Born Again

Just curious. Since Adam was not immortal and would die eventually, what other "death" could it be? Which then opens up another problem. Since Adam was not immortal, death was alreaedy in the world, so Paul was wrong. Also, was Paul refering to human death or death in any respect?Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.

You are correct that death definitely existed before Adam & Eve ate any fruits, even before Eve existed. But remember that in the story there is also the Tree of Life. It is not clear if you had to keep eating from the tree to keep living forever but the prospect that Adam and Eve would eat from it is what the God in the story is afraid of and why they get banned from the Garden.Paul never says what stories he is basing his argument on and so it might not have been Genesis 2 & 3. If for example he is using death in the context of murder then he could be referring to Genesis 4 (Cain and Able) where one man murders his brother. That would at least make some sense, but again, it is only Cain that is marked and cursed, not all man kind.The Judaic take on the concept of Original Sin is not something passed down but rather simply a recognition that as humans we have a tendency to not do what is right when it is harder or more costly than doing what is wrong.The God in Genesis 2 & 3 is a pretty simplistic caricature, very human and with human failings, often unsure and fearful, kinda fumbling, learning on the job, a hands on tinkerer, personable, powerful, and the BIG difference being that Gods were immortal. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

All this is suppose to excuse you for suggesting a Yahweh who is not too bright or lied ? It seems that you are drawing attention away from your obvious failure to honor Yahweh.Would any of the rabbis that taught you about Rosh Hashanah suggest that Yahweh was not too bright or lied in Genesis 2 and 3 ?You see, even if you decided to be renewed thoroughly from this day forward, you still have a sin of the past that needs to be atoned for. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Leviticus 17:11) .So any renewal as a periodic "born again" Judiasm style still requires a justification from the guilt of past sins.The Son of God coming as the Lamb of God was what all the bulls, goats, lambs, and dove's blood pointed to in the Old Testament.So in the New Testament, justification through faith in Christ allows the human spirit to be born again - "the spirit is life because of righteousness"But let's consider you reasons for justifying you way of speaking about God in Genesis. I have my own thoughts about you "closer look" at Genesis 2,3. True - "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) Some people would only regard the stopping of the heart as them dying. And some people would regard "in the day" to not necessarily mean in the next 24 hours.I think it is open to some discussion. This verse alone has never been sufficient ground for me to assume lying or stupidity on the part of God.It well could be that Adam was so very much more alive than we experiencially know today, that for him to be damaged or for the process of death as we know it to have been started to operate in him, was in the eyes of God for this superb specimen to die.Even if we have a case where God postponed his demise, I would regard that as an act of mercy. The gratitude to which would hardly be expressed by returning a charge of God being stupied or lying.Maybe for him to start the process of dying was to God for him to die: "Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life ... Until you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For dust you are and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:17b,19) The possibilities exists:1.) For him to begin to decay was for him to die.
2.) God mercifully prolonged the event of his dying.
3.) "In the day" has a more general meaning.
4.) This original man's life was so superb and "very good" that to die meant to God something we fallen men cannot rightfully appreciate. I don't see this as God not knowing what His plan is or what is going on at all.Yes, I do recognize that it is written to communicate some human like attributes of God - "And Jehovah God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a heper as his counterpart" (Gen. 2:18) I think this is written this way for OUR sakes. This is written this way to help our understanding of the One whom the Hebrew Bible said: God interacted with man with attributes of love reminiscient of man's emotions. He drews the creatures of His love with the cords of a man.I never have taken God asking Adam "Where are you?" or "Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you not to eat?" or such other human like utterances to do damage to God's omniscience and omnipresence.Genesis says that God came in the cool of the evening and Adam heard the sound of Him. I think this was Christ or the Angel of Jehovah in His pre-incarnated appearance coming to draw and deal with His creature with the cords of a man.Man was created in God's image and according to His likeness. This should not mean man's omnipresence, omniscience, or omnipotence. It has to mean something else that causes God and man to correspond to each other. This is more of the same error with a touch of sarcasm.I kept on reading the Bible. I didn't assume Genesis 3 was the end of the revelation of God. It is obvious from too much of the rest of the Old Testament that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.Yet at times this transcendent God can go along with man as a manner like man yet sinless.God came to have lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18. Three men appeared. And God said He was going to Sodom to see if the rebellion there was as great as the cry which was coming up before Him in heaven. Yet, only TWO angels appeared in the city.Here you have a bit of a mixture in the same book of Genesis. God seems quite localized and yet He retains that transcendent nature too.Compare: "And Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre as he was sitting at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and there were three men standing opposite him. (Gen. 18:1) "And Jehovah said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, how great it is; and their sin, how very heavy it is!

​

I shall go down and see whether they have done altogether according to its outry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know.

​

And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before Jehovah." (vw. 20-22) Jehovah God says He needs to go down to see Sodom and Gamorrah to get some information. But only two men [angels] appear there to get the details while God speaks to Lot out of heaven: "And He [God] said to him [Lot], I now grant you this request also, that I will not overthrow the city concerning which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there; for I cannot do anything until you arrive there ... Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorah brimestone and fire FROM JEHOVAH OUT OF HEAVEN." (Gen 19:21,22,24 My emphasis) In Genesis then you have a combination of anthropomorphic appearances of God with more transcendent indications. " ... and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. (Gen 1:2) In the same book God looks far into the future and predicts history. Why should He not know where Adam is hiding or whether the people of Sodom are really that rebellious: "And He said to Abram, Know assuredly that your seed will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and they will serve them; and they will afflict them four hundred years. ... And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Gen 15:13,16) I do not take the anthropic manifestations of God in Genesis to undermind His more transcendent divine attributes, such as omnipresence and omniscience. "God is not a man that He should lie ..." (Number 20:19) The book begins with God creating the universe with time, space, matter and energy, let alone life itself.I don't go along with Him not being able to figure out some things by the third chapter.Do I detect an eagerness on your part to assign negatives to God whom you admit you try to honor with renewal around the time of Rosh Hashanah ?This doesn't add up to one who is suppose to take the sacred Jewish holy days seriously. Exodus 20:7 has the command - "You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain, for Jehovah will not hold guiltless him who takes His name in vain." Don't you feel you need forgiveness from God for taking His name in such a manner, to suggest God is not too bright or a liar ?You see, the need for justification from our sins is serious business.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Nope, not at all.Please learn to read.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll work on my reading comprehension. And you can still explain which part of this sentence I need to re-read for better understanding.Maybe, you say, God is not too bright or well could have lied. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You don't have to rearrange anything, just learn to read what it actually says.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I didn't ask what do I need to re-arrange. I said what do I need to re-read.Watch your reading accuracy there Charlie.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I'll try to help you.Remember, the god in Genesis 2&3 is not all that bright. He could well have lied, been wrong or changed his mind.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You're too good to me jar ! Shrug.Oh well, moving on I guess.The God in Genesis 2 and 3 is the same God who created the heavens and the earth in chaper 1.I think it took a good deal of understanding to be the origin of everything that exists.I don't know. Maybe you want me to focus on "changed his mind" and just quickly skate over that God could have lied (thus being a liar) or was not too bright.Is that it? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Uh, no, the Genesis 1 fable is a MUCH later story from an entirely different culture with an entirely different caricature of God.The God in the fable told in Genesis 2 & 3 is quite different.AbE: and no, the God in Genesis 2 & 3 either lied, changed his mind or was simply wrong. Edited by jar, : AbE:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So your reasoning is to unilaterally pronounce two fables there.
And neither account you believe.The Bible refers to the holy day you call Rosh Hoshanah as Yom Ha-Zikkaron (the day of remembrance) or Yom Teruah (the day of the sounding of the shofar). The holiday is instituted in Leviticus 23:24-25. [According to "Judiasm 101 " - Rosh Hashanah - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ) ]Do you regard this as a fable also ?I don't think your issue has to do with reading comprehension at all. It has to do with your not believing the words of Genesis as God's truth.That is not a reading comprehension issue of your sentence, for me.I take God as exceedingly profound. I mean this is the uncreated and Eternal One - the very ground of being, Creator of all.That the unfolding of the nature of God would be revealed to man through 66 books and over a period of about 1500 years, seems appropriatee for God.I do not constrain the revelation of God with what I would consider a foolish consistency. He created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1. He enters into His creation and converses with Adam in chapters 2 and 3.This does not cause me to jump to the conclusion of TWO fables. If I go down that path, pretty soon I will need three fables and four fables and five or six fables, as I continue read of the gradual unfolding of God's nature.I think the better way is to be enlarged in my heart to embrace a progressive revelation of this profound Being.Assuming that Genesis is a hodgepodge of scraps of untrue fables pasted together assumes the editor or writer of it was not as intelligent as his readers. This is also an unsatisfactory prejudice.First of all it is an unprovable assumption that untrue fragments were stuck together to form chapters 1 through 3. You cannot pronounce that with conclusive authority because you really don't know that.When you start chopping away at the Pentatuch pronouncing sections as fables, when you arrive at Leviticus, from which you derive your historic bases of "Rosh Hashanah" we have to assume your inventive alternative explanations for the history of the Jews.You tamper with Genesis deciding two or three untrue fables were artificially pasted together, and what happens to Abraham [Abram] in chapter 11 right after created man's rebuke at the Tower of Babel?The history of Genesis seamlessly supports the calling of Abraham as the father of the called race. And the word Hebrew is used the first time for this man (in Joshua).You attempt to slice away this and that attached fable and you have to invent and insert your alternatives to explain the history of the Jews. Leviticus looses its bases and the importance of any renewal for the Jewish New Year is weakened.Why take it seriously if it all stands on fables ? Yahweh's existence and purposes come into question. The word of God has been replaced with human imaginations more palatable to what man wants to believe in a very selective way.I will take the God of Genesis 1 to be the same God of Genesis after chapter 1, Genesis 2 on. I take seriously the continuity of the revelation. I believe I can trust God's word in Genesis: "Every word of God is tried; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

​

Do not add to His words, Lest He reprove you and you be found a liar." (Prov. 30:5) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Unprobable corrected to be UnprovableEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well, disregarding what others said about Jesus would be self defeating for you. We would have to disregard you too.What the New Testament says, "particularly what Jesus said ..." is that to be born again was to be born of the Spirit as regards the human spirit: " ... that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" The disciples received the Spirit after His resurrection when He breathed upon them saying "Receive the Holy Spirit".If you teach that they were born of the Spirit without receiving the Spirit then I would ask what was the need to receive the Holy Spirit ?You see born of the Spirit and receiving the Spirit has to be a matter of union, mingling, and interpenetration of the Spirit of God of God with the human spirit. And the New Testament has Jesus pronouncing the most likely scenario for this mingling to commence after His resurrection in John 20.There He said "Receive the Holy Spirit". And Peter, who was considerably closer to the events then either you or I, writes "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who ... regenerated us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well, yes, the whole Biblical Exodus story is a fable and it's very unlikely that Moshe ever lived.But Leviticus itself is not a fable, it is the book that sets out the rules, rituals and practices for a culture. It does that in two distinct parts. The first section is the set of rules and practices for the Levites, the priestly cast. The second set is a collection of social and moral guidelines for the Hebrew people.Leviticus and Genesis 1 were likely written about the same time, long after the tales that were found in Genesis 2 & 3.Leviticus does refer back to the fables and traditions that helped form Judaism as cultural references.You make several totally false assumptions it seems; first by believing that YOUR Bible is "THE BIBLE" and not just the bible your chapter of Club Christian has created. Second, that I add to any of the Bible; I don't, you do. Third, that being a fable is somehow bad or makes the lessons taught false. Finally, that there is continuity and common purpose throughout the different Bibles that man created through committees of Canon.You also miss the true value of stories. When we look, for example, at the fable in Genesis 1 and at the fable in Genesis 2 & 3 we get a snapshot of how the peoples of those two distinct periods, of those distinct cultures each viewed God. It is their portrait, a caricature of how they saw God and their relationship with God. We see the Gods that they created.And last, in relation to the thread topic you still don't seem to be able to read.If you look at what I have said I have repeatedly pointed out that it is the period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that is annual celebration of being Born Again. It is the annual time when each person is charged to honestly evaluate their lives, acknowledge their failings, try to make amends and commit to doing better in the future.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That considerably weakens your whole basis for taking seriously any Jewish version of Born Again renewal.It might be a convenient stance to take to avoid New Testament Gospel proclamations. But in underminding the authenticity of the book of Exodus you vastly weaken any serious historical foundation for a Jewish interaction with God OR any serious need for spiritual renewal in relation to God. It is an interesting topic to get into, perhaps under Faith and Belief Section of the Forum. I think I will follow more closely with the matter of regeneration on this discussion.I won't, in this discussion, be getting very deeply into the textural criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures. These are assumptions of textural critical studies which I will not be getting too much into here. You are of course speaking on behalf of your own "Club" of skeptical destructive higher criticism.The perculiar thing is that you do not recognize that you represent an exclusive Club while leveling the charge at others. It is amusing that you do not recognize the own textural critical Club which assumes fable here, assigning dates there, pronouncing sources here and there, etc. all with impressive confidence.How come you don't see yourself as an elite member of a Club of skeptical textural critics ?All the while your claim to none mythic, non-fable foundation for practicing Jewish holy days is drastically weakened. My emphasis in that quotation of Proverbs was really more along the line of the Scripture being tried and pure.I don't see you adding so much to Scripture. I see you chopping away accoding to your Club of skeptical destructive higher critics. You seem to be attempting to be a charter member of this Club. The Club which covets your allegience hopes you will join them to unilaterally pronounce the Old Testament as mostly fable. After destroying the validity of the Revelation your Club sometimes seeks to salvage something worthwhile from an socialological viewpoint. And once again, you are attempting to make a matter of unbelief on your part a matter of reading comprehension on mine.It doesn't effect in the least your implication of a moronic and lying Yahweh. I think I would rather call a spade a spade.Periods, intervals, etc notwithstanding - you suggest it makes more sense to see Yahweh in part of Genesis as not too bright and/or a liar, and wishy washy.I have no problem in recognizing that chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis reveal a change in emphasis and focus. How this happened, I don't know. I don't think your Club of Skeptical Unbelief knows either.And this way of reasoning, as I said, opens a door for someone to excuse ANY portion of Genesis that he doesn't like, to the pasted in inferior writings of a different era.Why stop at the chapter division? One can go on to assign different sentences to different writers. One may go on and decide even in ONE sentence - one portion was written by one author at this time, and another was attached by a different author in another time.I do think there is some constructive textural criticism. But I am into helping people believe the Bible. The destructive higher criticism is into helping people to NOT believe the Bible.That's your Club. You'll get a few sympathizers for your Club here though. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have learned something here which is useful. Thanks.However, it does NOTHING for your comments of moral failure of Yahweh.But aside from that, is any Hebrew word LITURALLY "Born Again" in the Old Testament ?And I think you should think about that fact that even with this period of re-dedication and positive confession, God still promised a NEW COVENANT in Jeremiah chapter 31.Confession and conviction with an attitude to have a better year, is great. It still did not stop God from prophesying of a New Covenant to come.The New Testament was that new covenant. The Testator was Jesus who died, making the covenant a testament. And the bequests of it were bequeathed to the believers - including regeneration in the innermost part of man, the spirit, by the Holy Spirit. "... that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.