DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Biblical Pre-Conception Existence Theology (PCE)
*****************************************************
#Post#: 5768--------------------------------------------------
An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest58 Date: May 20, 2019, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An Introduction to Genesis 2:18 and 2:25:
I believe that in the early chapters of Genesis, it was GOD's
intention to bear witness to the purpose of life, that is, our
need to become holy and to give up any idolatry in our personal
relationships (that is, that we were originally exiled from
Paradise because of our unholiness and idolatry), while at the
same time covering over the fact of our pre-conception
existence, that is, while at the same time, not destroying the
delusion regarding the time of our true beginning.
Thus Genesis bears witness to the fall of the elect “from
Paradise” via her beguilement caused by her lack of holiness
(listening to Their enemies) which lead to her disobedience, and
via his idolatry (unwillingness to separate from her) which lead
to his delusionment and disobedience, while at the same time not
openly disclosing our pre-conception existence and fall, that
is, that Eden was not the first beginning. Now if pre-conception
existence is the truth, we should not be able to find anything
in Genesis (or anywhere else) that really contradicts it, and we
should be able to find some witness to it if we look.[1]
Now, there are a few verses in Genesis that have always been
interpreted as bearing witness to the complete purity or
perfection of the earthly creation at its beginning. Therefore,
to adequately apologize for this doctrine, because it is fairly
obvious that complete purity at the beginning of the earthly
creation is quite contradictory to the pre-conception existence
conception of Edenic life being a reform school experience for
the purpose of correcting the spiritually criminal elect, we
will have to look at these verses that have been traditionally
interpreted as bearing witness to an earthly creation that was
entirely pure to see first, whether that interpretation really
can stand the criticism of pre-conception theology (it has never
been questioned before), and second, whether the pre-conception
interpretation of those same verses is any better.
I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that, in
the garden, GOD gave us two situations that bear witness to our
need to be holy in our relationship with HIM. In the first
situation, HE utilized the ritual of marriage. In the second, HE
utilized the ritual of sacrifice.[2] In both of these
situations, some earthly “original” needed changed. In the
first, Adam was “originally” alone, which state was corrected by
his marriage. In the second, Adam was naked, that is, not
dressed correctly, which state was corrected by the sacrificial
skin coat (Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the
LORD GOD make coats of skins, and clothed them.).
Now, the “created on Earth” theologians all believe these
“original” attributes (alone and naked) to be morally pure or
unsinful at the time of the earthly beginning, that is,
connoting innocence or righteousness, etc This interpretation
is necessitated first, by the fact that the attributes of GOD
demand that HE create in accord with HIS holiness, that is, that
HE create no imperfection or evil and second, by their
presupposition that this was the original creation. Thus any
exegesis of theirs of the “alone – naked” states in Genesis has
to be strained through their pre-suppositional time sieve so
that their interpretation matches or lines up with the revealed
attributes of GOD.
Therefore, I would say that they do not so much give us an
exegesis of Genesis as they give us an sisegexe (backwards
exegesis[3]) of it, that is, they do not tell us what it says so
much as they tell us what it must say if their theology is to
remain tenable.
Now with pre-conception theology, such “good” interpretations
are not forced upon the Edenic situation because the “original
purity” necessity does not have to fit into the earthly time
span. Therefore, any pre-conception exegete can look at the
“alone - naked” states in Genesis, with a little more freedom of
interpretation than can a created on Earth exegete. For example,
the “alone - naked” states in Genesis can be examined to see
whether they were really good (as is usually thought to be the
case) or whether they were not good, that is, against GOD's will
(as they are in the rest of the Bible) which has always been an
untenable option till now. Well, as I have said before, it is
surprising what one can miss when one is not looking for (or
actually seeking to strain out) something, as it is also quite
surprising what one can find out when one looks at what Genesis
says when one has taken off the “good old created on Earth”
presuppositional blinders.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man
should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the
air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
found an help meet for him. Ye have heard that it was said by
them of old[4] that Adam was given earthly life in a state of
moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of
innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes
even holiness.[5] The general idea is that Adam was faultless in
GOD's sight before he disobeyed the command in Eden. One
reason[6] why the traditional interpretation has endured so long
is because it is necessitated by the fact that if the situation
was interpreted any other way according to the “created on
Earth” theologies, GOD would be guilty of sin,[7] in that there
would be an imperfection in Their creation for which They were
responsible.
[This interpretation ignores the fact that their favourite
talisman against pre-sinful people being born on is that our sin
is inherited from Adam also presupposes GOD had other option
than to make them sinners by forcing them to inherit Adam's evil
without their own free will decision as Adam got, and thus
created HIS Bride et al evil.]
Therefore everyone always interprets this verse which says that
Adam's original Edenic state was not good, in a way that makes
“not good” mean that Adam was without sin.[8] Obviously this is
quite opposite to the view of things espoused by wee
pre-conceptionists. Therefore, I believe it bears some
investigation, for obviously, both cannot be correct. My
investigation shall be twofold.
First, I would like to examine the proofs put forward to the
effect that Adam was originally good, to see if they are any
good.
Second, I will attempt to show you that Adam's moral condition
was not good on the sixth day as it traditionally has been
interpreted as being.
To do this, I am going to try to show that Adam could not have
been innocent, that he had to be either righteous or
unrighteous.
Then I am going to try to show you that he could not have been
righteous.
Thus it should be obvious that I am going to get something out
of these verses that you have never seen before. Therefore you
had better prepare yourself for either a new interpretation or
some sly hermeneutical tricks. You watch it real close and see
if you can pick out an error in my reasoning, because, if you
can't, then we will have some good proof as to the fallacy of
the idea that Adam was good until he disobeyed in the garden. In
other words, if I can pull this one off, all the other
theologies have to be in grave error in regard to the beginning
of sin among mankind, that is, in regard to the fall of mankind,
that is, in regard to the root of our problems with GOD.[9]
Ready?
What really happened back then is not readily apparent because
there are two creation accounts.[10] In the first one, this
ungodliness is passed over and thus, in 1:26, we read of Adam
and Eve's “creation”, and in 1:28, of HIS blessing upon them,
and in 1:31, of GOD's appraisal of everything HE had made as
being “very good”. Thus our first impression is that the whole
creation was completely pure.
It is only when we look at the second account (Genesis 2) that
we learn of this “not good” (2:18) situation, which needed made
good. When we harmonize[11] the two accounts, we can see that
the “pre-fall” Edenic state of Adam was “not good” in GOD's
sight.
Now then, in regard to the idea that Adam was good at the time
of his beginning in Eden, the verse usually put forth as proof
of his goodness is Genesis 1:3 And GOD saw everything that HE
had made, and, behold, it was very good. Now, in regard to this
“everything”, it becomes apparent upon some investigation that
the traditional interpretation fails to prove that Adam was
originally good on three counts.
First, it is presumed that 1:31 describes Adam's original
condition, that is, most fail to realize that the situation had
already been changed from being “not good” to being “very good”.
Second, it is presumed that this “everything” includes Adam,
that is, most fail to realize that only those things are
included which GOD made at that time. For example, no one
includes the evil angels of the satanic rebellion [who were, at
that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter
2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them
down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into
chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.] in this
“everything”. So then, if Adam were likewise created before that
time, he would not necessarily be included either.
Third, it is presumed that the purpose that “everything” was
“very good” for, was not of a chastening, converting and
sanctifying nature.[12] So then, 1:31 does not prove that Adam
was “originally” good at all. In addition to 1:31, sometimes
Genesis 1:28 And GOD blessed them; is put forth to show that
Adam was good.
This one fails on two counts. First, it is again presumed that
the situation had not been changed. Second, it is presumed that
GOD would bless them only if they were good.[13] But this is
quite contrary to the attributes of GOD, for GOD blesses evil
people: HE maketh HIS sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[14] Another
one that is put forth to show that Adam was good is Genesis
2:25b ...and (they) were not ashamed. This one fails to prove
that they were originally good because they might have been
unashamed because they were unconvicted, that is, they might not
yet have had a true or full appreciation (horror) of the sins
they had already committed.[15]
Sometimes it is asserted that Adam had to be originally good,
for if he was not, GOD would be guilty of imperfection in that
HE created something that was not good. Well, this argument
fails because it is based on the presumption that GOD created
him on Earth, and one can hardly use such an unproven premise to
prove that such a conclusion is true.
Well, I believe that this critic gives very good proof that the
traditional view of this creation, that is, of Adam's original
Edenic moral state, is not so much based on the message of the
Scriptures as it is based on the “created on Earth” theology's
necessity of (hence, presumption of) complete original goodness
in Eden, that is, at the earthly beginning.
Well then, in regard to the proof that Adam was not so morally
good, I know that you have never come across any before but you
will have to admit that you have never looked for any before,
and as I’ve said previously, when you are watching for fish in
the river, it is very easy to miss the elephants on high.
First, let's look at Genesis 2:18, which says straight out that
Adam's situation in Eden was “not good” in GOD's sight. Of
course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible to
interpret “not good” so that it means something other than “Adam
was in rebellion to GOD's will for him”. Genesis 2:18 also says
straight out that Adam was “alone” in the omnipresent GOD's
garden.
Of course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible
to interpret “alone” so that it means “unable to produce
children” or "without a wife" rather than “separated in spirit
from GOD like after a big fall”. Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD
had to make an “help meet” (NIV: suitable helper) to fix Adam's
bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof either because
it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means
“reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be
instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion”.
And “suitable” is not irrefutable proof either, because it too
can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather
than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else whom
he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn
about his spiritual marriage to HIM”. It almost looks like wee
pre-conceptionists are going to be held to a stalemate by the
giant known as “Four Other Possible Interpretations”,[16] but
fear not, we do have a David in the camp.[17]
First of all, it is possible for Adam to be in only one of the
three moral states right? [He could only be: in conformity with
GOD's will (good, faithful, righteous); or innocent (not good,
not bad, morally untested - hence, undecided); or, in opposition
to GOD's will (faithless, bad, unrighteous)]. Now it stands to
reason that if we can eliminate two of these, Adam would have to
be in the third one right?
Well now, this being the case, let's look at Genesis 2:15,16 And
the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden
to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man,
saying... Well now, in regard to the possibility of Adam still
being innocent, in 2:16 we receive witness to the effect that
Adam had already accepted YHWH as his GOD (for he accepted the
command to not eat the fruit of a certain tree as GOD's command)
which means that he was no longer innocent. So then, even if
Adam was still innocent when he arrived in the garden, he did
not stay innocent for very long for he quickly had to make
choices regarding whether he would accept YHWH as his GOD,
whether he would dress and keep the garden, and whether he'd
stay away from the fruit.
So then, Adam was either righteous or unrighteous right after
GOD commanded him. Now, in regard to the possibility of Adam
being righteous, if Adam was righteous (like Michael and
Gabriel were righteous) he would be faithfully following GOD's
will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to
do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?
Well, it seems that in addition to dressing and keeping the
garden etc, GOD wanted him to get married and that to get his
wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly
conscious[18]) sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was
Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he
was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first
and they had all been shown to be unsuitable. (Genesis 2:20 And
Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and
to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an
help meet for him.)
Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to
resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD
wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the
animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was
willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an
animal was not what HE wanted? Moreover, just whose idea was it
that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have
been GOD's, could it?
Well now, it seems that we are at the point where we must either
admit that Adam was off course (unwilling to do GOD's will, ie,
unrighteous) in a very weird sort of way (to wit: already
looking among the animals for a wife and not very willing to
listen to what GOD had to say about it) or admit that GOD was
taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS
helpmeet and suggesting an animal instead after which HE would
tell him about getting married to Eve. Either way it would seem
that God was convinced that Adam was reluctant (unwilling) to
fulfill HIS will for him,[19] to the point that certain steps
had to be taken before (so that) he would become willing.
Well now, since this was the situation, how can we believe that
Adam was righteous (preferring to comply with GOD's will above
all else)? How can Adam be this reluctant (rebellious) to doing
this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to
fulfil HIS purpose for him?
So then, this davelephmant shows us that Adam could not have
been innocent (for sure upon the first command in Eden) and it
also shows us that he could not have been faithful about getting
married to the Eve to come. Well, to my way of seeing things,
there is only one possible moral state remaining for Adam. Adam
had to be unrighteous, that is, in rebellion to the leading of
the Holy Spirit, for sure at the time when GOD brought him the
animals and quite possibly even before that time. In other
words, Adam needed to repent,[20] and be converted[21] to GOD's
purpose for him, for sure in the matter regarding his marriage
to HIS helpmeet, and perhaps in other areas too.
Now, having established that Adam had an unrighteous character
on the sixth day,[22] I suppose that the next thing to determine
is when this unrighteous character had its beginning, for it is
incompatible with the attributes of GOD that he be created in
such fashion. In other words, was Adam given life in this fallen
condition, or was he given life in a good condition and had
fallen by the time of the animal parade?
Well, when we look at the second account, we learn first, from
2:15, that GOD put Adam in Eden to fulfil a specific purpose.
Next, in 2:16,17 we learn of God's provision for him and the
command regarding the poison unto death. Next in 2:18 we receive
the comment that GOD disliked Adam's aloneness. Next, in 2:20,
we are told that Adam was still alone because he was in
rebellion to GOD's purpose for him, to wit: his marriage to
Eve.[23]
Now, if Adam was innocent when he was given life, should we not
expect some direct witness to his choice that brought him out of
his innocence? And if Adam's righteous condition changed, should
we not also expect to receive some direct witness to his fall on
earth, that is, to his becoming rebellious? It would seem like
such momentous events should receive more than a passing,
indirect comment, should they not? If these very important
events happened at that time, that is, between the time of his
being given life on earth and his rebellion regarding his
marriage partner, how come we do not receive any witness about
them?[24]
In other words, doesn’t the fact that we receive no such witness
at all, lead one to believe that his moral condition had not
changed from the time he was given life? Well, I think it does
but, like I said before, this is almost a proof verse, that is,
it does not quite prove to us that Adam was given life in an
unrighteous condition (although I believe the next one in 2.
[font=Times New Roman]Genesis Study Continued...[/font] will
satisfy just about everyone who is at all open minded).
Even so, we definitely can say that it is not unreasonable to
postulate that Adam's character might have been unrighteous
right from the earthly start. And even though we have yet to
prove that he was unrighteous from the earthly start, we have
come far enough to realize that all previous theologies might be
in error in regard to the beginnings of sin on Earth, and that,
that being the case, the whole Adamic fall episode obviously
needs to be looked at again, for it sure looks like the
traditional view might be based on an inadequate interpretation
of the Scriptures.
------------------------------
Notes for: Genesis
1. In fact, if it’s the truth, we should be able to find lots
of witnesses to it.
2. If you sat down and studied these two examples for a month
or so, I think that you would almost know it all, for the rest
of the Bible just enlarges upon or clarifies these two great
themes, to wit: GOD's purposes for HIS elect people (both the
original and the exilic) and HIS remedies for sin (especially
the sins of unholiness and rebellion).
3. Backwards exegesis, sometimes known as isogesis. Very akin
to the way so many handle the verses regarding the unique deity
of the Lamb.
4. My apologies to the sermon on the mount.
5. But not quite the same as I define it, to wit: hating sin
and the devil somewhat akin to the way GOD hates sin and the
devil.
6. Besides the fact that GOD did not want the delusion
disturbed.
7. Sin: anything that is contrary to the creative purpose or
character of GOD.
8. In other words, they interpret it in a way that makes “not
good” mean “not bad”!
9. And if their diagnosis of the cause of our malady is wrong,
it also stands to reason that they might be attempting to cure
our disease in the wrong way.
10. Amazing eh!! And everyone wonders why there are two
creation accounts. Well now you know of at least one very good
reason, to wit: HE wrote it that way to hide some elephants. And
you have to admit that it works, because you have never seen any
in there before!
11. Try this for a harmony order: insert 2:4a before 1:1 (in
every other usage in Genesis, “generations” begins a section);
2:4b-6 (NIV is best) after 1:2; and 2:7-25 after 1:26 (Eve was
created on the sixth day).
12. No doubt He was also looking on the area outside of Eden in
which HE had given Adam life, as being “very good” for HIS
purpose too, that being a place of exile for the Adamic race.
13. Be careful not to fall into the error of believing that the
holy GOD would not or could not bless unholy people, or else you
might pay the same price as Balak (Numbers 22-24). This was one
of his errors remember?
14. Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father
which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Romans 5:8 But GOD commendeth HIS love toward us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
15. The proof for this conclusion is given in the arguments for
2:25, which comes right after this one.
16. Sometimes known as OPI4. When he gets together with his twin
brother, they rightly get called the OPI8 of the masses!
17. Yes indeed! GOD must have known about this giant because HE
put in a ringer. Of course, nobody has ever seen him or realized
the true nature of his qualifications, but this is our hour of
great need so we'd like you to meet our first elephant. His
friends call him Dave the dinoslayer. (I bet you guessed!) I'm
sure you will find him to be a very interesting and thought
provoking davelephmant!
18. Adam seemed to know exactly where she (her body) came from
(Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.)
19. Maybe to give HIM a bone? Major surgery always was real
scary. Anyway, we end up with a witness that the first fall
happened because of an unwillingness to marry (to bear the
surgical pain involved, which resulted in a preference for one
of the “beasts”) the mate GOD created us to marry.
20. Repent: to think differently or afterwards, ie, reconsider
(morally, feel compunction): repent. Strong's(#11).
21. Convert: to revert (literally, figuratively or morally):
come (go) again, convert, (re)turn (about, again).
Strong's(#12).
22. Well, have I done it or not? If you don't think so, please
read it again and find my mistake.
23. In other words, when did his aloneness become bad, or was
it always bad?
24. That Adam was rebellious to GOD's marriage plans is also
shown by his assault on GOD after he had been seduced, when he
blamed his fall on the woman GOD had insisted on sending him.
(See Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom THOU gavest
to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.) He
wasn't the one who had chosen her. He wanted a nice faithful
animal.
#Post#: 5784--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: patrick jane Date: May 21, 2019, 12:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very good study premise. I look forward to participating. I
think you assume too much in the case of Adam's righteousness or
unrighteousness at the very first commands. You raise some very
interesting points and I must say that I have always been under
the assumption that everything was perfect in the earth before
the eating of the tree, (the Bible never says apple), but
whenever I think of creation there was always something missing
because my mind always went to the times before creation. Thanks
Ted for doing this here.
#Post#: 5802--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest8 Date: May 21, 2019, 10:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=458.msg5768#msg5768
date=1558385001]
An Introduction to Genesis 2:18 and 2:25:
I believe that in the early chapters of Genesis, it was GOD's
intention to bear witness to the purpose of life, that is, our
need to become holy and to give up any idolatry in our personal
relationships (that is, that we were originally exiled from
Paradise because of our unholiness and idolatry), while at the
same time covering over the fact of our pre-conception
existence, that is, while at the same time, not destroying the
delusion regarding the time of our true beginning.
Thus Genesis bears witness to the fall of the elect “from
Paradise” via her beguilement caused by her lack of holiness
(listening to Their enemies) which lead to her disobedience, and
via his idolatry (unwillingness to separate from her) which lead
to his delusionment and disobedience, while at the same time not
openly disclosing our pre-conception existence and fall, that
is, that Eden was not the first beginning. Now if pre-conception
existence is the truth, we should not be able to find anything
in Genesis (or anywhere else) that really contradicts it, and we
should be able to find some witness to it if we look.[1]
Now, there are a few verses in Genesis that have always been
interpreted as bearing witness to the complete purity or
perfection of the earthly creation at its beginning. Therefore,
to adequately apologize for this doctrine, because it is fairly
obvious that complete purity at the beginning of the earthly
creation is quite contradictory to the pre-conception existence
conception of Edenic life being a reform school experience for
the purpose of correcting the spiritually criminal elect, we
will have to look at these verses that have been traditionally
interpreted as bearing witness to an earthly creation that was
entirely pure to see first, whether that interpretation really
can stand the criticism of pre-conception theology (it has never
been questioned before), and second, whether the pre-conception
interpretation of those same verses is any better.
I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that, in
the garden, GOD gave us two situations that bear witness to our
need to be holy in our relationship with HIM. In the first
situation, HE utilized the ritual of marriage. In the second, HE
utilized the ritual of sacrifice.[2] In both of these
situations, some earthly “original” needed changed. In the
first, Adam was “originally” alone, which state was corrected by
his marriage. In the second, Adam was naked, that is, not
dressed correctly, which state was corrected by the sacrificial
skin coat (Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the
LORD GOD make coats of skins, and clothed them.).
Now, the “created on Earth” theologians all believe these
“original” attributes (alone and naked) to be morally pure or
unsinful at the time of the earthly beginning, that is,
connoting innocence or righteousness, etc This interpretation
is necessitated first, by the fact that the attributes of GOD
demand that HE create in accord with HIS holiness, that is, that
HE create no imperfection or evil and second, by their
presupposition that this was the original creation. Thus any
exegesis of theirs of the “alone – naked” states in Genesis has
to be strained through their pre-suppositional time sieve so
that their interpretation matches or lines up with the revealed
attributes of GOD.
Therefore, I would say that they do not so much give us an
exegesis of Genesis as they give us an sisegexe (backwards
exegesis[3]) of it, that is, they do not tell us what it says so
much as they tell us what it must say if their theology is to
remain tenable.
Now with pre-conception theology, such “good” interpretations
are not forced upon the Edenic situation because the “original
purity” necessity does not have to fit into the earthly time
span. Therefore, any pre-conception exegete can look at the
“alone - naked” states in Genesis, with a little more freedom of
interpretation than can a created on Earth exegete. For example,
the “alone - naked” states in Genesis can be examined to see
whether they were really good (as is usually thought to be the
case) or whether they were not good, that is, against GOD's will
(as they are in the rest of the Bible) which has always been an
untenable option till now. Well, as I have said before, it is
surprising what one can miss when one is not looking for (or
actually seeking to strain out) something, as it is also quite
surprising what one can find out when one looks at what Genesis
says when one has taken off the “good old created on Earth”
presuppositional blinders.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD GOD said, It is not good that the man
should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the
air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
found an help meet for him. Ye have heard that it was said by
them of old[4] that Adam was given earthly life in a state of
moral cleanliness, variously described as being one of
innocence, purity, sinlessness, righteousness, and sometimes
even holiness.[5] The general idea is that Adam was faultless in
GOD's sight before he disobeyed the command in Eden. One
reason[6] why the traditional interpretation has endured so long
is because it is necessitated by the fact that if the situation
was interpreted any other way according to the “created on
Earth” theologies, GOD would be guilty of sin,[7] in that there
would be an imperfection in Their creation for which They were
responsible.
[This interpretation ignores the fact that their favourite
talisman against pre-sinful people being born on is that our sin
is inherited from Adam also presupposes GOD had other option
than to make them sinners by forcing them to inherit Adam's evil
without their own free will decision as Adam got, and thus
created HIS Bride et al evil.]
Therefore everyone always interprets this verse which says that
Adam's original Edenic state was not good, in a way that makes
“not good” mean that Adam was without sin.[8] Obviously this is
quite opposite to the view of things espoused by wee
pre-conceptionists. Therefore, I believe it bears some
investigation, for obviously, both cannot be correct. My
investigation shall be twofold.
First, I would like to examine the proofs put forward to the
effect that Adam was originally good, to see if they are any
good.
Second, I will attempt to show you that Adam's moral condition
was not good on the sixth day as it traditionally has been
interpreted as being.
To do this, I am going to try to show that Adam could not have
been innocent, that he had to be either righteous or
unrighteous.
Then I am going to try to show you that he could not have been
righteous.
Thus it should be obvious that I am going to get something out
of these verses that you have never seen before. Therefore you
had better prepare yourself for either a new interpretation or
some sly hermeneutical tricks. You watch it real close and see
if you can pick out an error in my reasoning, because, if you
can't, then we will have some good proof as to the fallacy of
the idea that Adam was good until he disobeyed in the garden. In
other words, if I can pull this one off, all the other
theologies have to be in grave error in regard to the beginning
of sin among mankind, that is, in regard to the fall of mankind,
that is, in regard to the root of our problems with GOD.[9]
Ready?
What really happened back then is not readily apparent because
there are two creation accounts.[10] In the first one, this
ungodliness is passed over and thus, in 1:26, we read of Adam
and Eve's “creation”, and in 1:28, of HIS blessing upon them,
and in 1:31, of GOD's appraisal of everything HE had made as
being “very good”. Thus our first impression is that the whole
creation was completely pure.
It is only when we look at the second account (Genesis 2) that
we learn of this “not good” (2:18) situation, which needed made
good. When we harmonize[11] the two accounts, we can see that
the “pre-fall” Edenic state of Adam was “not good” in GOD's
sight.
Now then, in regard to the idea that Adam was good at the time
of his beginning in Eden, the verse usually put forth as proof
of his goodness is Genesis 1:3 And GOD saw everything that HE
had made, and, behold, it was very good. Now, in regard to this
“everything”, it becomes apparent upon some investigation that
the traditional interpretation fails to prove that Adam was
originally good on three counts.
First, it is presumed that 1:31 describes Adam's original
condition, that is, most fail to realize that the situation had
already been changed from being “not good” to being “very good”.
Second, it is presumed that this “everything” includes Adam,
that is, most fail to realize that only those things are
included which GOD made at that time. For example, no one
includes the evil angels of the satanic rebellion [who were, at
that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter
2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them
down to hell (literally: Tartarus) and delivered them into
chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.] in this
“everything”. So then, if Adam were likewise created before that
time, he would not necessarily be included either.
Third, it is presumed that the purpose that “everything” was
“very good” for, was not of a chastening, converting and
sanctifying nature.[12] So then, 1:31 does not prove that Adam
was “originally” good at all. In addition to 1:31, sometimes
Genesis 1:28 And GOD blessed them; is put forth to show that
Adam was good.
This one fails on two counts. First, it is again presumed that
the situation had not been changed. Second, it is presumed that
GOD would bless them only if they were good.[13] But this is
quite contrary to the attributes of GOD, for GOD blesses evil
people: HE maketh HIS sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.[14] Another
one that is put forth to show that Adam was good is Genesis
2:25b ...and (they) were not ashamed. This one fails to prove
that they were originally good because they might have been
unashamed because they were unconvicted, that is, they might not
yet have had a true or full appreciation (horror) of the sins
they had already committed.[15]
Sometimes it is asserted that Adam had to be originally good,
for if he was not, GOD would be guilty of imperfection in that
HE created something that was not good. Well, this argument
fails because it is based on the presumption that GOD created
him on Earth, and one can hardly use such an unproven premise to
prove that such a conclusion is true.
Well, I believe that this critic gives very good proof that the
traditional view of this creation, that is, of Adam's original
Edenic moral state, is not so much based on the message of the
Scriptures as it is based on the “created on Earth” theology's
necessity of (hence, presumption of) complete original goodness
in Eden, that is, at the earthly beginning.
Well then, in regard to the proof that Adam was not so morally
good, I know that you have never come across any before but you
will have to admit that you have never looked for any before,
and as I’ve said previously, when you are watching for fish in
the river, it is very easy to miss the elephants on high.
First, let's look at Genesis 2:18, which says straight out that
Adam's situation in Eden was “not good” in GOD's sight. Of
course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible to
interpret “not good” so that it means something other than “Adam
was in rebellion to GOD's will for him”. Genesis 2:18 also says
straight out that Adam was “alone” in the omnipresent GOD's
garden.
Of course, this is not irrefutable proof because it is possible
to interpret “alone” so that it means “unable to produce
children” or "without a wife" rather than “separated in spirit
from GOD like after a big fall”. Genesis 2:18 also says that GOD
had to make an “help meet” (NIV: suitable helper) to fix Adam's
bad situation, but this is not irrefutable proof either because
it is possible to interpret “helper” so that it means
“reproductive partner” rather than “someone who would be
instrumental in convicting Adam of his spiritual rebellion”.
And “suitable” is not irrefutable proof either, because it too
can be interpreted as meaning “better than any animal” rather
than “because Adam had already rejected GOD, someone else whom
he would accept as a marriage partner so that he could learn
about his spiritual marriage to HIM”. It almost looks like wee
pre-conceptionists are going to be held to a stalemate by the
giant known as “Four Other Possible Interpretations”,[16] but
fear not, we do have a David in the camp.[17]
First of all, it is possible for Adam to be in only one of the
three moral states right? [He could only be: in conformity with
GOD's will (good, faithful, righteous); or innocent (not good,
not bad, morally untested - hence, undecided); or, in opposition
to GOD's will (faithless, bad, unrighteous)]. Now it stands to
reason that if we can eliminate two of these, Adam would have to
be in the third one right?
Well now, this being the case, let's look at Genesis 2:15,16 And
the LORD GOD took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden
to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD GOD commanded the man,
saying... Well now, in regard to the possibility of Adam still
being innocent, in 2:16 we receive witness to the effect that
Adam had already accepted YHWH as his GOD (for he accepted the
command to not eat the fruit of a certain tree as GOD's command)
which means that he was no longer innocent. So then, even if
Adam was still innocent when he arrived in the garden, he did
not stay innocent for very long for he quickly had to make
choices regarding whether he would accept YHWH as his GOD,
whether he would dress and keep the garden, and whether he'd
stay away from the fruit.
So then, Adam was either righteous or unrighteous right after
GOD commanded him. Now, in regard to the possibility of Adam
being righteous, if Adam was righteous (like Michael and
Gabriel were righteous) he would be faithfully following GOD's
will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to
do, right? And what did GOD want him to do?
Well, it seems that in addition to dressing and keeping the
garden etc, GOD wanted him to get married and that to get his
wife there, Adam had to go into a deep (but possibly
conscious[18]) sleep, and donate a bone and some flesh. And was
Adam willing to comply with GOD's will for him in this? Well, he
was, but only after GOD had brought him all the animals first
and they had all been shown to be unsuitable. (Genesis 2:20 And
Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and
to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an
help meet for him.)
Now, in regard to this little episode, I wonder why GOD had to
resort to such tactics if Adam was willing to do whatever GOD
wanted him to do? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the
animals and show him that they were unsuitable? If Adam was
willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an
animal was not what HE wanted? Moreover, just whose idea was it
that one of the animals might work? It certainly could not have
been GOD's, could it?
Well now, it seems that we are at the point where we must either
admit that Adam was off course (unwilling to do GOD's will, ie,
unrighteous) in a very weird sort of way (to wit: already
looking among the animals for a wife and not very willing to
listen to what GOD had to say about it) or admit that GOD was
taking preventive measures to stop Adam from rejecting HIS
helpmeet and suggesting an animal instead after which HE would
tell him about getting married to Eve. Either way it would seem
that God was convinced that Adam was reluctant (unwilling) to
fulfill HIS will for him,[19] to the point that certain steps
had to be taken before (so that) he would become willing.
Well now, since this was the situation, how can we believe that
Adam was righteous (preferring to comply with GOD's will above
all else)? How can Adam be this reluctant (rebellious) to doing
this GOD's way and, at the same time, be faithfully willing to
fulfil HIS purpose for him?
So then, this davelephmant shows us that Adam could not have
been innocent (for sure upon the first command in Eden) and it
also shows us that he could not have been faithful about getting
married to the Eve to come. Well, to my way of seeing things,
there is only one possible moral state remaining for Adam. Adam
had to be unrighteous, that is, in rebellion to the leading of
the Holy Spirit, for sure at the time when GOD brought him the
animals and quite possibly even before that time. In other
words, Adam needed to repent,[20] and be converted[21] to GOD's
purpose for him, for sure in the matter regarding his marriage
to HIS helpmeet, and perhaps in other areas too.
Now, having established that Adam had an unrighteous character
on the sixth day,[22] I suppose that the next thing to determine
is when this unrighteous character had its beginning, for it is
incompatible with the attributes of GOD that he be created in
such fashion. In other words, was Adam given life in this fallen
condition, or was he given life in a good condition and had
fallen by the time of the animal parade?
Well, when we look at the second account, we learn first, from
2:15, that GOD put Adam in Eden to fulfil a specific purpose.
Next, in 2:16,17 we learn of God's provision for him and the
command regarding the poison unto death. Next in 2:18 we receive
the comment that GOD disliked Adam's aloneness. Next, in 2:20,
we are told that Adam was still alone because he was in
rebellion to GOD's purpose for him, to wit: his marriage to
Eve.[23]
Now, if Adam was innocent when he was given life, should we not
expect some direct witness to his choice that brought him out of
his innocence? And if Adam's righteous condition changed, should
we not also expect to receive some direct witness to his fall on
earth, that is, to his becoming rebellious? It would seem like
such momentous events should receive more than a passing,
indirect comment, should they not? If these very important
events happened at that time, that is, between the time of his
being given life on earth and his rebellion regarding his
marriage partner, how come we do not receive any witness about
them?[24]
In other words, doesn’t the fact that we receive no such witness
at all, lead one to believe that his moral condition had not
changed from the time he was given life? Well, I think it does
but, like I said before, this is almost a proof verse, that is,
it does not quite prove to us that Adam was given life in an
unrighteous condition (although I believe the next one in 2.
[font=Times New Roman]Genesis Study Continued...[/font] will
satisfy just about everyone who is at all open minded).
Even so, we definitely can say that it is not unreasonable to
postulate that Adam's character might have been unrighteous
right from the earthly start. And even though we have yet to
prove that he was unrighteous from the earthly start, we have
come far enough to realize that all previous theologies might be
in error in regard to the beginnings of sin on Earth, and that,
that being the case, the whole Adamic fall episode obviously
needs to be looked at again, for it sure looks like the
traditional view might be based on an inadequate interpretation
of the Scriptures.
------------------------------
Notes for: Genesis
1. In fact, if it’s the truth, we should be able to find lots
of witnesses to it.
2. If you sat down and studied these two examples for a month
or so, I think that you would almost know it all, for the rest
of the Bible just enlarges upon or clarifies these two great
themes, to wit: GOD's purposes for HIS elect people (both the
original and the exilic) and HIS remedies for sin (especially
the sins of unholiness and rebellion).
3. Backwards exegesis, sometimes known as isogesis. Very akin
to the way so many handle the verses regarding the unique deity
of the Lamb.
4. My apologies to the sermon on the mount.
5. But not quite the same as I define it, to wit: hating sin
and the devil somewhat akin to the way GOD hates sin and the
devil.
6. Besides the fact that GOD did not want the delusion
disturbed.
7. Sin: anything that is contrary to the creative purpose or
character of GOD.
8. In other words, they interpret it in a way that makes “not
good” mean “not bad”!
9. And if their diagnosis of the cause of our malady is wrong,
it also stands to reason that they might be attempting to cure
our disease in the wrong way.
10. Amazing eh!! And everyone wonders why there are two
creation accounts. Well now you know of at least one very good
reason, to wit: HE wrote it that way to hide some elephants. And
you have to admit that it works, because you have never seen any
in there before!
11. Try this for a harmony order: insert 2:4a before 1:1 (in
every other usage in Genesis, “generations” begins a section);
2:4b-6 (NIV is best) after 1:2; and 2:7-25 after 1:26 (Eve was
created on the sixth day).
12. No doubt He was also looking on the area outside of Eden in
which HE had given Adam life, as being “very good” for HIS
purpose too, that being a place of exile for the Adamic race.
13. Be careful not to fall into the error of believing that the
holy GOD would not or could not bless unholy people, or else you
might pay the same price as Balak (Numbers 22-24). This was one
of his errors remember?
14. Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father
which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Romans 5:8 But GOD commendeth HIS love toward us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
15. The proof for this conclusion is given in the arguments for
2:25, which comes right after this one.
16. Sometimes known as OPI4. When he gets together with his twin
brother, they rightly get called the OPI8 of the masses!
17. Yes indeed! GOD must have known about this giant because HE
put in a ringer. Of course, nobody has ever seen him or realized
the true nature of his qualifications, but this is our hour of
great need so we'd like you to meet our first elephant. His
friends call him Dave the dinoslayer. (I bet you guessed!) I'm
sure you will find him to be a very interesting and thought
provoking davelephmant!
18. Adam seemed to know exactly where she (her body) came from
(Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.)
19. Maybe to give HIM a bone? Major surgery always was real
scary. Anyway, we end up with a witness that the first fall
happened because of an unwillingness to marry (to bear the
surgical pain involved, which resulted in a preference for one
of the “beasts”) the mate GOD created us to marry.
20. Repent: to think differently or afterwards, ie, reconsider
(morally, feel compunction): repent. Strong's(#11).
21. Convert: to revert (literally, figuratively or morally):
come (go) again, convert, (re)turn (about, again).
Strong's(#12).
22. Well, have I done it or not? If you don't think so, please
read it again and find my mistake.
23. In other words, when did his aloneness become bad, or was
it always bad?
24. That Adam was rebellious to GOD's marriage plans is also
shown by his assault on GOD after he had been seduced, when he
blamed his fall on the woman GOD had insisted on sending him.
(See Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom THOU gavest
to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.) He
wasn't the one who had chosen her. He wanted a nice faithful
animal.
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]This is a typical 'Gap Theory' article. His
last sentence should tell you everything about the rest of the
article. "He (Adam) wasn't the one who had chosen her (Eve). He
wanted a nice faithful animal." .
This article accordingly is blasphemous and made up of heresy..
RUN away as fast a you can and hold on to the teachings of Jesus
Christ as firmly as you can. For this article and others like it
will take everything from you, should you decide to follow these
writings.
Bladerunner[/shadow]
#Post#: 5803--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest8 Date: May 21, 2019, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=458.msg5784#msg5784
date=1558416112]
Very good study premise. I look forward to participating. I
think you assume too much in the case of Adam's righteousness or
unrighteousness at the very first commands. You raise some very
interesting points and I must say that I have always been under
the assumption that everything was perfect in the earth before
the eating of the tree, (the Bible never says apple), but
whenever I think of creation there was always something missing
because my mind always went to the times before creation. Thanks
Ted for doing this here.
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]You right PJ, the Bible does not say "Apple".
This is only one of the many fallacies that appear in this
article. As I stated, I'd advise anyone to run away from this
article just as fast as they can.
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 5812--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest58 Date: May 22, 2019, 2:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=458.msg5803#msg5803
date=1558495167]
You right PJ, the Bible does not say "Apple". This is only one
of the many fallacies that appear in this article. As I stated,
I'd advise anyone to run away from this article just as fast as
they can. [/quote]
...just to note how knee jerk this reply is, I never used the
world apple once. Therefore if apple measures my error, I'm in
the clear! :)
#Post#: 5813--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: patrick jane Date: May 22, 2019, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=458.msg5812#msg5812
date=1558553777]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=458.msg5803#msg5803
date=1558495167]
You right PJ, the Bible does not say "Apple". This is only one
of the many fallacies that appear in this article. As I stated,
I'd advise anyone to run away from this article just as fast as
they can. [/quote]
...just to note how knee jerk this reply is, I never used the
world apple once. Therefore if apple measures my error, I'm in
the clear! :)
[/quote]Yes, I saw that and I was the one who said it's not in
the Bible, but I was simply noting that as an extra detail. You
never said they ate an apple.
#Post#: 15352--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: patrick jane Date: July 17, 2020, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgQt3FCzxTA
Why did Noah release birds? Is the order significant? Why did
God smell the pleasing aroma? We break down Genesis 8 and
explain what the authors are telling us.
#Post#: 15378--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest58 Date: July 18, 2020, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks patrick!
#Post#: 15381--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: guest8 Date: July 18, 2020, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=458.msg15352#msg15352
date=1595012422]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgQt3FCzxTA
Why did Noah release birds? Is the order significant? Why did
God smell the pleasing aroma? We break down Genesis 8 and
explain what the authors are telling us.
[/quote]
This interesting but far out in left field. Read Gen 8 literally
and let the HS show you what it actually means.
Blade
#Post#: 16096--------------------------------------------------
Re: An Introduction to Genesis
By: patrick jane Date: August 12, 2020, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Blade ;D
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page