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#: 5806--------------------------------------------------
2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest58 Date: May 22, 2019, 1:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Genesis Study Continued...
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife,
and were not ashamed. Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of both were
opened and they knew that they were naked. Genesis 3:10 and I
was afraid, because I was naked: and I hid myself.
Most people believe that Adam and Eve were created good and
naked. Most people also believe that when they ate the forbidden
fruit, their good nakedness changed and became a bad
nakedness.[25] I am going to try to show that this change in
their nakedness is only a presupposition, first, necessitated by
a “created on Earth” theology, and second, still in existence on
account of an incomplete exegesis of the early chapters of
Genesis.[26] Furthermore, I will try to show that this exegesis
is even contrary to the message of the Scriptures when they are
properly interpreted.[27]
In other words, I am going to try to show you that their
nakedness was the same before and after they ate the fruit, and
the only thing that changed when they ate the fruit was their
comprehension or understanding of the meaning of being
naked.[28]
Now, before we get started, I think it might be profitable to go
over the meaning of being naked (for the sake of those who might
not know what being naked means in the Bible). First of all,
there are two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, to wit: there is
physical nakedness and there is spiritual nakedness. Now, of
course, physically naked means being physically uncovered, that
is, bodily exposed to the elements or whatever else might be
around. (And physically clothed means just the opposite, that
is, being bodily covered, protected from or unexposed to such
things.)
Now, being spiritually naked is a lot like being physically
naked. It means being uncovered in spirit, that is, having one's
spirit exposed to, or not protected from, the spiritual elements
or whatever else of a spiritual nature that might be around.
Thus, one thing being spiritually naked signifies is having to
satisfy (being exposed to, not protected from) GOD's attributes,
in particular, Their justice and holiness.[29] (And being
spiritually clothed means just the opposite, that is, being
covered, protected from, or unexposed to GOD's attributes, that
is, of satisfying the requirements of GOD's justice and
holiness, and thus, being at peace with HIM.[30]) Now, as we can
see, if one had never done anything wrong, being spiritually
naked would not be a problem[31] but, once one had turned away
from GOD's purpose (sinned) one would be in big trouble.
Therefore, we can tell that after Adam and Eve turned away from
GOD's purpose for them, they were in big trouble. We can also
tell that, awhile after they ate the fruit, they could tell too,
because they went for the fig leaves, and tried to put them
between themselves and GOD's attributes.[32] Well now, having
peaked at the two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, we should be
able to see that, by this definition, Adam and Eve were
spiritually naked after they ate the fruit.[33]) Therefore, the
issue before us is whether their spiritual nakedness changed in
character due to their eating.
In other words, the real crux of the issue is in regard to the
character of their original earthly spiritual nakedness, ie, was
it good (as we usually believe) or was it bad (as I am going to
try to prove) ie, did it really change when they ate the fruit?
(Now, before we get into the next part, I must point out that I
am not saying that nothing changed. I admit that they were not
ashamed before they ate the fruit and that they were ashamed
after. That changed, but that is their shame, not their
nakedness, and the differentiation must be made, because they
are two different things.)
Okay, now it's time for you to haul out your proof that their
nakedness changed. In other words, what proof do you have that
says that their pre-fruit fall spiritual nakedness was good?
First of all, let me say that I bet that whatever you have isn't
in the line of a direct quote from a Scripture. Know why? Well,
it's because there isn't any. Take another look. The best you
can have is either 2:25 or 3:10, and 2:25 says that they were
naked, and 3:10 says that they hid themselves because they were
naked. There is nothing that says that the moral quality of
their nakedness changed.[34] So then, since there isn't any
direct or plain scriptural proof, couldn't one say that this
fact might intimate that their nakedness did not change? Well,
one could, if it wasn't for the fact that such an intimation is
not nearly as strong as the created on Earth theology's need for
an original earthly purity (that is, in this case, good
nakedness). Therefore it gets buried in the ground of
theological necessity and never dug out. But, even if you do not
dig this intimation, the Scriptures certainly do not say (in a
direct or plain way) that their nakedness changed. Well, having
shown that there is no direct or plain scriptural witness to the
idea that Adam and Eve's nakedness changed, let's take a look at
the theological arguments that say it did.
Such arguments fall into two categories (both of which we looked
at under Genesis 2:18, Adam's aloneness, but a little review
won't hurt). First was the “everything was originally good”
category. In those arguments, we came to the conclusion that the
“good everything” didn't necessarily include Adam (hence, his
situation[35] and nakedness) any more than it included the very
nasty evil angels,[36] and that the “good” could include good
chastisement and the work of subduing the nasty old Earth. In
other words, we discovered that everything wasn't necessarily
quite as good as we have traditionally believed.
The second category dealt with the change in Adam and Eve's
shame. It is always put forth that this change was due to the
changing of the moral quality or acceptability of their
nakedness, which changed because they disobeyed GOD (sinned,
joined the evil side) when they ate the fruit.
But just because they became ashamed after they ate the fruit
doesn't necessarily mean that they became ashamed because the
moral quality (acceptability) of their nakedness changed. Like,
perhaps they were blind to their bad nakedness before they ate
the fruit, and what happened when they ate the fruit was that
their blindness got cured.[37] Hence they became ashamed, not
because their nakedness changed, but because they could see for
the first time, exactly how bad it really was all along. So, now
we have a new way of understanding the change in their shame.
Well now, having dispensed with anything that the traditional
view can throw at us as proof for their interpretation, let's
see how well they (you) can do with what we have? In other
words, let's take a look at some elephant tracks that prove that
their nakedness never changed, ie, that show that it was just as
bad before they ate the fruit as it was after. In other words, I
would like to show you that, in addition to this lack of
testimony to any change in their nakedness, the Scriptures do
indeed testify to the effect that their nakedness never changed
at all.
First of all, I think that almost everyone (after reading the
Genesis account) is willing to admit that their awareness of
their bad nakedness did not arrive immediately upon the breaking
of the prohibition. For example, Eve took the fruit and ate.
Then, she gave to her husband.[38] So then, she had to be blind
(at the particular moment between the grabbing of the fruit and
her sharing it with Adam) about her bad nakedness.[39] (You
either have to believe this or believe that she was
knowledgeably seducing him to join her in sin, which contradicts
3:13b, I think. (Genesis 3:13 And the LORD GOD said unto the
woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The
serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.) So then, I think the
Scripture bears witness that their lack of shame (at least, just
before it changed) was due to their spiritual blindness and that
they became ashamed because their blindness got cured, which
witness happens to match the pre-existence point of view
exactly.[40] Isn’t coincidence great!
Secondly, when GOD 'found out' that they knew that they were bad
naked, one would expect that one of HIS first comments would
have been a statement somewhat like this: So, you decided to eat
some of the forbidden fruit eh! But we didn't get anything like
that. Rather, we got two questions, as per Genesis 3:11 And HE
said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?[41] Hast thou eaten of
the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Now, the order of these questions is very interesting because it
would seem that the first thing GOD thought is that they could
have found out about being bad naked without even having touched
the fruit (ie, just by being told the truth about their
nakedness) and that only after HE had drawn a blank on this
question did HE move on to the next most possible way for them
to have found out about being bad naked (to wit: did they eat of
the fruit).[42] So then, if this is what GOD thought first,
there is only one way HE could have thought it, and that is if
they were already bad naked before they ate the fruit. So, I
think that this sort of tips the scriptural scale even more in
favour of the view that their nakedness did not change (but that
the only thing that did change was their appreciation of their
already bad naked condition). Otherwise, GOD's first question
seems pretty silly![43]
Third, it is generally agreed that if they were ever good naked,
they lost (changed) this goodness upon their first sin
(transgression or failure to comply with HIS purpose for them).
Therefore, even if Adam was "originally" good naked, he had to
lose this goodness when he became rebellious to GOD's marriage
plans. Now, the Scripture says that they were both naked.
Therefore, it should be admitted that Eve's nakedness was the
same as his, that is, since his was bad when she was "created",
hers must have been bad too.[44] Therefore, it should be
admitted that the Scripture testifies that her nakedness was
never acceptable to GOD (ie, good).
Well now, this being the case, I can say that she was not made
holy, righteous or even innocent, and this being the case of the
case, we are left with only three alternatives. One, GOD created
her in sin (bad naked) on account of Adam's rebellion on the
sixth day. Two, GOD created her in sin because HE became
finitely perfect.[45] Three, Eve was originally created in a
state of innocence, then made her uncoerced (free willed)
choice, then had fallen subsequent to that choice,[46] and then
was put in the garden of Eden in sin, that is, was given life in
this morally deficient condition [to wit: spiritually alone
(separated from GOD, fallen, unmarried); spiritually naked
(needing justified and holified); spiritually blind (deluded
about - not differentiating between - the good and the evil, not
believing what GOD had said about it); and not ashamed (needing
convicted of her sinfulness)] because that was her exact
condition prior to her being given life.
Well now, no doubt some of you will flee to the newly revealed
theology of Adamic sin on the sixth day.[47] Much to your
dismay, you'll find out that it's no better than the old version
(when you get about half-way through this book, if your love of
the truth can get you that far). This only leaves the third
possibility open for those who prefer a theology that does not
necessitate a certain degree of self-induced blindness.[48] Well
then, if GOD "created" her in sin, I really do not think that
I'm at all wrong to presuppose that that was the same condition
Adam was in when he was given life. In other words, I believe
that their nakedness was always bad,[49] that it never changed,
and that because of the dearth of witness to any change in their
moral condition, the onus of proof now lies completely with
those who would postulate that it had changed in Eden.
In other words, I think that the only reasonable course left
open to us (in light of these new interpretations) is to believe
that it never changed in Eden, and to keep on believing that
until we get some very good proof that it did change in Eden
(along with a good refutation of the preceding arguments and the
rest of this book).
Now, I know that all of this is quite the opposite to what you
usually think but I think you will have to admit that it is
closer to what these Scriptures say, that is, what they say
before they get reinterpreted to come into conformity with the
prevailing assumptions among Christians regarding the origin of
our spirits.
Therefore, to conclude this argument, I say that, so far as the
garden of Eden is concerned, pre-existence is the more
scriptural theology because it exactly corresponds to the state
of affairs that really happened there. In other words, both this
theology and the Scriptures witness that Adam and Eve were
morally fallen before they ate the fruit, and that Eve was given
life in a spiritually fallen condition. In other words, both
state that we are given life for the purpose of being convicted
of our spiritual aloneness, nakedness, blindness, and lack of
shame, that is, for the purpose of being convicted and of having
our spiritual eyes opened so that we can again discern between
the good and the evil, and so that we can see our need: first,
of being covered by the white garments (or, as it was in Eden,
the skin coat) of the Lamb;[50] and second, our need of entering
into a marriage (unified relationship with Him[51] in the area
of judgement and justice, so that He can judge His eternal
enemies, so that we can get back into HIS garden,[52] that is,
HIS school for the exiled from Paradise, so that we may learn to
be faultless in HIS sight[53] and thus able to re-enter
Paradise.

---------------------------------------------------------
Notes for 2. Genesis Study Continued...
25. Or, that being naked was no longer okay.
26. Which is still in existence because GOD did not want this
truth revealed before this time.
27. Of course, this is matter of opinion or
interpretation!Back:
28. Their nakedness and the acceptability of their nakedness to
GOD are the same thing. You can't say that their nakedness
didn't change, but that its acceptability did, any more than you
can say that they didn't change but their acceptability did.
29. Revelation 3:16-18 I will spue thee out of My mouth
..because thou ..knowest not that thou art wretched, and
miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy
of Me white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed… Another thing
it signifies is not being protected by GOD from satan's
attributes.
30. Revelation 3:4,5 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis
which have not defiled their garments: and they shall walk with
Me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same
shall be clothed in white raiment… It also entails being
protected from satan.
31. This statement grudgingly acquiesces to the created on Earth
theology's presupposition that our original goodness could be
symbolised by being spiritually naked, that is, that there can
be a good kind of spiritual nakedness. Once again, this is a
presupposition that has no spiritual foundation. It just springs
from the theory of an earthly original (good) creation.
But what if the presupposition is in error, that is, what if GOD
created us clothed with something? (The underwear of innocence
perhaps?) Then being naked would mean the removal, loss or
defilement (Revelation 3:4, see note 30) of such “undies”, and
then there would not be a kind of nakedness that was all right
with GOD. All nakedness would be evil. I believe that this
presupposition is closer to the way “naked” is used throughout
the Bible. In other words, when we finally get it all right with
GOD, we will not have been restored to being “good naked”.
(“Good” naked cannot mean innocence, because they weren't
innocent. Therefore, it has to connote either righteousness or
unrighteousness, and since we're always restored to being clad
correctly, “good naked” has to mean unrighteousness. Think on
it. You'll see my meaning.)
32. Unfortunately, they failed to satisfy the demands of GOD's
justice and holiness (probably because they had done a lot worse
to GOD than the fig leaves were doing to them). Besides that,
GOD had not created them to ever wear fig leaves. HE wants them
to dress the way HE does.
33. Most people tend to think of Adam and Eve's nakedness in
only physical terms. In other words, hardly anyone realizes that
their nakedness was spiritual and that both Adam and Eve thought
of it in this way. (That they were concerned about their
spiritual nakedness is shown by the fact that they were still
afraid even after they were physically covered by the fig
leaves.) And regarding their physical nakedness, it is more
likely that they were never physically naked at all (that is,
any more than we are). I say this because 3:7 says that they
sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. Do you
really believe that they instantly invented sewing and were able
to so quickly manufacture sewing essentials as well? Should we
not accept that they were already familiar with sewing, hence
clothing of some sort? I think we have to because, even if they
were “created” naked, they surely would have got the idea of
clothes from seeing GOD walk in the garden (or do you think They
were walking around naked too)?
You are probably wondering why they would put on fig leaves if
their nakedness were spiritual (rather than physical). How would
fig leaves cover spiritual nakedness? Well, they don't, but Adam
and Eve thought that they might. How so? Well, it is hard to say
for sure, but it might be like this. Fig leaves have one side
that is a bit coarse. Of coarse, if someone wore this side next
to the skin, they would cause a considerable amount of
discomfort pretty soon. Thus we can postulate that they were
trying to substitute some suffering for their impending
appointment with death, ie, they were trying to satisfy GOD's
justice with the only thing they had that was their own, ie,
with their sufferings. [On the other hand, just the opposite
could be the case. They might have put the fig leaves on, with
the coarse side out. If this was the case, then the fig leaves
would probably be meant to signify their new holiness, ie, an
enmity toward the serpent (since they now had their eyes open
and could distinguish between the good and the evil just like
GOD, hence they now knew that the serpent was on the evil side).
Thus, the fig leaves would be a kind of armour, just like it
says in 3:7 (they) made themselves aprons.(“Aprons” can also be
translated as armour, as per 2 Kings 3:21 - And when all the
Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against
them, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and
upward, and stood in the border. See Strong's(#13) 2290.] Of
course, their efforts were too coarse to be acceptable, being
that they had joined the evil side too. Neither fig leaves nor
any other will satisfy the demands of GOD's justice and
holiness, but when you find yourself naked, who leaves any
leaves unturned? (That is, any except the ones called repentance
and faith unto holiness! That would really be turning over a new
leaf!!)
34. Now, I'm sure that you'll say that there is, which is sort
of true, but the something is not just a plain, straight forward
verse of Scripture. It is a theological argument based on the
meaning of the comments that they were not ashamed and that
everything was good, which is what we are going to look at next.
But before we do that, I just wanted to bring out the difference
between those arguments and a straightforward scriptural
witness, and show that such a straightforward witness is not
there. (It also gives your head a little breather to have a nice
easy page!)
35. For example, once again, I do not think that GOD was
responsible for making Adam alone for as long as he was, and
neither can you, unless you want to put yourself in the position
of believing that GOD did something that was “not good”. To my
mind, such an interpretation is a pretty blatant contradiction
to the revealed attributes of GOD.
36. And let's not forget about the “good” old serpent! He was
there when everything was pronounced “very good”, wasn't he?
(Wonder what he was very good for?) And why does GOD use so many
degrees of goodness, to wit: not good, 2:18; no comment, 1:4b;
good, 1:4a; very good, 1:31; and hallowed, 2:3; if everything
was very good? Could it be that some things were not so very
good after all? (Then again, maybe their submission to GOD's
purpose, that is, their “marriage”, made “everything good”, but
that's still well short of hallowed isn't it?) I do hope that
you can see that “everything” is not all inclusive, and that
“good” means good like a good prison work detail, or a good open
heart surgery, or a good spanking.
37. Besides two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, there are two
kinds of blindness, to wit: physical blindness and spiritual
blindness. Now spiritual blindness means that one needs one's
eyes (mind) opened to understand spiritual things, which
includes one's ability to discern between good and evil persons.
(In other words, we can't be spiritually blind unless we're
unwilling to believe what GOD has to say about things.) Now, the
fact that Adam and Eve could see with their physical eyes means
that the eyes which needed opened were their spiritual eyes
(Genesis 3:5,7 For God doth know that in the day he eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil...And the eyes of them both were
opened and they knew that they were naked.) So then, Scripture
testifies that, in addition to being not good alone, they were
spiritually blind. Now, do you really think that that was a
“very good” way for them to be? If you do, would you please tell
me why Jesus included spiritual blindness in His list of super
no no's in Revelation 3:17,18 Because thou sayest, I am rich,
and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest
not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind,
and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be
clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and
anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.? How
could it be “very good” for Adam and Eve to be blind (ie, still
willing to accept the nice old serpent as a minister of GOD) but
totally unacceptable for the rest of us? Spiritually alone, and
now spiritually blind. The situation is going from bad to worse!
Thank GOD!!!!
38. Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good
for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be
desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did
eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
39. Even though their conviction did not arrive immediately,
their defilement would have to (presupposing that it arrived
then).
40. This may not prove too much but you certainly have to admit
that it puts at least one foot inside the door.
41. Ie, who opened your spiritual eyes and convinced you that
the serpent is evil and that you're just as defiled as he is?
42. As if HE didn't know eh!! But what's HE saying stuff like
this for if HE knew all along? Must be trying to say something?
43. Like, haven't you ever wondered about that question?
44. That is, if you think that it was different, you are the
very first, and I really don't like your chances. This also
gives us another reason why HE made her out of him, to wit: to
supply this proof of her always bad nakedness. (The first reason
was to show Adam's rebelliousness to HIS marriage plans.)
45. Ie, made a bad mistake, which is a very mistaken view,
because GOD only makes "good mistakes".
46. By not believing GOD about the evil ones and thus became
blind.
47. That he sinned, that is, that the fall happened on the
sixth day, that is, that she was made in Adam (in sin) because
of Adam's sin rather than her own. “Now I know why it is called
Adamic sin and not Evic sin. He really did sin first!”
48. There might be another wee witness to the effect that their
nakedness did not change. In 2:25 (Genesis 2:25 And they were
both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.) the
Hebrew word translated “naked” is exactly the same as the word
translated “subtil” in the very next verse, Genesis 3:1 Now the
serpent was more crafty, subtil than any of the wild animals the
LORD God had made. (I bet that the reason we can tell that it
should be naked for Adam and Eve, and subtle for the serpent has
something to do with the good old Earth being flat!) I bet you
never thought that they are the same word. (They differ only in
plurality: 2:25 is plural; 3:1 is singular. Moses did not put
the vowels in.) Of course, not being a student of the Hebrew
language (or any other besides love) I get a little lost when
the subject reaches such depths, and I really can not argue to
much effect when I am lost. (I can hardly do it when I'm found!)
It should be noted that all the "naked's" in the rest of the
chapter three are a different word.
Now, why do you think Moses used different words? Like, why did
he use the subtle naked in 2:25, when he could have used the one
he used all the other times? Maybe for the same reason he was so
subtle about the Lamb's deity, ie, maybe because he didn't want
anyone to find out about these things too early?
49. Which also means that Adam had been “not good” alone since
he was given life. In other words, his “aloneness” had not
changed either.
50. That is, our need of being holy. For the skin coat, see
Genesis 3:21.
51. That is, our need of being holy, so that we can go live in
HIS kingdom.
52. GOD will not let you “back into Eden” unless you first
believe in HIM enough to be morally HIS alone forever, that is,
enough to judge HIS enemies for sure, that is, enough to never
eat of the forbidden fruit again, no matter what the serpent has
to say about it.
53. That is, always willing to obey HIM more than anyone or
anything else, that is, be married to HIM in all our personal
relationships.
#Post#: 10892--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: patrick jane Date: March 9, 2020, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ted, I'm a third of the way through this post but where is the
spiritual "nakedness" scriptures in the Bible?
#Post#: 16103--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest58 Date: August 12, 2020, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=459.msg10892#msg10892
date=1583781213]
Ted, I'm a third of the way through this post but where is the
spiritual "nakedness" scriptures in the Bible?[/quote]
Genesis 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were
not ashamed. If it were written and they were of short in
stature but not ashamed we would immediately ask,"what is
shameful about being short?" But since our minds are clouded by
the previous generations determination that they had just been
created without sin we have been forced to claim thier nakedness
was physical even though we all know that there is nothing
shameful about being as GOD created you in the privacy of your
own garden. Instead of questioning the obvious contradiction we
learned from the rabbis eisegesis, we solve the cognitive
dissonance by saying, "oh, this is just another mystery of no
import...we'll know soon enough what HE meant." Genesis 3:21
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of
skins and clothed them. We know this clothing is a symbol of
their being brought to Christ for their sin but they were naked
before they ate and should have been ashamed...
Revelation 16:15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is
the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may
not go about naked and be seen exposed!”)
Benson Commentary equates nakedness here with sinfulness -
...that keepeth himself clothed with the robe of righteousness,
the garment of salvation; lest he walk naked, and they see his
shame — Lest he lose the graces which he takes no care to keep,
and others see his sin and punishment. - as does Matthew Henry,
Barnes, Matthew Poole, Gill and the Pulpit Commentary, etc etc.
Rev 3: 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need
nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful,
poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold
refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so
that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed,
and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.… In this
section, being naked is clearly expressed as a symptom of being
spiritually blind and full of sin. Now, apply this to our other
naked couple, Adam and Eve, and what do we get???
Exodus 28:42 You shall make for them linen undergarments to
cover their naked flesh. with Rev 19:7 Let us rejoice and be
glad
and give Him the glory.
For the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His bride has made herself ready.
8 She was given clothing of fine linen,
bright and pure.
For the fine linen she wears is the righteous acts of the
saints.”
in which we see an equation of being clothed as a depiction of
being righteous, the opposite of being sinful.
Then there are all the verses that use being naked to mean to be
exposed as under the judgment of GOD, your sins seen by
everyone. Does this help you with "spiritual" (?) nakedness?
#Post#: 16119--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest8 Date: August 12, 2020, 10:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=459.msg16103#msg16103
date=1597249144]
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=459.msg10892#msg10892
date=1583781213]
Ted, I'm a third of the way through this post but where is the
spiritual "nakedness" scriptures in the Bible?[/quote]
Genesis 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were
not ashamed. If it were written and they were of short in
stature but not ashamed we would immediately ask,"what is
shameful about being short?" But since our minds are clouded by
the previous generations determination that they had just been
created without sin we have been forced to claim thier nakedness
was physical even though we all know that there is nothing
shameful about being as GOD created you in the privacy of your
own garden. Instead of questioning the obvious contradiction we
learned from the rabbis eisegesis, we solve the cognitive
dissonance by saying, "oh, this is just another mystery of no
import...we'll know soon enough what HE meant." Genesis 3:21
And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of
skins and clothed them. We know this clothing is a symbol of
their being brought to Christ for their sin but they were naked
before they ate and should have been ashamed...
Revelation 16:15 (“Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is
the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may
not go about naked and be seen exposed!”)
Benson Commentary equates nakedness here with sinfulness -
...that keepeth himself clothed with the robe of righteousness,
the garment of salvation; lest he walk naked, and they see his
shame — Lest he lose the graces which he takes no care to keep,
and others see his sin and punishment. - as does Matthew Henry,
Barnes, Matthew Poole, Gill and the Pulpit Commentary, etc etc.
Rev 3: 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need
nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful,
poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold
refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so
that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed,
and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.… In this
section, being naked is clearly expressed as a symptom of being
spiritually blind and full of sin. Now, apply this to our other
naked couple, Adam and Eve, and what do we get???
Exodus 28:42 You shall make for them linen undergarments to
cover their naked flesh. with Rev 19:7 Let us rejoice and be
glad
and give Him the glory.
For the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and His bride has made herself ready.
8 She was given clothing of fine linen,
bright and pure.
For the fine linen she wears is the righteous acts of the
saints.”
in which we see an equation of being clothed as a depiction of
being righteous, the opposite of being sinful.
Then there are all the verses that use being naked to mean to be
exposed as under the judgment of GOD, your sins seen by
everyone. Does this help you with "spiritual" (?) nakedness?
[/quote]
It is safe to assume they had bodies of light prior to the fall
for they walked with GOD.
Blade
#Post#: 16219--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest58 Date: August 13, 2020, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16119#msg16119
date=1597287695]
It is safe to assume they had bodies of light prior to the fall
for they walked with GOD.
Blade
[/quote]
In my thesis I mention quite a few people...which ones
compromise the they you refer to as being beings of light?
Adam and Eve? Now that is a unique perspective...but what
import does it have to our discussion since they were indeed
physical, Adam was dirt and Eve was bone, so they must have been
fallen in the garden before they ate the forbidden fruit yet
they walked with GOD.
Are you agreeing with me that the fall brought them to earth and
did not happen on earth, in the garden?
#Post#: 16225--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest8 Date: August 13, 2020, 10:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=459.msg16219#msg16219
date=1597338574]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16119#msg16119
date=1597287695]
It is safe to assume they had bodies of light prior to the fall
for they walked with GOD.
Blade
[/quote]
In my thesis I mention quite a few people...which ones
compromise the they you refer to as being beings of light?
Adam and Eve? Now that is a unique perspective...but what
import does it have to our discussion since they were indeed
physical, Adam was dirt and Eve was bone, so they must have been
fallen in the garden before they ate the forbidden fruit yet
they walked with GOD.
Are you agreeing with me that the fall brought them to earth and
did not happen on earth, in the garden?
[/quote]
Hi Ted:
The Bible tells us that we will see Jesus as He is for we will
be like Him...In all indications this is in spirit form or a
body of light. Now, I ask you a question? What part or parts of
our bodies can not be found in heaven? ONLY
one---Bone......Flesh and Blood not allowed.
Therefore, a body of light made up of bone....This Jesus told to
Thomas who did not believe Him in the upper room.
Once Adam NOT Eve ate of the fruit, he was fallen to the point
that his body of light was transfigured backwards to Flesh and
Blood. This Blood is inherited by every person born of woman.
NO, they were not fallen prior to Adam eating the fruit...
*****
you said:"Are you agreeing with me that the fall brought them to
earth and did not happen on earth, in the garden?"
I don't see how you get that????God placed them in the Garden of
Eden prior to His fall. She did not fall, She sinned against
GOD. Adam sinned against GOD and Mankind.
We know where the Garden of Eden is according to God's words. It
is still being protected by those Cherubims. Yes, we do not see
them but it is real which means it is in another dimension. But
that is another discussion.
Hope this helps??
Blade
#Post#: 16259--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest58 Date: August 14, 2020, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509]Hi Ted:
The Bible tells us that we will see Jesus as He is for we will
be like Him...In all indications this is in spirit form or a
body of light. [/quote] While I agree that in our purely
spirit (not spiritual) state, we may have or be able to exhibit
ourselves as bodies of light, I do not accept the theosophist
ideas that we are still have bodies of light as humans hidden in
/ by the flesh.
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509] Now, I ask you a question? What part or parts
of our bodies can not be found in heaven? ONLY
one---Bone......Flesh and Blood not allowed.[/quote] If Flesh
and blood are not allowed in heaven then they cannot be found in
heaven...?This sentence contradicts itself.
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509] Therefore, a body of light made up of
bone....This Jesus told to Thomas who did not believe Him in the
upper room. [/quote] Told Thomas what ! ? John 20:25 So the
other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he
replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my
finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side,
I will never believe.”26 Eight days later, His disciples were
once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with
them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with
you.”
27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at
My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop
doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said nothing about His body! And what did Thomas touch?
Light or bone? <head shake> He touched His resurrected flesh!
Who wrote the text you are alluding to; it contradicts all the
other Christian bibles, where in Jesus claims that in the
resurrection He was still flesh and bone: Luke 24:38 “Why are
you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your
hearts? 39 Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch
Me and see— for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you
see I have.”
How do you get from here to our spirit bodies having no flesh
nor blood but only bone???
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509]Once Adam NOT Eve ate of the fruit, he was
fallen to the point that his body of light was transfigured
backwards to Flesh and Blood. This Blood is inherited by every
person born of woman. [/quote] The Bible has Adam being formed
from the dirt and Eve being formed from a bone from Adam...so to
be created a body of light before he sinned (so he could fade
from light to flesh after sinning) he had to be created as light
before his becoming flesh and blood on earth, not just becoming
flesh after he sinned by eating"... in other words, he sinned in
the flesh so to go from light to flesh after his sin he must
have been light before his sin...on earth, with GOD, in the
garden.
This is a convoluted form of Pre-Conception existence theology
which contends we were all CREATED as spirits in the spirit
realms and then sinners (only sinners) were sent to earth to
inhabit flesh and blood bodies to fulfill their needs as
sinners. Since we were separated into elect and non-elect before
the foundation of the earth by our own free will decisions about
YHWH, and only sinners are born on earth, this is a logical
order of things.
If you weren't blinkered by the doctrine of our creation being
on earth, you could understand it.
#Post#: 16270--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest8 Date: August 14, 2020, 9:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=459.msg16259#msg16259
date=1597428198]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509]Hi Ted:
The Bible tells us that we will see Jesus as He is for we will
be like Him...In all indications this is in spirit form or a
body of light. [/quote] While I agree that in our purely
spirit (not spiritual) state, we may have or be able to exhibit
ourselves as bodies of light, I do not accept the theosophist
ideas that we are still have bodies of light as humans hidden in
/ by the flesh.
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509] Now, I ask you a question? What part or parts
of our bodies can not be found in heaven? ONLY
one---Bone......Flesh and Blood not allowed.[/quote] If Flesh
and blood are not allowed in heaven then they cannot be found in
heaven...?This sentence contradicts itself.
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509] Therefore, a body of light made up of
bone....This Jesus told to Thomas who did not believe Him in the
upper room. [/quote] Told Thomas what ! ? John 20:25 So the
other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he
replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my
finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side,
I will never believe.”26 Eight days later, His disciples were
once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with
them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with
you.”
27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at
My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop
doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus said nothing about His body! And what did Thomas touch?
Light or bone? <head shake> He touched His resurrected flesh!
Who wrote the text you are alluding to; it contradicts all the
other Christian bibles, where in Jesus claims that in the
resurrection He was still flesh and bone: Luke 24:38 “Why are
you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your
hearts? 39 Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch
Me and see— for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you
see I have.”
How do you get from here to our spirit bodies having no flesh
nor blood but only bone???
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=459.msg16225#msg16225
date=1597375509]Once Adam NOT Eve ate of the fruit, he was
fallen to the point that his body of light was transfigured
backwards to Flesh and Blood. This Blood is inherited by every
person born of woman. [/quote] The Bible has Adam being formed
from the dirt and Eve being formed from a bone from Adam...so to
be created a body of light before he sinned (so he could fade
from light to flesh after sinning) he had to be created as light
before his becoming flesh and blood on earth, not just becoming
flesh after he sinned by eating"... in other words, he sinned in
the flesh so to go from light to flesh after his sin he must
have been light before his sin...on earth, with GOD, in the
garden.
This is a convoluted form of Pre-Conception existence theology
which contends we were all CREATED as spirits in the spirit
realms and then sinners (only sinners) were sent to earth to
inhabit flesh and blood bodies to fulfill their needs as
sinners. Since we were separated into elect and non-elect before
the foundation of the earth by our own free will decisions about
YHWH, and only sinners are born on earth, this is a logical
order of things.
If you weren't blinkered by the doctrine of our creation being
on earth, you could understand it.
[/quote]
A lot of what you say is correct and a lot incorrect...However,
it would serve no purpose to continue for neither you nor I will
change our minds...
Blade
#Post#: 16335--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: patrick jane Date: August 16, 2020, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It does serve a purpose Blade.
#Post#: 16349--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2. Genesis Study Continued...
By: guest8 Date: August 16, 2020, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=459.msg16335#msg16335
date=1597588226]
It does serve a purpose Blade.
[/quote]
I agree with you that it does serve a purpose for the larger
picture as readers see both sides. I was strictly speaking of
mine and His theology! I should be a little more careful or
sensitive to that point of view.
Thanks, my Brother in Christ.
Blade
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page