Truth What Is It?

john8verse32 · 01-21-09 10:11 am

did (the) God(s) even want their creatures to know right from wrong? "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, 17except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. unfortunately, one of God's creatures, a talking snake, was allowed to "trick" Eve..by telling her the truth that she would not die that day...and since, as the Bible admits.... She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit and the denoument of the tale as told to Hebrew kids a very long time ago? our loving God puts women down, tells them to be subservient to men, kills some animals for their skins instead of weaving cotton garmets for them, and then conspires with the other gods to make sure that their newly created creatures never again have the opportunity for eternal life by having access to the tree of life... "These people now know the difference between right and wrong, just as we do. But they must not be allowed to eat fruit from the tree that lets them live forever." logical human conclusion possible? were the Gods jealous of their higher knowledge? did not want mankind to know what they knew about good and evil, and allowed a talking snake to "deceive" or "trick" a newly created naive Eve, and now these same Gods curse the ground making it hard to till, command all snakes to eat dirt, kill animals for their skins, promiseEve pain at childbirth, and apparently do their best to keep mankind in the dark, and let him die later... and the apostle Paul, much later would claim that all the rest of mankind must die because Eve was tricked... despite Hebrew law which claimed that only the guilty should be punished, not their kids. but the punishment was NOT THE SAME DAY.... despite what God had claimed: (NKJV) Genesis 2:17 "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." (NASB) Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (BBE)basic english bible: Genesis 2:17 But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you. (CEV) Genesis 2:17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!" (TEV) Genesis 2:17 except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day." (French LS) Genesis 2:17 mais tu ne mangeras pas de l'arbre de la connaissance du bien et du mal, car le jour où tu en mangeras, tu mourras. (German Luther 1912) Genesis 2:17 aber von dem Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und des Bösen sollst du nicht essen; denn welches Tages du davon ißt, wirst du des Todes sterben. Spanish RV) Genesis 2:17 Mas del árbol de ciencia del bien y del mal no comerás de él; porque el día que de él comieres, morirás. the facts if one believes all the above translations literally: God told them they would die the same day. they did not. the talking snake told them they would not die the same day. they did not. God did not want them to partake of the "tree of knowledge" satan, thru the talking snake, told them the truth, that the day they partook of the tree of knowledge, they would become like the Gods, and know the difference between good and evil. isn't that what we all are hoping to know? the Gods didn't like that, and threw mankind out of paradise in order to keep them away from the tree of life.... according to a literal reading of the story.....

lijhakim · 01-21-09 12:22 pm

Elaine, How do you know that Eve was not even created? We don't know how long it was before Eve was tempted and fell. It could have been years. Just a thought: Eve was tempted and fell. Did God have a plan to save Eve? I think He did. Would Jesus have come and died just for Eve? If the Plan of Salvation is for each one of us, individually, then it would have been for Eve too. After Eve yielded to temptation, Satan was still limited. He could not have control, or dominion over this earth, until Adam fell too. So, in that sense, the burden of sin for the whole world falls more heavily on Adam's shoulders than on Eve. ------------------------- Hubert F. Sturges .

pilgrim99 · 01-21-09 8:50 pm

John, One of the basic principles to Biblical understanding is the concept of progressive revelation. In general, the NT reveals the OT. When Paul writes in Ephesians<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>He is stating in the past tense, in regards to death, to those physically alive Christians to whom the letter was addressed. Without accepting the freely offered gift, we are already dead. That is our natural condition following the first sin of Adam and Eve. This is what God meant in Genesis. I thought that you would have connected the dots, but it seems that for you, reading the Bible, is like reading mail addressed to someone else. This makes me sad. I truly want you have Life. These are the definitions of 'dead,' or 'nekros' as used by Paul in Ephesians 2:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:1) properly a) one that has breathed his last, lifeless b) deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell c) destitute of life, without life, inanimate 2) metaph. a) spiritually dead 1) destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins 2) inactive as respects doing right b) destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Based on another principle, that context determines meaning, I would like you to read the Genesis passage again. Hopefully it makes more sense to you, with the bolded definition of 'dead.' John we can either accept the destiny bequeathed by the first Adam, or the destiny bequeathed to us by the last Adam. The choice is yours. There have been far more prominent skeptics that you. And if I remember college sophomore or junior year Philosophy correctly, a skeptic is one who believes that knowledge has the same value as that of a dog. What do you believe in? I pray that your belief system is not rooted in the value of your own intellect, but is grounded in the priceless value of God's eternal Truth.

pilgrim99 · 01-21-09 10:22 pm

John, Just to provide further clarification, not to belabor the point, although I think it is vitally important, Jesus said<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent. You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life. John 5:37-40 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I pray that this statement of Jesus is not true of you. Why do you read the Bible? Hopefully it is to find Christ, and the free gift that is only available in, and from Him. The life that Jesus offers is the opposite of the death discussed in the Genesis passage that you quoted from. I hope that you take the time to consider what I am trying to say to you, even with my limited eloquence.

elaine · 01-21-09 10:26 pm

How do you know that Eve was not even created? We don't know how long it was before Eve was tempted and fell. It could have been years. } Based on the story in Gen. 2 where Adam was created, and then God said "You may eat of all the treees in the garden. Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." Then God said "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helpmate." So from from the soil (the same manner in which he created man) he fashioned all the wild beasts and birds and brought them for man to see and to give them names. "But no man was suitable for manh was found for him." Then, God created from man's rib a woman and brought her to the man. We do not know how long between God's creation of man and the animals, before woman was created (that depends on how literal one reads it). Beyond what the Bible says, we cannot know more.

bob · 01-22-09 12:00 pm

Pardon me Elaine. I just had to insert that any good Adventist would take you to task for making that statement. They all know that Mrs. White revealed much more than the Bible states. Too bad it isn't cannonized and inserted in the various scriptures so that the whole world would know the rest of the story. Bob

lijhakim · 01-22-09 12:48 pm

Elaine, As I see it, Genesis 1 is strictly chronological. Creation was done in one week, with events clearly stated for each day. In this record, animals and man were created on the sixth day. It seems that Genesis 2 is not that way. It is a series of short essays giving more detail on certain aspects of the Creation record. And these essays are not necessarily chronological. Here are some unknowns: How long did it take God to plant the Garden of Eden? How long did it take Adam to "dress" the garden? Were the trees created with fruit already on them, or did enough time pass for the fruit to normally grow? Verse 16 and 17 imply that there was fruit already on the trees, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How long did it take Adam to name the animals? I suspect that it took much more than one day. When Adam named the animals, he did not find a "help meet" for himself. He was then ready to accept what God would provide -- Eve. Whether the tree of knowledge of good and evil was present before Eve's creation or after is not important. When she arrived she was under the same law as was Adam. You are right in that we do not know just how much time elapsed between these events. Hubb

elaine · 01-22-09 11:06 pm

Hubb, I agree "that we do not know just how much time elapsed between these events." Nor, can we know that Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1 by explaining differently. It is clear to any reader that the distinct order in the first chapter is a single story, detailing each days' activity; while the story told in the 2nd chapter is very different and refutes the order given in the first. It is apparently two different stories about Creation, told by a different author. Genesis 1 distinctly says that man was the first act of Creation. Genesis 2 says that man was the first created being, and a garden was planted; then God gave man orders not to eat from the tree; then God said it was not good that man should be alone so he made animals for man to inspect and name; and only then did he create woman. The acceptance of the documentary hypothesis resolves all these questions by recognizing that there was more than one single author of the book. This explains why there are several overlapping and interwoven stories that duplicate and are often side-by-side, but the differences inherent indicate that there was more than one writer. No writer would immediately repeat himself, while at the same time contradicting what was just said previously. Studying the history of the Bible's long transmission orally through many centuries, and perhaps thousands of years before writing, makes it easy to understand that total accuracy was impossible with such stories being told. You have read Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible"? It is a paperback classic that should be in every Bible student's library.

lijhakim · 01-23-09 1:04 am

Elaine, Just my personal opinion, but I suspect that the unsung hero of Genesis is Jethro. He was a priest and probably a God-worshiper from the "children of the East." He may have had more knowledge of ancient history than did Moses. We talk about myths and campfire stories. Not all those stories were myths. Moses' inspiration in writing Genesis was in choosing those stories that were true. Did they come from different sources? Probably. But Moses, as editor, had the last word on how they are presented.

maggie · 01-23-09 3:53 pm

Moses' inspiration in writing Genesis was in choosing those stories that were true. Seems to me, Hubb, that you are <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/retrofitting" target="_blank">retrofitting</a> the very recent face-saving <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hoc" target="_blank">ad hoc</a> explanation for Ellen White's copying to the "holy men of old." If you can make that stick for the "holy men of old" then Ellen White's copying is automatically sanitized. Where in the Bible does it even hint that inspiration is anything but direct revelation from God, just as Ellen White claimed for herself? Just when I think I've heard it all, Adventism manages to dig itself deeper into a murky hole-of-no-return.

lijhakim · 01-23-09 6:19 pm

Maggie,<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"Where in the Bible does it even hint that inspiration is anything but direct revelation from God, just as Ellen White claimed for herself?"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>New Testament writers quoted extensively from the Old Testament. More than a hint? The most specific example of using the material of another writer is Luke, who borrowed extensively from other writers, and admits that he did. When it comes to Moses, the early chapters of Genesis were mostly history. It is not a stretch to recognize that he used those stories that he felt were true, to write the book of Genesis. Those parts that spoke more of the grace and action of God would not come down from the oral tradition of "myth." However, I would estimate that beginning with Abraham there was a rich oral tradition that carried down to the time of Moses. Hubb

john8verse32 · 01-23-09 6:52 pm

there was a rich oral tradition that carried down to the time of Moses. no kidding.... Sargons reed basket raft trip preceeded that of Moses by over a thousand years!!! read here and consider giving up all pretense of literalism!!! <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CT_lHTEcL6gC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=legend+of+sargon+of+akkad+moses+reed+basket&source=bl&ots=tfcOxBtVL8&sig=yH62oZwVRWLg-90Dxwon_v_h9Ao&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA139%2CM1" target=_top>http://books.google.com/books?id=CT_lHTEcL6gC&pg=P A136&lpg=PA136&dq=legend+of+sargon+of+akkad+moses+ reed+basket&source=bl&ots=tfcOxBtVL8&sig=yH62oZwVR WLg-90Dxwon_v_h9Ao&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnu m=4&ct=result#PPA139,M1</a> and why limit an "oral tradition" to beginning after Abe? the only way to save traditions even before Olde Abe was orally.... witness the similarities between the Hebrew explanation of creation and the Babylonian versions.

maggie · 01-23-09 8:57 pm

The Bible doesn't say that the holy men of old redacted a rich ancient oral tradition. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. --II Peter 1:21<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>And Ellen White far from admits she redacted a rich 19th century written body, in fact she denies it.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others. --Manuscript 7, 1867<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Whole lot of copying going on in the name of Inspiration.

bob_2 · 01-23-09 9:45 pm

Ron, you and I have differed over the need for Christ's death and substitutionary death. Note this verse which is one reason give for Christ's death: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— --------- John 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Now, I don't know how much plainer it gets. There was an agreement or plan before earth was created. Jesus would be given power after this act of dying for the lost. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.

elaine · 01-23-09 10:02 pm

There is no evidence that Moses wrote the Torah. It is only a tradition, and tradition is not always correct. If Moses wrote the first five books, he contradicted himself many times; he was confused about the length of the flood; the clean and unclean animals, and he wrote of his own death?? It has to be faith that adopts Moses as the author, as where is the evidence? Or consensus?

lijhakim · 01-23-09 11:56 pm

Maggie, Nothing is ever written in a vacuum. There is no combination of words that is truly unique. It is only when the writing produces a coherent message that the unique character is evident. In fact your post shows that even you are influenced by what others have written!

elaine · 01-24-09 12:03 am

The more one reads, the better writer he can become. Without much reading, there really is little worth saying.

lijhakim · 01-24-09 12:04 am

Elaine, Picky. Picky! What if Moses did have a secretary? Maybe Joshua's wife?? And Moses told her what to write down. And suppose that she put in the story of his death to bring the books to completion. Who then would be the author? Moses? or his secretary? Who prepares the sermons preached by TV evangelists? I happen to know of one SDA TV evangelist who has two sermon writers. Of course, he has the last say on what is said. So, who writes his sermons? the evangelist or the unseen "Joe Blow." So, I am standing here, telling my wife what to say. She slyly inserts her own ideas here and there. Am I the author, or it is my wife? Tongue firmly in cheek! Hubb

maggie · 01-24-09 12:28 am

In fact your post shows that even you are influenced by what others have written! Hubb, if you'll notice, I didn't say, "All Maggie's posts are given by inspiration of God and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness." I also didn't say I got them through a vision and was not influenced by human beings. When I was growing up, Adventism was straightforwardly crazy-making, for the most part. Now y'all are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. You know and I know, Hubb, that 30 years ago you wouldn't have been tap dancing around this Inspiration issue. You can't fool me, I was there. Nobody is suggesting anything is written in a vacuum, but if I say I got it straight from God's lips to my ear, then, at the very least, it shouldn't look like a thin rehash of something somebody wrote 10 years previously. Aren't you guys ever, you know, embarrassed by your own arguments?

maggie · 01-24-09 12:34 am

Hubb, please just admit it. Since the early eighties y'all have been forced to retreat, but have fought for every inch you've had to give up. The goal posts aren't even in the same time zone now.

elaine · 01-24-09 12:40 am

It's only mentioned when people continue to assert Moses as the author. Since I have yet to find a Bible scholar who credits Moses, I defer to their expert opinion. What is your basis for believing Moses as the author? It is very common today for professional speakers to have "ghost writers" who often write a book, but with the author's name given credit. However, there are few of the books of the Bible that anyone can be certain who was the author. That's because they were a common heritage of the Jewish people and, if we choose to believe the professional Bible scholars, there was nothing written in the Bible prior to 1,000 B.C., and most were written several centuries later. One can choose the tradition, or recognize that since that "tradition" there have been major findings that are far more accurate. Compare it to medical practice: no reputable physician would continue to practice as he did 40-50 years ago without ever studying newer information and treatment. Should we do less in studies of the Bible?

lijhakim · 01-24-09 1:42 am

Maggie, I'm sure you have heard it a thousand times, but I will say it again: Ellen White was given visions by God and inspiration in other ways. The exact form of that communication I cannot vouch for, but it may have been graphical. She was then left to choose the words to give that message. She herself has said that she used the words of others in giving her messages. In every case where I have seen her writings compared with those she "copied" from, she has significantly changed the wording. Not only has she changed the wording, but the message she has given has always been uniquely her own. This is most clear to me in the book "White Lie" by Walter Rae. Frankly, I do not see anything to retreat from. Further, I believe that Ellen White was given those messages to help prepare a people to live to see Jesus come again. I see a wonderful message from God in the writings of Ellen White. ------------------------- Hubert F. Sturges .

bob · 01-24-09 11:54 am

I have seen some of Sister White's scratchings before her assistants rewrote them. No one knows what went on behind those closed doors. Walter Rae has come pretty close to finding out and he started many others on a quest to reveal much more about the so called prophet who stated in 1856 that some of those in her audience would be living when Jesus returned and some food for worms. She didn't just 'make" that statement, it was "shown" her. In Australia she received a message from her whatever that Kellogg was building a big building in Chicago much to her disgust because she wanted San money to further her pet projects in Australia. We know that a reporter wrote an article stating such, but got the story wrong. Sister White conveniently turned it into a vision which later required her to have another vision explaining the first one. Be sure your sins will find you out. Read all about it here. <a href="http://www.truthorfables.com/chicago_building_vision.htm" target=_top>http://www.truthorfables.com/chicago_building_visi on.htm</a> Funny how she could come with visions just at the correct time to solve many problems. Problem is she got caught a few times. Bob

heipauli · 01-24-09 12:40 pm

Quote: "Funny how she could come with visions just at the correct time to solve many problems. Problem is she got caught a few times. Bob" That problem is more ours than her. Actually it was no problem at all. IMHO, she belonged to those rare people, who could beforehand decide, what she (most of them were females) would see in the next dream or vision. One of them was Maria Åkerblom (Akerblom, if you please; had she emigrated to U.S.A., she probably would have changed her surname to Akerblom, like many others called Mäkinen changed their name to Makinen or Makine).

john8verse32 · 01-24-09 2:14 pm

there was a rich oral tradition that carried down to the time of Moses....Hubb and maybe this type of transmission of ancient tales continued even after? maybe even up to todays beliefs? uh, oh..... quote from: <a href="http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html" target=_top>http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html</a> Did Christianity borrow ideas from other religions? If you're like me, you grew up thinking it didn't. We were taught Christianity began with a big bang—with Jesus. Jesus changed the world with ideas about God that were new and revolutionary. It ain't so. Our Christianity doesn't come from Jesus and a big bang. It comes from the accumulation of legends and theologies by people who believed in Jesus. The origin of those ideas wasn't Jesus. The origin was the myths, legends, philosophies, prejudices, literature, superstitions, and primitive cosmology of ancient western culture. Christianity was a product of its time and place. could the size and extent of all the above alleged "borrowing" make EGW's accused issues pale into insignificance?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 01-21-09 10:11 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#27 01-21-09 12:22 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#28 01-21-09 8:50 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#29 01-21-09 10:22 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#30 01-21-09 10:26 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#31 01-22-09 12:00 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#32 01-22-09 12:48 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#33 01-22-09 11:06 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#34 01-23-09 1:04 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#35 01-23-09 3:53 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#36 01-23-09 6:19 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#37 01-23-09 6:52 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#38 01-23-09 8:57 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#39 01-23-09 9:45 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#40 01-23-09 10:02 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#41 01-23-09 11:56 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#42 01-24-09 12:03 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#43 01-24-09 12:04 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#44 01-24-09 12:28 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#45 01-24-09 12:34 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#46 01-24-09 12:40 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#47 01-24-09 1:42 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#48 01-24-09 11:54 am

Re: Truth What Is It?

#49 01-24-09 12:40 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

#50 01-24-09 2:14 pm

Re: Truth What Is It?

Board footer