times without benefit if we don't hear what the Spirit says. Others can offer suggestions, some may be right and some wrong; but it is not possible for anyone to do another's hearing for him. If I say something right as a hint, I expect the Holy Spirit would whisper, "Yes, that's right." If I'm wrong, the Spirit may say, "That's not right" or nothing at all.

Then when the truth is revealed, the person with the spiritual ear is expected to do things. When John writes "things," that's what he means. Now with that in mind, read the part at the end:

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The person who "hears" what the Spirit says is going to be held accountable.

Do not add "things" to the list of things to do. Do not take away words so you can ignore them after hearing and understanding them.

I try not to add words to what other people say. I want to understand them. If someone says, "I saw Bill at Walmart's this morning," I don't add "and my wife" to the statement so it says, "I saw Bill and his wife at Walmart's this morning." Neither do I take away words to have him saying, "I saw Bill this morning." If I care about the person, I want to understand him so I have to pay attention. If I pay attention to what people say, why wouldn't I pay more attention to the actual words in the written Bible, thinking they mean something without my adding or subtracting?

The idea of neither adding nor taking away is found elsewhere.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

First the literal word, then understanding, and finally obeying for again:

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

In Jeremiah's day, people had the written words of Moses, word for word; but there were too many false commentaries, adding and subtracting things so that when people read the written word, they couldn't Hear the Spirit. Their minds were too cluttered by the lies they read from the pens of men. They did not have the Living Word.

Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?

David said the Law (Torah) was perfect. There is no need then to add or subtract words.

All that being said, we might wonder why the Book of Revelation in the oldest manuscripts we have are so varied. Some books in the New Testament have only a few variations. Revelation has so many, it may have more than the rest of the New Testament put together. Some things somehow got added and taken away. Still the manuscripts agree with each other enough, we can derive a fairly good idea what what the original was; and if we depend on the Spirit, if we wait to "hear" with our spiritual ears, the words we do have are enough.

 

[Giuliano]

The fact that He did see what was going on on earth, is what motivated Him to come down. That God has a place where He dwells, doesn't make Him any less God. That God can move from one place to another, doesn't make Him any less God.

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Do you really think God is limited to being in one place? That He has to "move" to get from one place to another?

Were Adam and Eve literal people? How about Jesus Christ?

Stranger

Do you think "Christ" is one person only? Or does the Body of Christ have many members? Genesis has two words translated as Adam. One is adam, the other h'adam. They are not the same thing, the way Jesus and Christ have a shade of difference.

What some see only as a single person in Jesus, I see him as a person but also containing many others. H'adam is divided at the side to become Adam and Eve. The same is true of Jesus Christ: at his crucifixion he retained the male or head while the blood and water came from his side to form the female Church. Jesus as Christ was both male and female just like h'adam. The translation into English doesn't do the Hebrew justice.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[Giuliano]

Where did I say 'How could a serpent be wise'? I never said that. I said the serpent was literal. satan used the serpent. satan also is literal. God cursed the serpent. Why? Because He wanted to. satan was already cursed and his doom is set. God cursed the earth also. So?

Genesis says that. Whether you believe it is your choice.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Jesus also said serpents were wise:

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

If all we had was the book of Genesis, then we well might not know the activity of satan behind the serpent. But we have more. (Rev. 12:9) "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan....." Also, (Rev. 20:2), "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

Now you're saying the serpent and Satan are the same thing? I remind you too that Revelation does not refer to past events from Genesis since John said everything in it was in the future. Go figure.

Plus, (Ez. 28:13) "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God". this is speaking of satan.

I didn't know that. My copy of the Bible has Ezekiel saying that to the Prince of Tyre. No mention of Satan there. Again, go figure.

Just like further Scripture showed you that the earth is not the same prior to the flood, and will not be same once Christ returns, so further Scripture shows your mistake here.

I have no problem with the literalness of Adam and Eve and what occurred in (Genesis). Or with the literalness of Jesus Christ and what He did. I have a problem with your so called 'spiritual' method of interpreting.

Stranger

From your comments to me, I'd say you should be careful about throwing the first stone.

 

[Giuliano]

I shall now try to show those who with open minds that the Lamb of God is mentioned in Genesis.

I have already asked how there could be light on Day One if the greater and lesser nights and the stars do not appear until Day Four. If a literalist had an answer, I missed it.

One key may be:

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
. . . .
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Was Jesus the Light before there were lights set in the firmament of heavens? Genesis and John's Gospel may not be quite enough. Revelation settles the matter for me.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Light again with the sun or moon! Surely the Lamb was present from the foundation of the world. I love how Genesis and Revelation say the same things.

 

[Stranger]

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Do you really think God is limited to being in one place? That He has to "move" to get from one place to another?

Do you think "Christ" is one person only? Or does the Body of Christ have many members? Genesis has two words translated as Adam. One is adam, the other h'adam. They are not the same thing, the way Jesus and Christ have a shade of difference.

What some see only as a single person in Jesus, I see him as a person but also containing many others. H'adam is divided at the side to become Adam and Eve. The same is true of Jesus Christ: at his crucifixion he retained the male or head while the blood and water came from his side to form the female Church. Jesus as Christ was both male and female just like h'adam. The translation into English doesn't do the Hebrew justice.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I didn't say God is limited to one place. But He as God has a place. And He as God can move if He so desires.

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe Adam and Eve were literal people? Do you believe Jesus Christ was a literal Person?

Stranger