What is the correct view on genesis

[Stranger]

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.

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.

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

You're not paying attention. I never said the serpent was not wise.

You need to use quotation marks when you quote me, else you are trying to make my words appear as yours. I know you need help, but let's be honest.

No, I never said the serpent and satan are the same thing. I said the serpent was literal, and so was satan. Both were there.

So, you don't like me using (Revelation). I wonder why, since you first used (Revelation) in post #(104) to make your incorrect comparison of the river that made four. What (Revelation) says is true. It's prophecies are future. And I am not making the prophecies a past event. But the information given in (Revelation) can be compared with the rest of Scripture to enlarge upon a truth. And that is what I did.

You create these 'fantastic' spiritual interpretations all the while abandoning any 'literal' interpretation. But when you get to (Ezekiel 28) you declare that it is nothing but 'literal' and cannot refer to satan. Go figure.

Why, I don't just carry one stone?

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

You're not paying attention. I never said the serpent was not wise.

You need to use quotation marks when you quote me, else you are trying to make my words appear as yours. I know you need help, but let's be honest.

I think I know what I wrote. Here it is:

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."

I said you didn't seem to believe Genesis. Then I put in quotations what you seemed to believe.

No, I never said the serpent and satan are the same thing. I said the serpent was literal, and so was satan. Both were there.

You quoted Revelation, and I assumed you believed. Here is what you wrote:

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."

Why quote it if you don't believe it?

So, you don't like me using (Revelation). I wonder why, since you first used (Revelation) in post #(104) to make your incorrect comparison of the river that made four. What (Revelation) says is true. It's prophecies are future. And I am not making the prophecies a past event. But the information given in (Revelation) can be compared with the rest of Scripture to enlarge upon a truth. And that is what I did.

Why don't you believe the passages in Revelation you quoted then?

You create these 'fantastic' spiritual interpretations all the while abandoning any 'literal' interpretation. But when you get to (Ezekiel 28) you declare that it is nothing but 'literal' and cannot refer to satan. Go figure.

Why, I don't just carry one stone?

Stranger

how could Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan when it's clearly addressed to a man? Satan isn't mentioned, and we're told who's being addressed. It even says after that:

Ezekiel 28:7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

Read it all. The man was pretending to be a god or God, having people worship him. Do you think men could kill Satan with swords? Of course not, but a man who pretended to be the covering cherub in Eden could be killed with swords. Ezekiel is mocking him when he says those things -- oh, so this is what you say you were? Then he says, "No, you aren't. You're a man and will die a man."

For someone who says he takes the Bible literally, I think you're being reckless when you read one thing and substitute words that aren't there.

 

[Giuliano]

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

I gave you an answer in post 157. I don't feel like going in circles. If you don't understand my answer, so be it.

 

[Giuliano]

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.

Proverbs 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

 

[Giuliano]

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

Absolutely.

What thrones in Genesis are you referring to?

Oops, sorry if I made your head spin. I typed that wrong. It should read thorns. It should read:

Your mentioning the crown reminds me of thorns. I believe Jesus took the crown of thorns and changed it into a crown of life. If we think the thorns <not thrones> in Genesis means physical ones only, we may miss the spiritual meaning behind the physical thorns put on Jesus' head.

That reminds of another case where thorns are mentioned. When the LORD appears to Moses, most translations say it was in a bush. A more accurate translation would be thorn-bush. (See note at Blue Bible.)

Why a thorn bush? Some say it shows that God can manifest in the lowliest of things. The curse that produced thorns and thistles can be made into a blessing if there is a righteous man around to exercise the dominion given to man the way God intended. If a righteous man is present, God can work through him to make what others meant for evil into good.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

 

[Stranger]

I think I know what I wrote. Here it is:

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."

I said you didn't seem to believe Genesis. Then I put in quotations what you seemed to believe.


You quoted Revelation, and I assumed you believed. Here is what you wrote:

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."

Why quote it if you don't believe it?
Why don't you believe the passages in Revelation you quoted then?

how could Ezekiel 28 refer to Satan when it's clearly addressed to a man? Satan isn't mentioned, and we're told who's being addressed. It even says after that:

Ezekiel 28:7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

Read it all. The man was pretending to be a god or God, having people worship him. Do you think men could kill Satan with swords? Of course not, but a man who pretended to be the covering cherub in Eden could be killed with swords. Ezekiel is mocking him when he says those things -- oh, so this is what you say you were? Then he says, "No, you aren't. You're a man and will die a man."

For someone who says he takes the Bible literally, I think you're being reckless when you read one thing and substitute words that aren't there.

As I said, I never said the serpent was not wise.

You failed to put my words in quotes in post #(158). Your third statement down, after your use of (Matt. 10:16). You should correct it. It is the same statement you give now in italics.

satan is identifed as the serpent as I proved from (Revelation). This name comes from satan's use of the serpent in (Genesis). Yes, satan is called the serpent. And yes the serpent was a real creature used by satan in (Genesis).

Concerning the prophecy in (Ezekiel 28) it is similar to the serpent in (Genesis). The prince of Tyre is a real person. But it is interesting that it then becomes directed to the 'King of Tyre'. But, the language and description of him goes beyond any human being. This is common in Biblical prophecy. The jump from being addressed to a man and then to satan begins in (Ezekiel 28:11-19).

I do take (Ezekiel 28) literally. It is addressed first to a man who has similar characteristics of satan. But then goes beyond that and addresses the one behind this man, satan. We are then given information of the very fall of satan.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

I gave you an answer in post 157. I don't feel like going in circles. If you don't understand my answer, so be it.

You don't need to go in circles to answer a simple yes or no question. You went in circles for your own benefit. Was Adam and Eve real, literal, persons. Was Jesus Christ a real literal Person?

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

You don't need to go in circles to answer a simple yes or no question. You went in circles for your own benefit. Was Adam and Eve real, literal, persons. Was Jesus Christ a real literal Person?

Stranger

You will get no other answer from me. You can repeat it as often as you please. If you don't like my answers, you can stop asking me questions.

 

[Stranger]

You will get no other answer from me. You can repeat it as often as you please. If you don't like my answers, you can stop asking me questions.

Thats fine. I just wanted you to see how ridiculous your position is in not believing the Bible is to be interpreted literally. You know the answer to the questions is not the answer you want to give. The answer you want to give would wreak of absurdity.

Stranger

 

[Giuliano]

Thats fine. I just wanted you to see how ridiculous your position is in not believing the Bible is to be interpreted literally. You know the answer to the questions is not the answer you want to give. The answer you want to give would wreak of absurdity.

Stranger

I like it when people say things like that about me.

 

[shnarkle]

I shall now try to show those who with open minds that the Lamb of God is mentioned in Genesis.
Surely the Lamb was present from the foundation of the world. I love how Genesis and Revelation say the same things.

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.

I would only point out that the "nachash" is the same literal "shining Seraph"/figurative serpent. However, I am not able to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements.

 

[amadeus]

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

Yes, into the self destruct mode sometimes without really knowing it. That also becomes a delusion to some presuming because of a good event [or events] in their own history that ultimately nothing can go wrong for them. 'I am saved and nothing can change that'... nothing but their own pathway, the way they walk when NOT being led by the Holy Spirit.

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

You may have reason to believe this is so and sometimes covenants may actually be like contracts between men, but is this really always the case in scripture? The covenant God made with Noah in Genesis 9:9-17 seems to be very one sided... more of an unconditional promise made by God than a contract between Him and Noah.

Again in Gen 15:7ff the covenant seems very one sided with everything promised and done by God rather than as a contract made between God and Abraham.

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.

I really had not considered the vegetarian part for the animals, but such a distinction does help in seeing the difference. These animals would or should be cleaner because they don't have the blood of other animals as a part of their history. The killing by the carnivore may be a necessary thing, but ideally there should be no animals killed at all. Some people who refuse to kill any animal might understand that better than others.

Sins of ignorance were put into the scapegoat? OK until the sins become known.

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.

Someone wanted them to be like many men, dwelling in the lowest of places. Misery loves company?

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.

Six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. Who is the beast? [Rev 13:18]

What man is not a beast or has no beast nature? Yet as we know God did save not only Noah and family, but also even the unclean beasts. They can get worse, but improving is a possibility but only if they still have time. So they were given a place on the ark. Do I understand all of the details? No, but the picture is improving.

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

I guess all of us continue to be tried and tested before being put into the next situation God has for us. If we fail a test, we won't be used, but God will simply use the alternate? Is that how it works?
I agree that God's side has always and is always winning. The key for us is to always be on His side. He has made it a possibility... but the necessary choices are ours, even if we have to ask Him to help us make them.

 

[aspen]

Unfortunately Giuliano, we cannot escape our opinion. Every time we read a passage from the Bible or any other source, we add our experience, education, and emotion to the text - even when we are reading it to ourselves. It is a good practice to pay careful attention to the text and absorb the literal meaning, but do not fool yourself into thinking you are doing so without adding your opinion. Don’t be like modernist scientists, who believed their theories, experiments and data were free from bias.

 

[shnarkle]

Unfortunately Giuliano, we cannot escape our opinion. Every time we read a passage from the Bible or any other source, we add our experience, education, and emotion to the text - even when we are reading it to ourselves. It is a good practice to pay careful attention to the text and absorb the literal meaning, but do not fool yourself into thinking you are doing so without adding your opinion. Don’t be like modernist scientists, who believed their theories, experiments and data were free from bias.

I think it's much more than our opinion. It's how the text affects us. This is what I find most intriguing about the bible. I noticed as a child that I tended to see myself as one of the children that Christ would eagerly greet even when he was tired. Later I began to see similarities between me and the prodigal son, then I began to see how I had become a modern day Pharisee.

I can remember being not just agitated by some of Paul's comments, but downright indignant. Now I'm blown away at Paul's insights as well as how indestructible his arguments are.

I see an evolution of emotions ranging from tedious boredom to anger, resentment, resignation, passing interest, intrigue, entertainment value, to dumbfounded amazement and incomprehensible sorrow to sublime joy.

There are passages that can hit me so deeply I am overwhelmed with emotion. I was introduced to all the stories in Genesis at an early age, and never really found them all that interesting until I was an adult, but then one day as I was reading where Joseph reveals his true identity to his family, I was suddenly overcome with emotion and tears began to just pour down my face. On the surface, to most people it just seems like a plain reporting of elementary events, but life tends to invest us with experiences that take these stories to a much deeper level. They cut right to the bone. They tear muscle and leave scars inside the heart.

 

[aspen]

I think it's much more than our opinion. It's how the text affects us. This is what I find most intriguing about the bible. I noticed as a child that I tended to see myself as one of the children that Christ would eagerly greet even when he was tired. Later I began to see similarities between me and the prodigal son, then I began to see how I had become a modern day Pharisee.

I can remember being not just agitated by some of Paul's comments, but downright indignant. Now I'm blown away at Paul's insights as well as how indestructible his arguments are.

I see an evolution of emotions ranging from tedious boredom to anger, resentment, resignation, passing interest, intrigue, entertainment value, to dumbfounded amazement and incomprehensible sorrow to sublime joy.

There are passages that can hit me so deeply I am overwhelmed with emotion. I was introduced to all the stories in Genesis at an early age, and never really found them all that interesting until I was an adult, but then one day as I was reading where Joseph reveals his true identity to his family, I was suddenly overcome with emotion and tears began to just pour down my face. On the surface, to most people it just seems like a plain reporting of elementary events, but life tends to invest us with experiences that take these stories to a much deeper level. They cut right to the bone. They tear muscle and leave scars inside the heart.

Great post!

I felt the same way about Paul. I remember the day I discovered that Paul used a lot of hyperbole and analogies, which changed everything for me. I was sitting in a redwood grove (no I didn’t receive tablets made of gold) and was reading 1 Corinthians 1:31 - “if you boast, boast in the Lord”. I could t understand why Paul was telling us to be boastful in a consequentialism sense. Then, I realized that he was not telling people to boast - he was telling people to focus on God.

I can totally relate to feeling swept away by the stories in the Bible - I feel like I am there.....the stories have become a sort of biography of my life. However, it still falls under the definition of opinion. Honestly, I think the words ‘opinion’ and ‘imagination’ have unwarranted, bad connotations.

I am reading ‘A Monk’s Alphabet’ by Jeremy Driscoll O.S.B, who is now the Abbott of my monastery in Mt Angel, Oregon. It is a book of insights from a simple monk who has surrendered to God. There is a lot of helpful opinion and fantastic waves of imagination. I just started reading it today and I am enjoying it.

 

[shnarkle]

I can totally relate to feeling swept away by the stories in the Bible - I feel like I am there.....the stories have become a sort of biography of my life.

Yes, they become a part of who we are. Observant Jews teach their children Torah, and tell them these stories as if they actually experienced these events themselves. On some level, that's exactly what is happening.

At some point though it becomes less about my biography and more about Christ's.

 

[Nancy]

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.

"Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? "
This is something I liken to when Jesus cast out the demons possessing the man and sent them into the swine...who then, were driven into the water to drown...was that the swines fault? And, also, the "serpent" must have once had legs as God cursed it to crawl on it's belly for ever and to eat the dust. Not saying that I understand all of this by no means yet, all I can say is that God certainly places humans into a much more important status than animals. It is confusing as, when we read of Baals donkey speaking as to why he whipped and hurt him, God sure seemed to be on the animals side? Things that make me go "hmm".

 

[shnarkle]

"Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? "
This is something I liken to when Jesus cast out the demons possessing the man and sent them into the swine...who then, were driven into the water to drown...was that the swines fault?

To an observant Jew, swine were filth. They vacuumed up garbage, rotting flesh, etc. It's the perfect place to store demons as well. Christian doctrines are the source of most confusion. If Jesus made swine clean, then he could just as likely be a swineherd as a shepherd, and the story makes no sense if Jesus (the good shepherd) cast demons into sheep.

 

[amadeus]

"Why would He do that if it wasn't the serpent's fault? "
This is something I liken to when Jesus cast out the demons possessing the man and sent them into the swine...who then, were driven into the water to drown...was that the swines fault? And, also, the "serpent" must have once had legs as God cursed it to crawl on it's belly for ever and to eat the dust. Not saying that I understand all of this by no means yet, all I can say is that God certainly places humans into a much more important status than animals. It is confusing as, when we read of Baals donkey speaking as to why he whipped and hurt him, God sure seemed to be on the animals side? Things that make me go "hmm".

There is a great deal of difference between a donkey and a pig/swine. As you see in Balaam's donkey, God does care about them, but swine, if they remain swine are mentioned elsewhere by Jesus:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6

As swine they remain hopeless but could they not humble themselves and be lifted up? Notice also the negative mention of dogs in the same verse, which Jesus emphasizes here:

"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Matt 15:26-27

Alas, she was called a dog because she was a gentile, a heathen, and such were we, you and I, @amadeus and @Nancy until we finally heard and responded to His call. We did not climb up from that low pit where we began. He lifted us up... because we really did the same thing as that Canaanite woman Jesus called a dog.

Probably there are many swine and dogs [the beasts which people are (Ecc 3:18)] who have heard His call to them but they remain where they are of their own choosing. As swine or dogs they may be used by the left hand of God, but while they have time do they not also still have hope of moving or being moved over to the right hand?

"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:11

 

[Nancy]

There is a great deal of difference between a donkey and a pig/swine. As you see in Balaam's donkey, God does care about them, but swine, if they remain swine are mentioned elsewhere by Jesus:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6

As swine they remain hopeless but could they not humble themselves and be lifted up? Notice also the negative mention of dogs in the same verse, which Jesus emphasizes here:

"But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Matt 15:26-27

Alas, she was called a dog because she was a gentile, a heathen, and such were we, you and I, @amadeus and @Nancy until we finally heard and responded to His call. We did not climb up from that low pit where we began. He lifted us up... because we really did the same thing as that Canaanite woman Jesus called a dog.

Probably there are many swine and dogs [the beasts which people are (Ecc 3:18)] who have heard His call to them but they remain where they are of their own choosing. As swine or dogs they may be used by the left hand of God, but while they have time do they not also still have hope of moving or being moved over to the right hand?

"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:11

I see what you are saying here John, and truth it is! YET-being an animal lover, the verse about the woman and Jesus calling her a dog just kind of always made me sad. I can't see Him using a slur towards her. Maybe it was not per se a "slur" yet, what else could it have been?
I suppose it's that I see all animals as being innocent since they live on instinct alone and, do not have the capacity to be 'evil'. Silly, yes I know but, there ya have it!