Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 166 of 243 (510627)
06-01-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by John 10:10
06-01-2009 8:54 AM


Re: side note
John 10:10 writes:
You continue to evade the primary issue of what determines a Christian cult.
No, im not evading it.
I disagree with your source which states that if a christian church does not teach the trinity they are a cult.
That is not the true definition of a cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by John 10:10, posted 06-01-2009 8:54 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by John 10:10, posted 06-02-2009 6:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 167 of 243 (510638)
06-02-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Bailey
06-01-2009 12:45 PM


Re: conscientiousness
Hi Bailey,
Bailey writes:
Yes. I am interested in your opinion ... 1, 2, or 3?
1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?
2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the 'shame' which he also accrued in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?
3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place?
No. 2 is my view for the reason that, the nakedness was covered by the fig leaves, yet they still hide from God. As you said, little kids will run and hide when they've done wrong. Adam and Eve no longer felt comfortable facing God even after covering their loins, so it could not have only been nakedness that caused them to feel that way. They were the only two people alive so its not like they were hiding from anyone else.
Bailey writes:
Do you think that the realization of 'nakedness' and the consequent perception of being 'afraid' may not be equivocal in the narrative, although they are introduced in a causal relationship? Is there any sort of dichotomy to be found in the Lovebird's first perception, that being 'not ashamed', and their latter consequent of becoming 'afraid'?
They are somewhat related but for different reasons.
The nakedness they now saw in each other was no longer innocent and pure as previously. If these body parts were now rousing passionate thoughts, it would explain why they sought to conceal them.
On the other hand, with the guilty conscience that they were experienceing for their wrongdoing, they became afraid of God and no longer felt comfortable in his presence.
So a guilty conscience created a two fold effect
1. They developed an unnecessary fear of God
2. Lost their innocence leading to feelings of shame
Bailey writes:
If they break this one commandment, they will die that day, and so, being dead and all, they will not be able to countinue to 'dress and keep' the Garden, much less 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'.
Yet, the Lovebirds are still able to do all of these things after their Father's teaching is ignored, with the exception of 'dress[ing] and keep[ing]' the Garden.
This does not strike anybody as odd, considering they are supposed to be dead by sunset?
I dont think there is any point in applying such a rule here. What we DO know is that from the day that they ate from the fruit, life changed for them.
They lost their relationship with God
They lost their home
They lost their innocence
They were prevented from eating 'The Tree of Life'
They were dying from that day. They began to grow old and eventually they did die, just as God said they would. "from dust you are and to dust you will return"
God did not lie about that. "in the day of your eating" does not mean within 24 hours.
Bailey writes:
Do you feel it is more logical to extend a random figurative meaning to the word 'day' or should we allow the literal meaning to validate itself when interpreting the account?
I think we should allow the bible to interpret itself by looking at how other scriptures use the word 'day'. The meanings of 'day' are too varied to apply one single application here.
quote:
Gen 1:5 "And God began calling the light Day"
Gen 5:1 "This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam" Here the whole history of adams life is called a 'day' so it can rightly be said that Adam died in the 'day' God said he would.
Gen 8:22"For all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, will never cease" here the entire life span of the earth is called a 'day'
Sometimes the word "day" is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions 'a day’s journey'
Or a day can be used to identify a particular time
Luke 17: 26"Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Bailey, posted 06-01-2009 12:45 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Bailey, posted 06-05-2009 11:28 AM Peg has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 168 of 243 (510646)
06-02-2009 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CarlinKnew
05-21-2009 6:31 PM


I agree. I think a person has to make a decision based on history. You have to ask, looking around at the brilliance of the creation - "can God provide a Holy book which is factually true, which is a book of books stretched over thousands of years, which is His word?"
Now, in reality, there are no reasons to reject the bible as inerrant except doubting disbelieving skeptical type reasons which are seldom anything more than vacuous, stemming from the person's doubting sinful nature, which has enmity with God.
I think it's a choice. You place faith in two theories, each completely unproven, and assumed as fact, or you believe what you see - that the creation has no choice but to have been created, because it is self-evident that no organism could create itself, nor a universe. The number of assumptions behind such a naturalist position, are innumerable, if you look into it.
So I think that anyone can understand the bible.
The false church has lost it's battle against the evolutionists because it whimped out long ago. The pressure of scientific consensus got to them, and Christ didn't give them wisdom, because their hearts were far from him. Those who believe in Christ, all his miracles, and the true Adam He talked about, as an actual literal human, who brought in sin and suffering, have been given the answers. They know that micro-evolution removes information, and gives an "illusion" of something "new" existing, when infact that creative information was always in the previous gene pool. We know now that the fossils show 90 odd % recognisable creatures, which is what would follow if creation flood was true. We now know that only wet mud layers would preserve fossils ALL OVER the world, rather than isolated distributions, somehow being preserved in such a vast number. We know that bacteria is found in the fossils, as we recognise it - and we see that in billions of bacteria years, all bacteria can do is adapt to survive, as with flaggellum example. So even though they replicate thousands of times faster than humans, still they are bacteria becoming, guess what? Bacteria. It's like finding a human that is a zillion years old and still insisting that he evolved.
There are innumerable facts and evidences in favour of creation, IF and ONLY IF you are willing to accept this possibility. Atheists DENY everything because of their sinful nature, because they have already CHOSEN to either lie, whether it's to themselves or others, or are simply given over to their own sin. If they were honest - they would admitt that these amazing facts favour creation. I am yet to meet such a person who is willing to admitt those facts.
Every creature, every design, is clearly created, as it is impossible for it to come about alone. Nobody will have an excuse when they die - even if they give God a thousand opinions and apparent evidences. They can see that the world is created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CarlinKnew, posted 05-21-2009 6:31 PM CarlinKnew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by bluescat48, posted 06-02-2009 7:38 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 169 of 243 (510649)
06-02-2009 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Peg
06-01-2009 8:25 PM


Definition of Christian Cult
Then how about the source I gave you which said this?
A Christain cult is one who does not believe that the eternal Word of God became (was not created) flesh (John 1:14), died on a cross to redeem man from his sins, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father as Lord (Acts 2:33). This is God's revelation as revealed in the Bible, and manifested to us in the Person of Jesus who says "I and My Father are ONE (John 10:30).
There must be some reason why you are unwilling to tell us what you believe about Jesus, which is what primarily defines what is and what is not a Christian cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Peg, posted 06-01-2009 8:25 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Peg, posted 06-03-2009 3:05 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 170 of 243 (510655)
06-02-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by mike the wiz
06-02-2009 6:07 AM


So even though they replicate thousands of times faster than humans, still they are bacteria becoming, guess what? Bacteria. It's like finding a human that is a zillion years old and still insisting that he evolved.
Except for one thing, they are different bacterial species. The term Bacteria covers a wide range of groups, Neomura, Proteobacteria, Plantobacteria, cyanobacteria, Spirochetes, Sphingobacteria, Eobacteria, actinobacteria, & Firmocutes. Saying all bacteria were the same would be equivalent to saying that humans & jellyfish are the same.
Humans and Jellyfish are more closely related than cyanobacteria are to spirochetes.
Edited by bluescat48, : missing sentence.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2009 6:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 171 of 243 (510726)
06-03-2009 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by John 10:10
06-02-2009 6:54 AM


Re: Definition of Christian Cult
John10:10 writes:
There must be some reason why you are unwilling to tell us what you believe about Jesus, which is what primarily defines what is and what is not a Christian cult.
Jesus did indeed say "I and the father are one"
but he said a similar thing when speaking about his followers at John 10:16
"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd."
He also said at John 10:36
"do YOU say to me...‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? ...in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father."
Here, not only does he say that he IS GODS SON, he implies a unity of purpose with his Father. This does not mean that he IS the Father. It means he and the father act in unison. Just as a government official represents his governments party and carries out its policies, so did Jesus, he carried out the will of God, his Father.
And he wanted people to know where his message came from. Thats why he said: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." John 7:16.
"I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things." John 8:28
So now he says that what he speaks has been taught to him from his Father. Again he is not claiming equality with the Father, but showing that his position is subordinate...a student is not greater then his teacher.
"The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." John 14:10.
Once again the words of Jesus himself testify to his posiiton in relation to the Father. For the trinity to be true, these admissions by Jesus are false...quite frankly, i believe the words of Jesus over a pagan politician (constantine) 300 years later.
About the development of the trinity docrtine the Encyclopedia Britannica says :
quote:
"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
John, if you are honest, you surely would not take the word of a pagan politician over the words of Jesus Christ himself.
Unfortunately, the bishops at the council of Nicea were persuaded by Constantine to adopt this non biblical idea. But i wont adopt it and thankfully some christian churchs refuse to adopt it too.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by John 10:10, posted 06-02-2009 6:54 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by John 10:10, posted 06-03-2009 7:14 AM Peg has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 172 of 243 (510738)
06-03-2009 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Peg
06-03-2009 3:05 AM


Re: Definition of Christian Cult
Jesus did indeed say "I and the father are one"
but he said a similar thing when speaking about his followers at John 10:16
"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd."
Jesus was talking about Gentiles and any other sinner who would repent of their sins, and honor Jesus as Lord. Obviously you do not accept the whole counsel of God's Word concerning Jesus, especially Phil 2:5-11 and Acts 2:33-38. Maybe the Jesus you believe can save you from your sins and give you the gift of eternal life, but I know the Lord Jesus I believe in does.
Those who do not honor Jesus as the eternal Word who became flesh and now sits at the right hand of God the Father as Lord do not rightly divide the Word of God, preach another Gospel of Christ, and therfore belong to and a part of Christian cults.
It's as simple ans as difficult as that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Peg, posted 06-03-2009 3:05 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Peg, posted 06-03-2009 7:33 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 173 of 243 (510739)
06-03-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by John 10:10
06-03-2009 7:14 AM


Re: Definition of Christian Cult
John10:10 writes:
Those who do not honor Jesus as the eternal Word who became flesh and now sits at the right hand of God the Father as Lord do not rightly divide the Word of God, preach another Gospel of Christ, and therfore belong to and a part of Christian cults.
It's as simple ans as difficult as that!
and thats your prerogative
but for all the reasons I stated, and which you did not respond to, I cannot believe that Jesus is the Father. Jesus never claimed to be the Father
and your own words above that Jesus "now sits at the right hand of God the Father" shows that they are two separate individuals.
Paul showed this when he explained that Jesus is subject to the Father at 1Cor 15:27. Yes he explains that Jesus position is Above all others, but he says that Jesus is still subject to God.
quote:
"For [God] 'subjected all things under his feet.' But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that it is with the exception of the one (God) who subjected all things to him. (IOW, Everything has been made subject to Jesus with the exception of God the Father)
28But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."
So God the Father is the Almighty God whilst Jesus is the Son of the Almighty God.
But you can believe what you like. I just think its inaccurate to claim that disbelief in the trinity constitutes a cult. It doesnt sound like the Apostles or Jesus himself taught the trinity, so perhaps they established the first cult.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by John 10:10, posted 06-03-2009 7:14 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by John 10:10, posted 06-03-2009 8:50 AM Peg has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 174 of 243 (510749)
06-03-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Peg
06-03-2009 7:33 AM


Re: Definition of Christian Cult
and your own words above that Jesus "now sits at the right hand of God the Father" shows that they are two separate individuals.
These are not my words. They are the "revelation words of Peter" that he proclaimed on the day of Pentecost 10 days after Jesus ascended into into heaven, and the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ was born as 3000 souls repented of their sins, and received the gift of the Holy Spirit. So are the "revelation words of Paul" in Phil 2:5-11. The fact that you think Acts 2:33 shows that "they are two separate individuals" shows me that you do not understand what happened in John 1:12-14, what happened in Acts 2:33, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE GOD.
Yes, the prophetic words of Paul in 1 Cor 15:20-29 will come to pass as the Lord Jesus abolishes all rule and authority and power, then the Son Himself will be subjected to God the Father that God may be all in all.
This is the Gospel of Christ as proclaimed by Jesus (Luke 22:69), given to His Apostles, and is recorded in the Word of God. Yes, you can believe what you like, but those who rightly divide the Word of Truth get to define what is and what is not a Christian cult.
Pure and simple, a Christian cult is anyone who does not honor Jesus as Lord (Acts 2:36) who now sits at the right hand of God the Father (Acts 2:33).
Edited by John 10:10, : spelling error
Edited by John 10:10, : Added Luke 22:69 reference and definition of Christian cult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Peg, posted 06-03-2009 7:33 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by John 10:10, posted 06-13-2009 9:56 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 175 of 243 (510996)
06-05-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Peg
06-02-2009 1:00 AM


Re: conscientiousness
Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope things are well ...
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Yes. I am interested in your opinion ... 1, 2, or 3?
1) Do you feel as though Adam is stating that he still currently feels naked, even after sporting his figs?
2) Do you feel as though Adam is referring to the earlier time (Gen. 3:7) when he first perceived himself as naked; thus, implying that he no longer views himself in this manner with his figs on and that it is, instead, the fear ('afraid') which he also accrued, in addition to his original realization of 'nakedness', that is actually causing him to hide?
3) Do you feel that neither of the above statements accurately depicts what is taking place?
No. 2 is my view for the reason that, the nakedness was covered by the fig leaves, yet they still hide from God.
I agree ...
We may also agree that, when various details of the story are ignored, the notion that the Lovebirds are still being harassed by a previous realization of nakedness may gain plausibility much easier.
As arbitrary and vague definitions are extended to various words and phrases a similar pattern seems to present itself quite often.
btw, I noticed that you suggested the Lovebirds are running from their Father.
Why do you think it is Him they are running from, as opposed to the serpent?
As you said, little kids will run and hide when they've done wrong. Adam and Eve no longer felt comfortable facing God even after covering their loins, so it could not have only been nakedness that caused them to feel that way.
I agree. What other details are on the surface of the story that may suggest why the couple is still afraid, even after their issue with nakedness is dealt with, when they hear their Father's voice.
They were the only two people alive so its not like they were hiding from anyone else.
Whoaa, easy ...
Aren't you forgetting an integral character from the narrative ?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Do you think that the realization of 'nakedness' and the consequent perception of being 'afraid' may not be equivocal in the narrative, although they are introduced in a causal relationship? Is there any sort of dichotomy to be found in the Lovebird's first perception, that being 'not ashamed', and their latter consequent of becoming 'afraid'?
They are somewhat related but for different reasons.
The nakedness they now saw in each other was no longer innocent and pure as previously.
The story presents a dichotomy between being unashamed and then being afraid. Considering 'innocence' and 'purity' are not similies for 'unashamed', these additions of innocence and purity seemingly muddle the waters.
Why introduce foreign details that are not contained in the original story, when there are already plenty of details naturally available that are, in fact, often overlooked and/or ignored?
It would seem safer to suggest that the nakedness the couple perceived between each other was no longer providing a sense of composure and confidence. Do you agree?
If these body parts were now rousing passionate thoughts ...
lol - what bible you readin'?
When is the reader informed that Adam and Eve are innocent, pure or unaroused? I am not saying whether they were or otherwise, but I would trust the Bible quicker than your word.
Firstly, being unashamed is not equivocal to purity, innocence and unarousal. Secondly, I have yet to locate details of this nature (purity, innocence, unarousal, etc.) in the story.
The bible I have had the pleasure of perusing informs the reader that the couple becomes 'afraid'; at what verse is the reader informed that passionate thoughts are aroused between the Newlyweds ?
Also, if you are suggesting that the Lovebirds were not ashamed before they took from the Tree of Knowledge because they were pure, innocent and unaroused, I politely disagree.
Details of this nature have no grounding in the actual narrative as far as I can tell. Granted, the source of Adam and Eve's sense of fear and anxiety appear blatantly obvious.
It seems that the couple's sensation of being unashamed should transfer to their sense of being afraid by some derivative detail that is in the actual story, rather than accredit the event to some arbitrary details that are not in the original narrative and were innocently injected at a later time.
You disagree?
... it would explain why they sought to conceal them.
lol - I suppose if passionate thoughts were aroused between the couple, it may explain something; although I'm not sure what. For example, perhaps such passionate thoughts could explain, seemingly more naturally and much easier, how Cain and Able came about ...
Let's consider that the birthday suit twins became more like their Father, knowing Good and Bad, the same day that they realized they were naked. As soon as they make this observation, the couple begins to get dressed; as far as your concerned, was this a good move or a bad move?
On the other hand, with the guilty conscience that they were experienceing for their wrongdoing, they became afraid of God and no longer felt comfortable in his presence.
So, the couple's supposed fear of a penis and some nipples - caused by some 'bad' fruit - somehow encourages them to be afraid of their Father? Sorry Peg, this doesn't really appear to make much sense - didn't we already fill this hole anyway?
I thought we agreed the story does not suggest that the children are afraid of their Father because they were naked. It simply informs the reader that:
1) The couple realized they were not dressed.
2) The couple got dressed.
3) After the couple begins to realize things and become more like their Father, their previous sense of being unashamed turns to a sense of fear and anxiety.
With coherency as a standard, we can't suggest they were afraid of a penis and some nipples one second, just to turn around and suggest they were afraid of their Father the next ...
Can we?
So a guilty conscience created a two fold effect
1. They developed an unnecessary fear of God ...
Can you show me where the couple displays fear towards their Father or not?
Although it would seem excellent if you would, I'm assuming you will not, as you seldomly support your dogma with biblical inference.
Please surprise me ...
2. Lost their innocence leading to feelings of shame
First, the couple lost a sense of being unashamed; unashamed and innocence, again, are not equivocal.
Second, the lost sense of being unashamed lead to being afraid; however, it did not lead to a sense of shame.
Shameful and afraid are not similies.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
If they break this one commandment, they will die that day, and so, being dead and all, they will not be able to countinue to 'dress and keep' the Garden, much less 'be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth'.
Yet, the Lovebirds are still able to do all of these things after their Father's teaching is ignored, with the exception of 'dress[ing] and keep[ing]' the Garden.
This does not strike anybody as odd, considering they are supposed to be dead by sunset?
I dont think there is any point in applying such a rule here.
What do you mean by 'such a rule'; are you referring to rules of literacy, logic, coherency, honesty, etc.?
What we DO know is that from the day that they ate from the fruit, life changed for them.
I agree. We know that the day that they ate from the fruit they became more like their Father.
They lost their relationship with God
Chapter and verse please ...
Their Father does not abandon them in the bible I am reading.
They lost their home
Chapter and verse please ...
Their Father does not leave them homeless in the bible I am reading.
They lost their innocence
Chapter and verse please ...
There is a sense of being unashamed that becomes transformed into a sense of being afraid.
However, there does not appear to be any 'loss of innocence' in the Garden narrative.
They were prevented from eating 'The Tree of Life'
One out of four ain't bad ...
They were dying from that day.
... as opposed to the day that they were each created?
How does that follow? Again, unless one imposes immortality onto the couple within the narrative, we have to assume they began dying the day they were created; just like everybody else the Father ever created.
Do you have biblical inference to suggest immortality or are you just goin' with your gut?
They began to grow old and eventually they did die, just as God said they would. "from dust you are and to dust you will return"
God did not lie about that.
I agree.
"in the day of your eating" does not mean within 24 hours.
I disagree to an extent.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Do you feel it is more logical to extend a random figurative meaning to the word 'day' or should we allow the literal meaning to validate itself when interpreting the account?
I think we should allow the bible to interpret itself by looking at how other scriptures use the word 'day'.
It appears that moving the goal posts is pretty convenient too ... not very fair though.
What reason allows us to replace the value of a 'yowm' in this instance as opposed to any other usage of the term?
The meanings of 'day' are too varied to apply one single application here.
How many meaning does this application get?
lol - the rule of confusion states that: whenever a story does not fit what you have been told it suggests, freely substitute alternative definitions until the desired result is produced.
Is this what you are saying (kinda)?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : clarify ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Peg, posted 06-02-2009 1:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Peg, posted 06-06-2009 5:19 AM Bailey has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 176 of 243 (511098)
06-06-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Bailey
06-05-2009 11:28 AM


Re: conscientiousness
Bailey writes:
Why do you think it is Him they are running from, as opposed to the serpent?
because Adam says "YOUR voice I heard in the garden, but i was afraid because I was naked, so I hid"
Keep in mind that this was after he had covered his loins, so while he says he was afraid because of being naked, its more likely because he had disobeyed Gods command and was afraid of facing the consequences.
Bailey writes:
What other details are on the surface of the story that may suggest why the couple is still afraid, even after their issue with nakedness is dealt with, when they hear their Father's voice.
that fact that Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent shows that they were trying to escape the responsibility of their actions. How often do children blame the other child when something breaks or someone gets hurt? They do this because they dont want to take the blame and get into trouble. Adam and Eve did the same thing in the Garden.
Gen 1:12-13 "And the man went on to say "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate"...The woman replied: "The serpent, it deceived me and so I ate"
Bailey writes:
The story presents a dichotomy between being unashamed and then being afraid. Considering 'innocence' and 'purity' are not similies for 'unashamed', these additions of innocence and purity seemingly muddle the waters.
Yes, but consider the circumstances of how the situation changed. Gen 2:25 "And both of them continues to be naked, the amn and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
then after eating and disobeying Gods law:
Gen 3:6 "Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked, hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings...Later they went into hiding from God..."
So they realize they are naked, cover themselves in fig leaves then proceed to hide from God...so the only reason why they would hide now is because they are 'afraid' of facing the music which is shown by them each blaming someone else for their actions. Its like saying 'it wasnt my fault, she made me do it' and vice versa.
Bailey writes:
It would seem safer to suggest that the nakedness the couple perceived between each other was no longer providing a sense of composure and confidence. Do you agree?
composure and confidence in what?
In each other?? or in themselves? or in God???
Bailey writes:
When is the reader informed that Adam and Eve are innocent, pure or unaroused? I am not saying whether they were or otherwise, but I would trust the Bible quicker than your word.
In Gen 2:25 "And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
Bailey writes:
at what verse is the reader informed that passionate thoughts are aroused between the Newlyweds ?
Why do they now look at their genitals in a way that makes them cover them? They felt no need to do this previously, so something had caused them to change their view of these body parts...and it made them feel the need to cover them up or hide them in shame.
The people who moses wrote for understood this because their law stated at Leviticus 18:7"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare." And it was considered shameful if one was seen naked and in almost all instances where 'lay bare' nakedness is mentioned, its in the context of sexual sins.
Now the only way to commit a sexual sin is to perform a practice that is out of the bounds of God laws on sexual activity. ie sex outside of marriage, same sex relations, beastiality, masturbation etc. All these practices are out of harmony with Gods purpose with regard to sexual activity.
This helps us to understand why Adam & Eve tried to hide their genitals...they had stopped viewing them the way God viewed them and this caused them to feel shame which led them to covering themselves.
Bailey writes:
I suppose if passionate thoughts were aroused between the couple, it may explain something; although I'm not sure what. For example, perhaps such passionate thoughts could explain, seemingly more naturally and much easier, how Cain and Able came about
the only problem i see with this conclusion is that there was nothing sinful about the purpose to 'fill the earth'. Sex was entirely proper within this context as it was Gods purpose. The only thing that this new shame (as seen in their need to cover themselves) is that they were looking at their genitals in a way that was out of harmony with Gods purpose...ie self gratification for instance.
Just as disobedience led them to feel afraid of God, so does their new view of themselves make them feel ashamed...in both instances they had gone contrary to God purpose. This is sin and it made them independent from God and his purpose.
Bailey writes:
So, the couple's supposed fear of a penis and some nipples - caused by some 'bad' fruit - somehow encourages them to be afraid of their Father? Sorry Peg, this doesn't really appear to make much sense
Think about this.
A man and woman are attracted sexually to each other. This is acceptable and natural, nothing wrong with it.
How about this....
A man or woman is attracted sexually to a small child.
Still acceptable?
No because to look upon a child in a sexual way is unnatural.
But this is kind of what happened to Adam & Eve. They began to look at each other in a sexual way that was out of harmony with Gods purpose. This is why God condemns masturbation for instance because it does not contribute anything to the command to 'fill the earth'. It is purely for self gratification and therefore its out of harmony with how God wants the genitals to be used.
Somehow Adam and Eve knew this, they knew what the purpose of the genitals were and they knew they would use these body parts to fulfill the command to 'fill the earth'
But when they sinned, they began to look differently at their genitals and this caused them to feel shame which led to their need to cover them up.
Just look at the world today with its preoccupation with sex. Sex is everywhere and it is abused and misused. Women use sex as a tool to manipulate men, and men use women as 'tools' for self gratification.
Seriously, its so stuffed up its not funny. We can thank adam and eve for this, they started the ball rolling for us.
Bailey writes:
Can you show me where the couple displays fear towards their Father or not?
Although it would seem excellent if you would, I'm assuming you will not, as you seldomly support your dogma with biblical inference.
Please surprise me ...
I have already given you the verse. Gen 3:10
Bailey writes:
We know that the day that they ate from the fruit they became more like their Father.
how do you know that....in what way do they become more like their father and which verses are you using to show this?
Bailey writes:
Peg wrote:'They lost their relationship with God'
Chapter and verse please ...
Their Father does not abandon them in the bible I am reading.
After God confronts them, he proceeds to pronounce their punishment which includes death. From this point on they cannot be like God for they are now going to die...God does not die. Also as mentioned previously, they no longer view their genitals in the wholesome way the God does, and as 3:10 shows, they have become afraid of God.
quote:
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said "I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy' in birth pangs you will bring forth children and your craving will be for your husband and he will dominate you". And to Adam he said "Because you listened to your wives voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, 'You must not eat from it', cursed is the ground on you account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return"
Bailey writes:
How does that follow? Again, unless one imposes immortality onto the couple within the narrative, we have to assume they began dying the day they were created; just like everybody else the Father ever created.
Do you have biblical inference to suggest immortality or are you just goin' with your gut?
Well when he created them he said 'Be fruitful, become many, fill the earth and subdue it' No mention of death there...but he does mention death here...
quote:
Gen 2:16 'he laid this command upon the man: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must note eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it you will positively die"
So death would result from eating the fruit from that tree. But if Adam had never eaten from the tree then it stands to reason that he would not have died.
Mankind is mortal, it means they 'can' die. But so are the angels. They too are mortal which means they can die, but why dont they?
They dont die because they remain with God carrying out Gods purposes and keeping Gods commands. If Adam had of remained faithful, then he too would have continued to live.
Jesus showed that his life was dependent on the Father just as his disciples lives were dependent on him.
quote:
John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me"
So Adams life was dependent on a continued existence with God. But when he rebelled he became a sinner and was thus removed from his life source, God. He died as a result and we also die as a result. Thankfully, God has rectified this situation through Jesus.
this is far too long a post for my liking. The points i have not addressed here can be raised again later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Bailey, posted 06-05-2009 11:28 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Bailey, posted 06-06-2009 10:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 177 of 243 (511126)
06-06-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Peg
06-06-2009 5:19 AM


Re: conscientiousness
Thanks for the exchange Peg.
Hope your weekend is good ...
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Why do you think it is Him they are running from, as opposed to the serpent?
because Adam says "YOUR voice I heard in the garden, but i was afraid because I was naked, so I hid"
lol - I got that part ol' girl ...
I was wondering if you thought whether or not the children had any reason to fear the antagonist of the story ... what do you think ?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
What other details are on the surface of the story that may suggest why the couple is still afraid, even after their issue with nakedness is dealt with, when they hear their Father's voice.
that fact that Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent shows that they were trying to escape the responsibility of their actions.
How does one determine that the children are scapegoating, as opposed to reverently describing the course of events as they occured?
How often do children blame the other child when something breaks or someone gets hurt? They do this because they dont want to take the blame and get into trouble. Adam and Eve did the same thing in the Garden.
Why would one leave out such important details when questioned by their Father ?
How often are integral details purposefully left out of a defense ?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
The story presents a dichotomy between being unashamed and then being afraid. Considering 'innocence' and 'purity' are not similies for 'unashamed', these additions of innocence and purity seemingly muddle the waters.
Yes, but consider the circumstances of how the situation changed. Gen 2:25 "And both of them continues to be naked, the amn and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
then after eating and disobeying Gods law:
Gen 3:6 "Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked, hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings...Later they went into hiding from God..."
This is what I'm squawkin' about kiddo. The story does not say a sense of shame caused the kids to get dressed; this is an added detail. Now, I don't think that adding details is horrible, but this is how stories are changed. If the details are important, but we change them to our own reasoning, we may miss available insight ...
Granted, we'll have invented our own.
A realization is made after Eve decides her Father may not be spot on about that ol' Tree ...
The story says the Lovebirds got dressed, after they ate some fruit, because they realized they weren't. Within the narrative a realization caused the couple's dress rehearsal; not shame/unashamed or fear/unafraid.
When the couple had no sense of shame they ran 'roun naked.
When the couple realize they are naked they get dressed.
When the couple is afraid they hide.
'Unashamed' and 'unafraid' are not similies, anymore than 'shame' and 'fear' are.
Shame is not in the story. Unashamed is in the story.
Similarly, unafraid is not in the story, but afraid is.
I hope you can realize (& appreciate) the Father's attention to detail ...
So they realize they are naked, cover themselves in fig leaves then proceed to hide from God ... so the only reason why they would hide now is because they are 'afraid' of facing the music which is shown by them each blaming someone else for their actions. Its like saying 'it wasnt my fault, she made me do it' and vice versa.
Let's back up a second ...
What are the Newlywed's various expectations concerning the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
It would seem safer to suggest that the nakedness the couple perceived between each other was no longer providing a sense of composure and confidence. Do you agree?
composure and confidence in what?
In each other?? or in themselves? or in God???
I figured composure and confidence were equivalent to the opposite of being 'afraid'; hopefully you can begin to see how inviting our own words may continue to confuse things a bit.
Before the couple realized they were naked, they were not yet afraid; so they must have been confidently maintaining their composure ... right?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
When is the reader informed that Adam and Eve are innocent, pure or unaroused? I am not saying whether they were or otherwise, but I would trust the Bible quicker than your word.
In Gen 2:25 "And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
Ok. This verse informs the reader that the couple has absolutely no sense of shame when meandering around without clothes on ...
However, that does not equate unarousal, innocence and purity to being unashamed; this appear to be some more added details.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
at what verse is the reader informed that passionate thoughts are aroused between the Newlyweds ?
Why do they now look at their genitals in a way that makes them cover them?
The bible plainly informs us that it is because they became more like their Father knowing good and bad; their Father does not encourage running 'roun in the ol' b'day suit, as may be inferred by the latter wardrobe change He provided.
They felt no need to do this previously, so something had caused them to change their view of these body parts ...
Correct. We are informed that the fruit caused the couple to realize that they had no sense of shame, at which point they become reverent and fearful towards, what they perceive as, their Father's voice.
and it made them feel the need to cover them up or hide them in shame.
Incorrect. Peg, shame and fear are not the same; shame is not in the story. I am unaware of the term 'fear' being used to connotate 'shame' within Hebrew scripture. However, I think you are aware that 'fear' often connotates a certain reverence within such texts.
The people who moses wrote for understood this because their law stated at Leviticus 18:7 "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare."
This seems to indicate that the Lovebirds were on the right track by getting dressed after making their startling realization. Do you agree?
And it was considered shameful if one was seen naked and in almost all instances where 'lay bare' nakedness is mentioned, its in the context of sexual sins.
Paying attention to context often causes us to gain a more full understanding; imposing a context will likely do the opposite ...
Perhaps we should refrain from imposing foreign contexts into the Garden narrative, if we have any desire to read it as the Father intended. What do you think?
Now the only way to commit a sexual sin is to perform a practice that is out of the bounds of God laws on sexual activity. ie sex outside of marriage, same sex relations, beastiality, masturbation etc. All these practices are out of harmony with Gods purpose with regard to sexual activity.
Ok ...
This helps us to understand why Adam & Eve tried to hide their genitals ...
How?
... they had stopped viewing them the way God viewed them and this caused them to feel shame which led them to covering themselves.
First off, other than the inference one may gain by accepting that the Father proceeds to cover the couple's genitals better then they, themselves, were first able to, the reader is certainly not informed how the Father veiwed the Lovebird's genitals.
You say that the couple became perverted and stopped viewing their genitals the way God viewed them.
The bible says the couple stopped viewing their genitals the way they previously had when they had no sense of shame.
Having no sense of shame is often what causes perversion.
Do you disagree?
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Peg, posted 06-06-2009 5:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Peg, posted 06-08-2009 3:42 AM Bailey has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 178 of 243 (511211)
06-08-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Bailey
06-06-2009 10:54 AM


Re: conscientiousness
Hi Bailey,
We've had a longweekend here so yes it was good thanks.
Bailey writes:
I was wondering if you thought whether or not the children had any reason to fear the antagonist of the story ... what do you think ?
Adam & Eve knew that God dwelt with many Angelic persons in heaven so perhaps A&E were covering up from not only the serpent, which was actually one of those angels in disguise, but from all onlookers meaning God and his myriads of angels.
Bailey writes:
How does one determine that the children are scapegoating, as opposed to reverently describing the course of events as they occured?
If you consider what repentance is and how it is exhibited, you'll see that Adam did not display it. Repentance is when we acknowledge our own guilt and show remorse. But Adam did not show this. Instead of accepting responsibility he tried to put the blame on Eve by claiming that he ate it because she gave it to him. IOW he only ate it because of her, not because of him.
This is why the apostles said that women should not become teachers of Gods laws because 'Eve was thoroughly deceived but Adam was not deceived' 2Cor 11:3 & 1Tim 2:14
If Adam was not deceived, then he took the fruit with full knowledge of what he was doing. IOW he deliberately disobeyed while Eve was tricked into disobedience.
Bailey writes:
Why would one leave out such important details when questioned by their Father ?
How often are integral details purposefully left out of a defense ?
It may seem like the information has been left out to us. But you have to remember that when bibles are translated, information that is apparent to the reader, can be lost. We can come to a clear understanding though by looking at the Apostles words and Jesus words. They give a jewish insight into how the story was understood by them. Its clear from their words that they understood it was Eve who was tricked and Adam who was not. Its also clear they believed that the serpent was actually the Devil.
Bailey writes:
The story does not say a sense of shame caused the kids to get dressed;
Again, this is when the rest of the bible and jewish culture must be taken into consideration. Nakedness is linked with shame in the scriptures. Mosaic laws regarding nakedness specifically say it is a 'shame' to them. Look at the middle east cultures today and we see the same thing, a woman cant even show her arms in some places.
Another example is in Gen 9:20-27 - when Canaan became cursed for looking at Noahs nakedness.
Also when Jewish guards were on duty at the temple, if they were caught sleeping on the job they were to be stripped naked as punishment. This was designed to humiliate him and they did this because a self-respecting persons feels a measure of shame at having their private parts exposed. Why? because when sin entered into the world, so did immoral desires and its these immoral desires that cause us to feel shame. Adam and Eve felt it too so they covered themselves up.
Think of it this way. Covering up was a way of covering up their new desires. Think of Onan. He was punished with death for emptying his semen on the ground. Why was that? Obviously he wanted the pleasure of sex but did not want to fulfill his Godly appointed duty to impregnate his dead brothers wife. So, to desire sex outside of Gods purpose is a sin and its this sin that led to shame.
Bailey writes:
What are the Newlywed's various expectations concerning the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge?
They knew that eating it would lead to death. [quote]Gen 3:2At this the woman said to the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. 3But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.'[/qs]
Bailey writes:
In Gen 2:25 "And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
Ok. This verse informs the reader that the couple has absolutely no sense of shame when meandering around without clothes on ...
However, that does not equate unarousal, innocence and purity to being unashamed; this appear to be some more added details.
No, this is true. But what would cause them to cover their genitals?
Have you ever wondered why Canaan was cursed when he looked in on Noahs nakedness in Gen 9?
Bailey writes:
The bible plainly informs us that it is because they became more like their Father knowing good and bad; their Father does not encourage running 'roun in the ol' b'day suit, as may be inferred by the latter wardrobe change He provided.
if that were true, then surely God would have made them clothing long before this event took place.
Bailey writes:
Correct. We are informed that the fruit caused the couple to realize that they had no sense of shame, at which point they become reverent and fearful towards, what they perceive as, their Father's voice.
But their shamelessness was good in Gods sight as can be seen by Moses words "and they continued naked and did not become ashamed" & "God saw everything he had made and look it was very good"
Bailey writes:
Incorrect. Peg, shame and fear are not the same; shame is not in the story. I am unaware of the term 'fear' being used to connotate 'shame' within Hebrew scripture. However, I think you are aware that 'fear' often connotates a certain reverence within such texts.
this idea is in harmony with Jewish thought & culture and various accounts about nakednesses that can be seen in the scriptures.
Remember, it important to understand how THEY understood nakedness seeing they are the ones telling the story.
Bailey writes:
This seems to indicate that the Lovebirds were on the right track by getting dressed after making their startling realization. Do you agree?
no i dont. The mosaic laws dictated how sex was to be used. If Adam and Eve had become more like God, then there would have been no need to give their children a strict set of Godly laws that regulated sexual activity...they would have already known and understood the sexual function and the purpose for it. It would appear that they did not view it or use it the way God had purposed which is why it had to be regulated.
Bailey writes:
First off, other than the inference one may gain by accepting that the Father proceeds to cover the couple's genitals better then they, themselves, were first able to, the reader is certainly not informed how the Father veiwed the Lovebird's genitals.
You say that the couple became perverted and stopped viewing their genitals the way God viewed them.
The bible says the couple stopped viewing their genitals the way they previously had when they had no sense of shame.
Having no sense of shame is often what causes perversion.
Do you disagree?
So do you believe that Adam and eve would have eventually become perverted, had they not disobeyed?
And do you believe that when a woman wears revealing clothing, such as a prostitute who wears sexually provocative clothes, she is not perverted? What do you suppose the purpose of the revealing clothing is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Bailey, posted 06-06-2009 10:54 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Bailey, posted 06-08-2009 4:18 PM Peg has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 179 of 243 (511252)
06-08-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Peg
06-08-2009 3:42 AM


The Naked Metaphor
Thank you for the exchange Peg.
Glad to hear things are good for you.
Long post ahead, so take your time ...
Peg writes:
weary writes:
How does one determine that the children are scapegoating, as opposed to reverently describing the course of events as they occured?
If you consider what repentance is and how it is exhibited, you'll see that Adam did not display it. Repentance is when we acknowledge our own guilt and show remorse. But Adam did not show this.
I strongly disagree; it seems this may remain a matter of opinion ...
Perhaps your chosen interpretation is accurate, although I am unable to suggest how at this time.
It appears as though Cain provides a fine example of one who sees no need to repent.
Instead of accepting responsibility he tried to put the blame on Eve by claiming that he ate it because she gave it to him.
It appears as though Adam accepted responsibility and encouraged Eve to accept hers as well.
IOW he only ate it because of her, not because of him.
That is how the story goes ...
If Eve was not first deceived, the reader has no grounds to contemplate whether Adam would be blatantly disobedient as many suggest he was. Similarly, there is no basis for him to have acted compassionately on behalf of his family as others suggest he may have.
Ultimately, the Tree Law is transgressed via the serpent; this is confirmed when the Father says, 'Because you have done this ...'.
However, the serpent does not blame, admit fault or repent.
This is why the apostles said that women should not become teachers of Gods laws because 'Eve was thoroughly deceived but Adam was not deceived' 2Cor 11:3 & 1Tim 2:14
If Adam was not deceived, then he took the fruit with full knowledge of what he was doing. IOW he deliberately disobeyed while Eve was tricked into disobedience.
This is one area where various interpretations appear troubling to me.
Granted, I am part of a large minority who's understanding of Adam's decision is not swayed by fundamental theory.
Nevertheless, supposedly Paul suggests that, because Eve was deceived and her husband was only blatantly disobedient , teachings of men are somehow superior by default.
Yet, how does that even begin to follow reasonably?
On a separate note, in your interpretation of the events, what becomes Adam's motivation for listening to his wife and taking from the Tree?
Without playing games, I will first disclose that I think his motivation was to be obedient to his wife and his Father.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Why would one leave out such important details when questioned by their Father ?
How often are integral details purposefully left out of a defense ?
It may seem like the information has been left out to us ...
I am not referring to various details which have been left out to the reader, the various details that are blatantly ignored or the grandiose details that become inferred through dogma.
If I suppose Eve should not have blamed the serpent, as you say she was wrong in doing, I make the Father out to be a liar.
I am asking why anyone, whether Adam or Eve, would disclose that they have transgressed a law without describing the details that led to the transgression?
Its clear from their words that they understood it was Eve who was tricked and Adam who was not.
I agree. Perhaps what is not clear is why Adam decided to act the way he did.
Its also clear they believed that the serpent was actually the Devil.
This is not clear at all. If I am not mistaken, there is no 'devil' in Judaism; only HaSaTaN. I am sure you know that the term translates to 'the enemy' and, other than being an antagonist, the Jewish perspective of HaSaTaN has little similarity to the RCC's latter devised mechanism of guilt.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
The story does not say a sense of shame caused the kids to get dressed ...
Again, this is when the rest of the bible and Jewish culture must be taken into consideration.
First, it would seem as though these further considerations should follow the original story, rather than opposing them.
Second, in order for the interpretation you present to stand, one must contrast popular jewish thought considerably.
A small example is your habit of forcing the definition of the Hebrew term buwsh onto the Hebrew word yare'.
This is almost as awkward as time and fundamentalism's attempt to water down the definition of repentance to eventually, and more simply, connotate admittance and profession of guilt; regardless of such attempts, metanonia remains much more than that.
Nakedness is linked with shame in the scriptures. Mosaic laws regarding nakedness specifically say it is a 'shame' to them.
In the Beginning we are shown that those who come to believe nakedness is shameful have been deceived; the jews and their various leaders are no exception.
Anybody who does not want to accept reality will be without excuses on their day of discernment; yet, not likely without mercy.
Also when Jewish guards were on duty at the temple, if they were caught sleeping on the job they were to be stripped naked as punishment. This was designed to humiliate him and they did this because a self-respecting persons feels a measure of shame at having their private parts exposed. Why?
It is fairly evident why ... various poli-religious leaders propagated a misinterpretation of Genesis to serve their passions and desires; whether it was done unintentionally or otherwise becomes the question.
Anyone who feels a measure of shame when transgressing an imaginary 'dress code' has been brainwashed or deceived; they have made a clean thing unclean in their mind.
... because when sin entered into the world, so did immoral desires and its these immoral desires that cause us to feel shame. Adam and Eve felt it too so they covered themselves up.
Again, within the Garden narrative the Lovebirds never feel buwsh after the deception and transgression, but instead become yare'.
Similarly, the reader is not told that Adam and Eve were naked and knew no yare', but rather that they were without buwsh.
There appears to be certain folly in lending foreign definitions to various words that already have their own.
Think of it this way. Covering up was a way of covering up their new desires.
I would be able to do this more easily if there was any indication within the text of these scriptures that 'new desires' had been realized.
Instead, I am left to contemplate how the couple's realization of nakedness led to fear and reverence, as this is what scripture actually presents.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
What are the Newlywed's various expectations concerning the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge?
They knew that eating it would lead to death.
This was one given expectation; are there any others you may have missed?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
In Gen 2:25 "And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife, and yet they did not become ashamed"
Ok. This verse informs the reader that the couple has absolutely no sense of shame when meandering around without clothes on ...
However, that does not equate unarousal, innocence and purity to being unashamed; this appears to be some more added details.
No, this is true. But what would cause them to cover their genitals?
If the bible is any authority, we may contemplate that the realization of nakedness itself, coupled with the subsequent fear or reverence towards their Father that ensued, was responsible to a certain extent.
Have you ever wondered why Canaan was cursed when he looked in on Noahs nakedness in Gen 9?
At one time I wondered. Eventually, as I began to devote much of my thought to the words of Yeshua, it became more clear to me that Canaan exposed Noah's faults to his brothers in a similar fashion as Yeshua did many years later to His generation.
Again, in an eerily similar fashion, the exposed fraud is laid bare only a short time before aggressive actions are taken, by the fraudulent parties and their accomplices, to re-hide the Truth.
And Noah began to be an husbandman (religious fella) __ and he planted a vineyard (religion/theology)
And he drank of the wine (lavish privilege) and was drunken (without remorse)
and he was uncovered (exposed) within his tent (congregation).
Much like Yeshua, Canaan is constantly made out to be an asshole by his ancestors too. Poli-religous folk do not take kindly to others withering their money tree.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Peg writes:
Why do they now look at their genitals in a way that makes them cover them?
The bible plainly informs us that it is because they became more like their Father knowing good and bad; their Father does not encourage running 'roun in the ol' b'day suit, as may be inferred by the latter wardrobe change He provided.
if that were true, then surely God would have made them clothing long before this event took place.
Yet, if it were not true, one would expect to find their Father disposing of the fig aprons and not providing leather skins ...
Clothing appears to be optional. As you have pointed out, one can see that the couple was not forced to dress before or after they ate from the Tree that caused them to become more like their Father; and after the event takes place, the couple realizes what being naked is and decides to rectify it, and their Father gives them better duds.
Ultimately, both nudity and appropriate dress, in their own regard, appear to be esteemed by the Father. Do you disagree?
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Peg writes:
They felt no need to do this previously, so something had caused them to change their view of these body parts ...
Correct. We are informed that the fruit caused the couple to realize that they had no sense of shame, at which point they become reverent and fearful towards, what they perceive as, their Father's voice.
But their shamelessness was good in Gods sight as can be seen by Moses words "and they continued naked and did not become ashamed" & "God saw everything he had made and look it was very good"
I happen to think that the Lovebird's lack of psychological baggage was good in their Father's sight, as were the various processes of determination that began to reside within their psychology after the fact.
However, 'and they continued naked and did not become ashamed' says absolutely nothing about whether or not having a sense of shame is good or bad. It simply suggests that before Adam and Eve began making various realizations, they had no sense of shame. Nothing more.
Similarly, the appeal to 'God saw everything he had made and look it was very good' is completely baseless in this instance, as the seventh day, as well as the second, are never referred to as 'good' in the bible.
The seventh day is blessed and set apart, but it is never classified as 'good' within the text; that is simply additional dogma.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Peg writes:
and it made them feel the need to cover them up or hide them in shame.
Incorrect. Peg, shame and fear are not the same; shame is not in the story. I am unaware of the term 'fear' being used to connotate 'shame' within Hebrew scripture. However, I think you are aware that 'fear' often connotates a certain reverence within such texts.
this idea is in harmony with Jewish thought & culture and various accounts about nakednesses that can be seen in the scriptures.
I understand that the ideas and inference you are presenting seem harmonious within Hebrew culture to you, but that does not change the fact that yare' does not mean, nor is it ever connotative of, buwsh at any time within Judeo-Christian texts. The two are different words with expressly distinct definitions.
I would likely concede if you can provide an example, apart from the one that dogma is attempting to invent, of the Hebrew word for fear being used to express the Hebrew understanding of shame, or a lack thereof, anywhere within scripture.
Remember, it important to understand how THEY understood nakedness seeing they are the ones telling the story.
Exactly. I admire Hoshea's dual example ...
Here, we are illuminated as to how those within the radical prophetic tradition may have understood the Hebrew perspective of nakedness.
This chapter (2) continues a figurative address to Israel, in reference to Hosea's wife and children ...
quote:

Say ye unto your brethren Ammi and to your sisters Ruhamah
Plead with your mother plead for she is not my wife neither am I her husband let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight and her adulteries from between her breasts
Lest I strip her naked and set her as in the day that she was born and make her as a wilderness and set her like a dry land and slay her with thirst
And I will not have mercy upon her children for they be the children of whoredoms
For their mother hath played the harlot she that conceived them hath done shamefully for she said I will go after my lovers that give me my bread and my water my wool and my flax mine oil and my drink
Therefore behold I will hedge up thy way with thorns and make a wall that she shall not find her paths
And she shall follow after her lovers but she shall not overtake them and she shall seek them but shall not find them then shall she say I will go and return to my first husband for then was it better with me than now
For she did not know that I gave her corn and wine and oil and multiplied her silver and gold which they prepared for Baal
Therefore will I return and take away my corn in the time thereof and my wine in the season thereof and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness
And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers and none shall deliver her out of mine hand

Through the boldness and bravery of Hoshea, the Father expresses what would transpire with treacherous, idolatrous people. They did not embrace metanonia, therefore all this came upon them; and it is written for admonition to us.
We are shown by Hoshea that to be naked in this context was to be stripped of all dishonesty and disregard. We can also see, towards the end of the quote, that the nakedness also refers to a certain vulnerability that one may encounter without the Father.
So, this example is in alignment with Noah's nakedness in Gen. 9. We are naked when we disregard and exploit the ways of the Father, as well as when we are naive to them.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Peg writes:
The people who moses wrote for understood this because their law stated at Leviticus 18:7 "The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you must not lay bare."
This seems to indicate that the Lovebirds were on the right track by getting dressed after making their startling realization. Do you agree?
no i dont. The mosaic laws dictated how sex was to be used.
The Garden story does not express the proper functions of sexual acts or otherwise; we are discussing the implications of various dress codes.
The Lovebird's story does not discuss sex or its purpose, so whatever substance can be gleamed from the Mosaic laws in that regard apparently offers no assistance towards an honest interpretation of the Garden narrative.
If you cannot see that the initial decision to stay naked is affirmed by their Father’s decision to not force a dress code and that the couple’s latter decision to wear clothes is also affirmed by their Father’s decision to provide more durable clothing — all freely available inference from a plain reading of the text — then no amount of my blathering will likely convince you otherwise.
If Adam and Eve had become more like God, then there would have been no need to give their children a strict set of Godly laws that regulated sexual activity ...
There is no if. The bible plainly states that the couple did become more like their Father. I had trouble with this when I was younger too ... it does not help when those you respect and admire ignore the truth of scripture.
Trust Yeshua's words ...
they would have already known and understood the sexual function and the purpose for it.
lol - that is a bold statement; not to imply that some of mine aren't.
It would appear that they did not view it or use it the way God had purposed which is why it had to be regulated.
In actuality, it would appear as though it never appeared.
I am sorry friend. There is no sexy time in the Garden.
Peg writes:
weary writes:
Peg writes:
... they had stopped viewing them the way God viewed them and this caused them to feel shame which led them to covering themselves.
First off, other than the inference one may gain by accepting that the Father proceeds to cover the couple's genitals better then they, themselves, were first able to, the reader is certainly not informed how the Father viewed the Lovebird's genitals.
You say that the couple became perverted and stopped viewing their genitals the way God viewed them.
The bible says the couple stopped viewing their genitals the way they previously had when they had no sense of shame.
Having no sense of shame is often what causes perversion.
Do you disagree?
So do you believe that Adam and eve would have eventually become perverted, had they not disobeyed?
I noticed you avoided the question ...
Peg, it does not matter whether or not I believe the Newlyweds would have eventually become 'perverted' had they not 'disobeyed'.
The fact is, they become 'perverted' before they 'disobey'.
And do you believe that when a woman wears revealing clothing, such as a prostitute who wears sexually provocative clothes, she is not perverted?
I believe she may be perverted, but her style of dress is simply an external indicator of her deeper internal blemish; not simply an act of perversion in and of itself.
Suppose, for a moment, that prostitute is carried to a land where nudity is embraced as pure; will her revealing clothing offer any deeper revelation of a woman's body to those in attendance? In what way might the scantily clad whore's appearance continue to provide temptation to a nudist colony?
Yet, if a society collectively makes unclothed people out to be outcasts, that is what they will be perceived as and, ultimately, how they will be treated. It does not mean that the naked folks are indeed unclean outcasts.
This is along the lines of what Yeshua teaches us; a thing is only unclean when one makes it unclean.
What do you suppose the purpose of the revealing clothing is?
Assumedly, it is to create, expedite and increase a fictitious value, and hence extort profits, through an act of illusion.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe ...
Tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
Why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Peg, posted 06-08-2009 3:42 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Peg, posted 06-08-2009 11:53 PM Bailey has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 180 of 243 (511292)
06-08-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Bailey
06-08-2009 4:18 PM


Re: The Naked Metaphor
Bailey writes:
Peg, it does not matter whether or not I believe the Newlyweds would have eventually become 'perverted' had they not 'disobeyed'.
The fact is, they become 'perverted' before they 'disobey'.
no Genesis clearly says that they ate from the tree THEN they began to realize they were naked
Bailey writes:
I believe she may be perverted, but her style of dress is simply an external indicator of her deeper internal blemish; not simply an act of perversion in and of itself.
Suppose, for a moment, that prostitute is carried to a land where nudity is embraced as pure; will her revealing clothing offer any deeper revelation of a woman's body to those in attendance? In what way might the scantily clad whore's appearance continue to provide temptation to a nudist colony?
Exactly. finally a point we agree on.
There was nothing wrong with nudity in the garden, God made them to be naked and there was nothing wrong with it until they disobeyed God.
Once they had become sinners, their own internal blemish of sin caused them to view their nakedness negatively.
Now in a world where all people have the same internal blemish, we would expect to see a lot of people covering up. Thats exactly what we see among all humankind and it is in complete harmony with the genesis account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Bailey, posted 06-08-2009 4:18 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Bailey, posted 06-09-2009 10:14 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024