10 BRIDEMAIDS

[posthuman]

i understand that there's a buildup of justifying allegorical, symbolic language in the text before you can spring the whole "it's all about sex with Satan guess where Cain comes from" spiel

And i don't disagree with allegorical methods. i just hold that the literal is always ALSO true and designed and recorded by God to teach the allegory, which is always pointing to Christ when properly interpreted.

i don't set the literal aside unless the text specifically tells me i am reading someone's vision or dream, etc.
when it reads as history, it's historical fact, and the details recorded are chosen because they give ALSO the Christological allegory.

so that's my other objection, having completely set aside the literal text because it's presented as narrative history, not as a symbolic vision.

 

[posthuman]

agree that there is symbolism of spiritual adultery.

disagree there is literal sexual deviance.

 

[posthuman]

BTW @Truthnightmare

No offense taken or intended - enjoying talking with you and being able to have this conversation

i'm sure i hold beliefs/ideas you'll think are nuts too, and welcome criticism - i am sure i have plenty of things wrong!

iron sharpening iron et al

 

[Magenta]

The contradiction is in Bullinger's interpretation of "eat of the tree" which he states by fiat in his "companion Bible" commentary.

quote:

neither shall ye touch it. This sentence is added. Compare Genesis 2:18 , Genesis 2:17 . There is another word in this verse we need to consider, and it is the word "touch". God's command to Eve was; "neither shall ye touch it. "The Hebrew word for "touch" is # H5060 in the Strong's dictionary is ( Naga, a prime root, prop. to touch, i.e., lay the hand upon ( for the purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman), to reach) , So we see that the warning to Adam and Eve specifically, was to stay away from Satan called both the "serpent", and the "tree of good and evil". The fruit of that tree was not to be taken; and we know that the "fruit" as the results of a sexual relationship between any man and woman is a child. God's command was that Eve "not touch (lay with Satan)." So, we see that the order by God is that Eve not have sexual union with Satan .​

Sounds quite similar/akin to the heretical serpent seed doctrine.

 

[Truthnightmare]

since Bullinger is explicit that "eat of the tree" = have sex with, and God also instructs both the man and his wife to freely "eat of the tree" with anything and everything that could by any stretch of the imagination be called a tree, Satan being the soul exception to their "appetite," Bullinger's position necessarily has God suggesting they enjoin in adulterous promiscuity with every other living soul they can find. which at that time amounts exactly to animals.

hence beastiality, as much as they can possibly manage to fit into their schedules, "freely"

I see your point, and it a logical one, but here’s where we differ.

Below are the three tree types in the Garden:

Gen 2:8-9
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And [1] out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the [2] tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the [3] tree of knowledge of good and evil. (KJV)​

The other trees in the Garden of Eden were fruit trees. It was these trees that God told Eve she could partake of:

Gen 3:2
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (KJV) tree =​

Satan, the serpent, was the tree that she could not partake of:

Gen 3:3
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. (KJV)​

Jesus was the Tree of Life before His time:

Gen 3:22
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)​

​

 

[Magenta]

I see your point, and it a logical one, but here’s where we differ.

I notice you keep acting as if post is putting forth his own beliefs when in fact he is explaining Bullinger's.

 

[Magenta]

Satan, the serpent, was the tree that she could not partake of:

Makes no sense that Satan would be a tree and a serpent at the same time, saying, eat me.

This is the type of nonsense you learn from your "smart" scholars?

 

[Magenta]

Jesus was the Tree of Life before His time:

There was no time when Jesus did not exist.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I notice you keep acting as if post is putting forth his own beliefs when in fact he is explaining Bullinger's.

I’m continually seeing “post from an ignored person” or something like that.. We can discuss anything…. But chill out…

 

[Magenta]

I’m continually seeing “post from an ignored person” or something like that.. We can discuss anything…. But chill out…

Chill out? Whoa, hold your horses! It simply looks like more misrepresentation from you...

When I pointed this habit of yours out before, you refused to own up to it and then falsely accused me.

So maybe it is you who needs to "chill out."

 

[Truthnightmare]

Chill out? Whoa, hold your horses! It simply looks like more misrepresentation from you...

When I pointed this habit of yours out before, you refused to own up to it and then falsely accused me.

So maybe it is you who needs to "chill out."

Someone replied to me and basically said they’ve been studying for like 16 years and my teachers are wrong… I thought it was you
but my apologies… I cant even find the response… Now that I think about it; it might have been that guy that said I was young..
Anyway… my bad.. But associating me with the father of lies is unwarranted.

 

[Magenta]

Someone replied to me and basically said they’ve been studying for like 16 years and my teachers are wrong… I thought it was you
but my apologies… I cant even find the response… Now that I think about it; it might have been that guy that said I was young..
Anyway… my bad.. But associating me with the father of lies is unwarranted.

There you go again misrepresenting what I said! I did not say I'd been studying pologetics for 16 years as you claimed, and I was simply commenting that in all the years that I have been practicing apologetics, I didn't think I'd ever seen another Christian put forth what you espouse about men being angels before being humans and that they will be again. Repeatedly misrepresenting what people say is a tactic of the father of all lies. That is Biblical. But you misrepresented even that comment, saying I made it because we disagreed, when that was not the reason I made the comment in the first place at all. I made it because you repeatedly misrepresented what was being said.

 

[Truthnightmare]

I notice you keep acting as if post is putting forth his own beliefs when in fact he is explaining Bullinger's.

Not all; Bullinger notes that the first time the word eth-ha-Adam man with article and particle presents itself is in Genesis 2.

But adam with article and particle clearly is shown in Genesis 1…. so me and Bullinger kinda get off on the wrong foot immediately.

 

[Truthnightmare]

There you go again misrepresenting what I said! I did not say I'd been studying pologetics for 16 years as you claimed, and I was simply commenting that in all the years that I have been practicing apologetics, I didn't think I'd ever seen another Christian put forth what you espouse about men being angels before being humans and that they will be again. Repeatedly misrepresenting what people say is a tactic of the father of all lies. That is Biblical. But you misrepresented even that comment, saying I made it because we disagreed, when that was not the reason I made the comment in the first place at all. I made it because you repeatedly misrepresented what was being said.

It’s not that serious… I don’t have any tactics, I thought it would be cool to discuss the Bible with people that believe
In Christ…

 

[Truthnightmare]

And so is @Truthnightmare, claiming men/humanity pre-existed their physical presence
on Earth, being angels before they were born and will be again at the end of this age. **
He has also asserted that animals were created between Adam and Eve when the text plainly states otherwise.

** That's a Mormon belief.

That’s not what I’m saying regarding animals.

 

[Truthnightmare]

let’s look at these animals
- In the creation event in the first chapter of Genesis, we see that the animals are created first, then man. In the second chapter FORMING of Adam, we see first THAT man, then the animals.

In the first chapter of Genesis the animals that are created are wild animals. In the second chapter of Genesis the animals are domestic (farm) animals (For Adam was the first husbandman - farmer {Gen 2:5}). In regards to this, you will notice that the animals of Gen 1:24 were "beasts of the EARTH", and those in Gen 2:19 were "beasts of the FIELD". These are two different Hebrew words, with two different meanings. Check out the various uses of "FIELD" in your Strong's. There was a reason that the Holy Spirit used two different words for the two different sets of animals:

EARTH: #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): KJV-- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.
FIELD: #7704 sadeh (saw-deh'); or saday (saw-dah'-ee); from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat): KJV-- country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

 

[ewq1938]

let’s look at these animals
- In the creation event in the first chapter of Genesis, we see that the animals are created first, then man. In the second chapter FORMING of Adam, we see first THAT man, then the animals.

In the first chapter of Genesis the animals that are created are wild animals. In the second chapter of Genesis the animals are domestic (farm) animals (For Adam was the first husbandman - farmer {Gen 2:5}). In regards to this, you will notice that the animals of Gen 1:24 were "beasts of the EARTH", and those in Gen 2:19 were "beasts of the FIELD". These are two different Hebrew words, with two different meanings. Check out the various uses of "FIELD" in your Strong's. There was a reason that the Holy Spirit used two different words for the two different sets of animals:

EARTH: #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): KJV-- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.​

FIELD: #7704 sadeh (saw-deh'); or saday (saw-dah'-ee); from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat): KJV-- country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

Isn't a field made up of Earth? Doesn't the Earth have fields? I don't see a significant difference between the two. Wild animals dwell in fields too you know. It doesn't have the definition of "farming field" as in a human worked part of land. I'm afraid the Hebrew isn't going to support you here.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Isn't a field made up of Earth? Doesn't the Earth have fields? I don't see a significant difference between the two. Wild animals dwell in fields too you know. It doesn't have the definition of "farming field" as in a human worked part of land. I'm afraid the Hebrew isn't going to support you here.

You may be correct… Surely we can agree we are dealing with two different words.

EARTH: #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): KJV-- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

FIELD: #7704 sadeh (saw-deh'); or saday (saw-dah'-ee); from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat): KJV-- country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.

We can put the Hebrew to the side, do you believe there were dolphins, and giraffes on Noah’s ark!

 

[ewq1938]

let’s look at these animals
- In the creation event in the first chapter of Genesis, we see that the animals are created first, then man. In the second chapter FORMING of Adam, we see first THAT man, then the animals.

In the first chapter of Genesis the animals that are created are wild animals. In the second chapter of Genesis the animals are domestic (farm) animals (For Adam was the first husbandman - farmer {Gen 2:5}). In regards to this, you will notice that the animals of Gen 1:24 were "beasts of the EARTH", and those in Gen 2:19 were "beasts of the FIELD". These are two different Hebrew words, with two different meanings. Check out the various uses of "FIELD" in your Strong's. There was a reason that the Holy Spirit used two different words for the two different sets of animals:

EARTH: #776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): KJV-- X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.​

FIELD: #7704 sadeh (saw-deh'); or saday (saw-dah'-ee); from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat): KJV-- country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.​

Psa 50:11 I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.

This is evidence that field (H7704) does not have the meaning of land where only domesticated animals are since this speaks of wild beasts of the field.

 

[ewq1938]

You may be correct… Surely we can agree we are dealing with two different words.

Two different words but not evidence for what you were hoping to prove. One does not only mean land for wild animals and the other does not only mean land for domesticated animals.