10 BRIDEMAIDS

posthuman · Sep 10, 2023

No.

Genesis isn't a parable or a weird sexual encounter.
It's a literal recounting of actual events purposefully not exhaustive but zeroing in on exactly the details we need to understand the exact thing it means to convey.

while there is allegorical symbolism and purposeful foreshadowing and typology in all the scripture, testifying of Christ, God called them trees and they are literal trees with literal fruit.

God is not a deceiver.

The allegory does not supplant the literal but coexists with it, the only exception being where we are specifically told we are being given visons and signs.

Truthnightmare · Sep 10, 2023

Magenta said:

Are you familiar with Christian David Ginsburg? How about EW Bullinger?

Ginsburgs gathering of manuscripts lead to what we call the Massorah. EW Bullinger was the only “American” scholar that was allowed to translate the Massorah into English.

Al the oldest and best manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible contain on every page, beside the Text (which is arranged in two or more columns), a varying number of lines of smaller writing, distributed between the upper and lower margins. This smaller writing is called the Massorah Magna or Great Massorah, while that in the side margins between the columns is called the Massorah Parva or Small Massorah.
The illustration given on p. 32 is a reduced facsimile of a Hebrew MS. (16 1/4 inches x 12 3/8), written in a German hand, about the year A.D. 1120. The small writing in the margins in this particular MS. is seen to occupy seven lines in the lower margin, and four lines in the upper; while in the outer margins and between the three columns is the Massorah Parva.

The word Massorah is from the root masar, to deliver something into the hand of another, so as to commit it to his trust. Hence the name is given to the small writing referred to, because it contains information necessary to those who trust the Sacred Text was committed, so that they might transcribe it, and hand it down correctly.

The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to count, or number). Their work, under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon; and we read of it in Neh. 8:8 (*1)(cp. Ezra 7:6, 11). The men of "the Great Synagogue" completed the work. This work lasted about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410 - 300 B.C.

The Sopherim were the authorized revisers of the Sacred Text; and, their work being completed, the Massorites were the authorized custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Massorah is called "A Fence to the Scriptures," because it locked all words and letters in their places. It does not contain notes or comments as such, but facts and phenomena. It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words, &c. All this, not from a perverted ingenuity, but for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss of misplacement of a single letter or word.

This Massorah is not contained in the margins of any one MS. No MS. contains the whole, or even the same part. It is spread over many MSS., and Dr. C. D. Ginsburg has been the first and only scholar who has set himself to collect and collate the whole, copying it from every available MS. in the libraries of many countries. He has published it in three large folio volumes, and only a small number of copies has been printed. These are obtainable only by the original subscribers.

When the Hebrew Text was printed, only the large type in the columns was regarded, and the small type of the Massorah was left, unheeded, in the MSS. from which the Text was taken. When translators came to the printed Hebrew Text, they were necessarily destitute of the information contained in the Massorah; so that the Revisers as well as the Translators of the Authorized Version carried out their work without any idea of the treasures contained in the Massorah; and therefore, without giving a hint of it to their readers.

This is the first time that an edition of the A.V. has been given containing any of these treasures of the Massorah, that affect so seriously the understanding of the Text. A vast number of the Massoretic notes concern only the orthography, and matters that pertain to the Concordance. But many of those which affect the sense, or throw any additional light on the Sacred Text, are noted in the margin of The Companion Bible.

Some of the important lists of words which are contained in the Massorah are also given, viz. those that have the "extraordinary points" (Ap. 31); the "eighteen emendations" of the Sopherim (see Ap. 33); the 134 passages where they substituted Adonai for Jehovah (see Ap. 32); and the Various Readings called Severin (see Ap. 34). These are given in separate Appendixes; but other words of any importance are preserved in our marginal notes.

Readers of The Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students. For further information on the Massorahsee Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction the the Hebrew Bible, of which only a limited edition was printed; also a small pamphlet on The Massorahpublished by the King's Printers.

Truthnightmare · Sep 10, 2023

Scholars much smarter than you, believe what I believe…. So the card you are attempting to play is rather insulting… Believe what you wil… It was nice to meet you.

Truthnightmare · Sep 10, 2023

posthuman said:

Then you should have no problem giving adequate rebuttal to the following…

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the followin 1000 g words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17). Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay"beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being. We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

Truthnightmare · Sep 10, 2023

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis(see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said. When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20). This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation. If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3). It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief : for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son". All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said. The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17). The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

Magenta · Sep 10, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Scholars believe all kinds of nonsense.

Ephesians 5:6-7

Magenta · Sep 10, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Is God not omniscient in your view?

Do you really think something has to happen before God knows about it?

Isaiah 46:10

Magenta · Sep 10, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Certainly heard the names before, but I don't see anything attesting to either Bullinger or Ginsburg believing men
were angels before being born and will be following the resurrection and judgment of all at the end of this age.

posthuman · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

yup, easily.

Genesis 2:16

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat"

posthuman · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Marcion was very well educated, too.
That because someone is scholarly, their theology is correct, is a logical fallacy

Truthnightmare · Sep 11, 2023

Magenta said:

First one must understand what an spirit or angel is..

The word ruach occurs 389 times in the Hebrew O.T. n the A.V. it is rendered spirit in 237 passages (and no other word is rendered spirit except neshamah, "breath", in Job 26:4 and Prov. 20:27. See Ap. 16). In the remaining 152 places it is translated in 22 different ways, which are to be carefully distinguished.

[In the R.V. ruach is rendered spirit 224 times, and in the remaining 165 passages is rendered in many different ways.] The meaning of the word is to be deduced only from its usage. The one root idea running through all the passages is invisible force. As this force may be exerted in varying forms, and may be manifested in divers ways, so various renderings are necessitated, corresponding thereto.

Ruach, in whatever sense it is used, always represents that which is invisible except by its manifestations. These are seen both externally to man, as well as internally within man. As coming from God, it is the invisible origin of life. All apart from this is death. It comes from God, and returns to God (Ecc. 3:19, 20). Hence, ruach is used of :

GOD,
as being invisible. "The Spirit of Jehovah" is Jehovah Himself, in His manifestation of invisible power.
2Sam. 23:2. Ps. 139:7 ( = Thee). Is. 40:13.
THE HOLY SPIRIT:
the Third Person of the Trinity.
2Sam. 23:2. 1Kings 18:12; 22:24. 2Kings 2:16. 2Chron. 18:23. Neh. 9:20, 30. Job 26:13; 33:4. Isa. 40:13; 48:16; 59:19, 21; 61:1; 63:10, 1-4. Ezek. 3:12, 14 (1st); 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5. Mic. 2:7; 3:8. Zech. 4:6; 6:8; 7:12. Mal. 2:15.
INVISIBLE DIVINE POWER MANIFESTING ITSELF
In creation. Gen. 1:2.
In giving life. Ezek. 37:14.
In executing judgment--
"blast." Ex. 15:8. Isa. 37:7.
"breath." 2Sam. 22:16. 2Kings 19:7. Job 4:9; 15:30. Ps. 18:15; 33:6. Isa. 11:4; 30:28.
"spirit." Isa. 4:4; 28:6; 34:16; 40:7.
INVISIBLE "POWER FROM ON HIGH", MANIFESTING ITSELF AS DIVINE POWER
in giving spiritual gifts . Spoken of as coming upon, clothing, falling on, and being poured out. Rendered "Spirit", but should be "spirit".
Gen. 41:38. Ex. 28:3; 31:3; 35:31. Num. 11:17, 25, 26, 29; 24:2; 27:8. Deut. 34:9. Judg. 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14. 1Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13, 14; 19:20, 23. 2Kings 2:9, 15. 1Chron. 12:18; 28:12. 2Chron. 15:1; 20:14; 24:20. Ps. 51:11, 12; 143:10. Prov. 1:23. Isa. 11:2.; 30:1; 32:15; 42:1, 5; 44:3; 59:21; 61:1; 63:11. Ezek. 2:2; 3:24; 11:5, 19; 36:27; 39:29. Dan. 4:8, 9 18; 5:11, 12, 14. Joel 2:28, 29. Hag. 2:5. Zech. 12:10.
THE INVISIBLE PART OF MAN (Psychological).
Given by God at man's formation at birth, and returning to God at his death.
"Breath." Gen. 6:17; 7:15, 22. Job 9:18; 12:10; 17:1. Ps. 104:29; 135:17; 146:4. Ecc. 3:19. Jer. 10:14; 51:17. Lam. 4:20. Ezek. 37:5, 6, 8, 9, 10. Hab. 2:19. Zech. 12:1.
"spirit." Gen. 6:3. Num. 16:22; 27:16. Job 27:3; 34:14. Ps. 31:5; 104:30. Ecc. 3:21; 8:8; 11:5; 12:7. Isa. 42:5. "Wind." Ezek. 37:9.
THE INVISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAN;
manifesting themselves in states of mind and feeling (by the Fig.Metonymy. See Ap. 6, p.11).
"Mind." Gen. 26:35. Prov. 29:11. Ezek. 11:5; 20:32. Dan. 5:20. Hab. 1:11.
"Breath." Job 19:17 ( = manner).
"Courage." Josh. 2:11.
"Anger." Judg. 8:3.
"Blast." Isa. 25:4.
"Spirit." Gen. 41:8; 45:27. Ex. 6:9; 35:21. Num. 5:14, 30; 14:24. Josh. 5:1. Judg. 15:19. 1Sam. 1:15; 30:12. 1Kings 10:5; 21:5. 1Chron. 5:26. 2Chron. 9:4; 21:16; 36:22. Ezra 1:1, 5. Job 6:4; 7:11; 10:12; 15:13; 20:3; 21:4; 32:8, 18. Ps. 32:2; 34:18; 51:10, 11, 12, 17; 76:12; 78:8; 142:3; 143:4, 7. Prov. 11:13; 14:29; 15:4, 13; 16:2, 18, 19, 32; 17:22, 27; 18:14; 25:28; 29:23. Ecc. 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9; 7:8, 9; 10:4. Isa. 19:3, 14; 26:9; 29:10, 24; 33:11; 38:16; 54:6; 57:15, 16; 61:3; 65:14; 66:2. Jer. 51:11. Ezek. 13:3. Dan. 7:15. Hos. 4:12; 5:4. Mic. 2:11 (by Hendiadys (Ap. 6), for a false of lying spirit).
Put by the Fig. Synecdoche for THE WHOLE PERSON (see Ap. 6).
Ps.3,6; 106.33 Ezek. 21.7. Dan. 2.1,3 Mal. 2. 15,16
INVISIBLE SPIRIT-BEINGS.
"Angels." Ps. 104:4.
"Cherubim." Ezek 1:12,20, 21; 10:17.
Neutral spirit-beings. Job 4:15. Isa. 31:3.
Evil angels. Judg. 9:23. 1Sam. 16:14, 15, 16, 23; 18:10; 19:9. 1Kings 22:21, 22, 23. 2Chron. 18:20, 21, 22. Zech. 13:2.
THE INVISIBLE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE ATMOSPHERE.
Temperature. Gen. 3:8 ("cool").
Air.
"Wind" or "winds" in every place where the words "wind" or "winds" occur.
"Whirlwind." Ezek. 1:4.
"Windy." Ps. 55:8.
"Spirits." Zech. 6:5.
"Air." Job 41:16.
"Tempest." Ps. 11:6.
"Blast." Ex. 15:8. 2Kings 19:7. Isa. 25:4; 37:7.
"Quarters" (of the four winds). 1Chron. 9:24.
"Side" or "sides" (of the four winds). Jer. 52:23. Ezek. 42:16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Truthnightmare · Sep 11, 2023

posthuman said:

Yea… and just because someone study’s apologetics for 16 years doesn’t make them correct either. This argument from a position of authority was not ushered in by me.

Magenta · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Who said I studied apologetics at all?????????????

You have a habit of changing what is said and then creating a false narrative around it.

Sounds like a tactic of... the father of all lies.

Truthnightmare · Sep 11, 2023

Magenta said:

Typical… accuse anyone who disagrees, with you as the devil or exhibiting devilish behavior… well no reason for you to speak with me… and obviously you missed the earlier hint: It was nice to meet you! As in goodbye.

Magenta · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

You may ignore me all you like, but that does not mean I must ignore you, nor does it mean when you
act falsely that I will not call you out on it. Same goes for your faulty reasoning regarding Scripture.

Hmmm, yeah, you change what is said but when it is brought to your attention you refuse to own up to it.

You simply howl in protest as if the charge was unwarranted when it is not.

If you are really ignoring me as you hint at, then you should not be responding to me at all.

Magenta · Sep 11, 2023

I have been online as a Christian doing apologetics for almost sixteen years, and I don't think
I ever heard what you are proposing here: that men were spiritual beings before being born, more
specifically, angels, and shall again be angels following the resurrection of all at the end of this age.
At least, not from another Christian. Whoever taught you this was a false teacher. It certainly is not Biblical.

That is what I said. I did not say NOT that I have studied apologetics for almost 16 years.

Then you name names of scholars, but I do not see them making the claims you have either.

So what was the point of you making such a logical fallacy (appeal to authority)?

ThyKingdomComeSoon · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Do you agree there are different types of angelic beings having different purpose? You know scripture better than I, you know this, Then why could man not be a different creation made in the image of GOD?

also for the angels, what were thay before they were created? simply they did not exist until GOD created them. it is the same for man.

Also God did breathe on man and it became alive;
Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

Could this mean God gave a spirit to the newly formed man? To me this explains the origin of the souls, it is from GOD.

May I suggest you start a new thread on this subject it might me of inerest for some on this forum.

Blessings

ThyKingdomComeSoon · Sep 11, 2023

Truthnightmare said:

Then you should have no problem giving adequate rebuttal to the following…

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the followin 1000 g words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17). Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay"beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being. We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

yeah I remember reading this in the appendices of the companion bible, a lot of speculation in these texts.

Magenta · Sep 11, 2023

ThyKingdomComeSoon said:

Yes, good points. Otherwise it can come across as a claim that all are eternal and
immortal just as God is, despite clear Scripture to the contrary. It is like the atheist
denial of primal cause, reverting to the logical fallacy of infinite regress instead.
Which is ridiculous to say the least, just as is the claim that men were angels before
physical birth and will be again following the resurrection and judgment of all at the
end of this age. Absolutely nothing in Scripture hints at this... and quite the contrary.

posthuman · Sep 11, 2023

posthuman said:

@Truthnightmare to explain why i say this succinctly wrecks Bullinger's position, he says that God means for us to interpret 'eat of the tree' as 'have sex with' and to interpret 'tree' as a person throughout Genesis 3.

If this is the case God then God is instructing Adam to commit beastiality with every animal in the garden before He gives him a wife.

Or God is completely inconsistent in His speech and nothing in the Bible is possible to interpret.

QED

10 BRIDEMAIDS

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member