An Everlasting Covenant????

bob_2 · 02-11-09 9:28 pm

Gen 4: 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

Why did God care, it looks, specualtion maybe, that God had asked or expected and offering, for something????

As far as Eve,

Gen 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

That last statement, Eve being a mother, is usually the one to teach the young'uns at her knee and says men after she had another son began to call on the name of the Lord. Not to far fetched.

neal · 02-12-09 7:12 am

Eve had Seth.

Then Seth had a son and at THAT time men began to call on the name of the Lord.

Since you are into defending your speculation about the ability for Eve to be saved by tossing out more speculation it seems fair for me to speculate that the reason men began to call on the name of the Lord at the same time Seth had a son was because Seth was complaining about having to lay with his sister in order to have that son.

There is absolutely no basis in Genesis for believing that the sacrifices described in Genesis were anything other than an attempt to bring about short term favors from their deity.

In your proposed Abrahamic promise, first covenant, new covenant, etc I don't see any plan of salvation for anybody until the NT. The writers of the Hebrew Bible, as I have previously pointed out (and our learned Elaine has also pointed out) are completely ignorant of any plan for a second life. To them, you had to disappear (walk with God) so that people could speculate that maybe you had somehow been hoisted up onto the dome with God or Elijah could fly away in a chariot like Mohammad up to the dome which God created on the 2nd day.

Isaiah wrote that Cyrus, King of Persia, was Yahweh's anointed and Messiah. Because Cyrus was a gentile God could not give him a second life? That seems to be what you are postulating in your theory.

bob_2 · 02-12-09 8:47 am

Yeah your specualtion about as good as any Christian, good job. Any basis for the supposition, like writing so someone, or just vision you had, daydream, etc.????

elaine · 02-12-09 5:29 pm

Imagination is a creative and very individual enterprise. Freely given, and often freely received (or ignored).

neal · 02-12-09 6:28 pm

Any basis for the supposition....

My theory of the disgust of having to mate with one's sister (or Eve herself) in order to follow God's command to populate the earth is just as valid as your theory that the writer of Genesis, supposedly thousands of years after the event written about, mentioned that God (El Elyon, Elohim, Elohaim, El, ??? can't remember which term was used) wasn't happy (boo-hoo) with veggies as a gift. Somehow you extrapolate that into the conclusion that Eve somehow knew about Yeshua, the unique son, and His supposed plan to commit suicide by cop 4,000 years later.

Your theory seems like the crazy one of the two.

Back to Cyrus. As one anointed of Yahweh your theory says he had no hope of salvation because he was a gentile. So David, with the 7 wives given to him by God plus another that he murdered the husband to get himself can be saved because he was born into the right tribe?

Maybe you can work on your theory a little more and get back to me.

bob_2 · 02-12-09 9:02 pm

Neal, you measure everything by your existance today in Denver. If there are no other humans, it probably did not have the label "incest". There was no choice for fulfilling " Go forth and multipy" unless you bring the Nephilm into it, and I don't think God was for that.

elaine · 02-12-09 10:19 pm

Is that "situation morals," Bob?

Was incest approved by God when it was absolutely necessary? Then, at what point did it
become sinful?

Less sinful when it's you niece than sister? Or a second or third cousin? Surely, there had to have been lots of incest goin' on originally to be fruitful and multiply. Did obedience to that
command also require polygamy? Surely, with several sister-wives (like Mormons?) the command could move much faster.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 3:46 am

The whole issue of incest has to do with bad genes. That was not the issue initially when Adam and Eve, perfect specimens, produced offspring, that had to mate or die off.

How are we to believe that all mankind started from Adam and Eve?
You can believe that all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve the same way
you can believe anything else recorded in the scriptures. It is not trouble
at all for me to believe it because I believe the Bible is God's inspired
Word. Now down to the practical side of the matter. For thousands of years
following the creation mankind lived hundreds of years and begat children.
We have no idea how many children Adam begat for the scripture says, "And
the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he
begat sons and daughters.
We note also that they began to practice polygamy
and a man living for hundreds of years could produce multitudes of progeny.
So I see no problem in all of mankind descending from Adam and Eve. You may
wonders as have many others where Cain got his wife. Evidently he married
his sister and that was not unusual either. Abraham's wife was his
half-sister so it was not uncommon for close relatives at one time to marry.
At that time man had not developed the multitudes of physical weaknesses and
diseases so there were no ill effects from such marriages.

http://www.studythebible.com/question/t … am-eve.htm

Neal and others, you seem to have this morbid fascination with incest in the early times of man's existence. Get over it and move on to something worth your intellectual thought!!!!

neal · 02-13-09 6:37 am

The whole issue of incest has to do with bad genes.

I went and reread Leviticus 18. I was unable to find any reference to bad genes or deformed babies. Just that it was an abomination listed along with being a homosexual.

Hey, seeing how you like to rationalize away Bible problems maybe now that the earth is over populated homosexuality is no longer an abomination but actually God's will!

Anyway, back to Cyrus and Eve. How are they saved in your scheme? You keep avoiding that.

maggie · 02-13-09 10:08 am

Get over it and move on to something worth your intellectual thought!!!!

Bob...you're 'moderating' again.

You miss JR, don't you.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 12:01 pm

Maggie, I think you are, I can freely say what I want, and even write a personal email to Ryan if I desire to appear to be bickering, eh????

Hope JR's health holds up. Leave his and my relationship out of your speculation, you will do well. Thanks. Personal request. Thanks.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 12:14 pm

Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest?
Q: Was there ever any incest in order for us all to be here from Adam and Eve?
A: Yes, Adam's children married each other. But incest was not viewed as a forbidden activity until the time of Moses. See Leviticus chapters 18-20. Adam and Eve's children married their brothers and sisters. Even Abraham married Sarah, who was his half-sister (Genesis 20:12).

http://www.new-life.net/faq023.htm

bob_2 · 02-13-09 12:21 pm

Sometimes one has to use logic, or devlop it so it can be used:

Cain’s wife explanation ‘gross and disgusting’?How Would You Answer?
Where Did Cain Get His Wife? - Ken Ham
One of the most frequently asked questions "Where did Cain get his wife?" is answered in this booklet! 40 pages.

Ken Ham’s booklet Where did Cain get his Wife? (right), as well as AiG articles on the same topic, have proved very useful for many Christians in their discussions with Skeptics. Conversely, the inability or failure to answer such questions, including by the illustrious William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, has given the world the impression that the Bible has no connection to the real world. Similarly, the atheist Carl Sagan (well, he’s not an atheist any more because he’s dead and knows the truth …) had the heroine of his book (and later movie) Contact stump her church leaders with that question—and this is sadly realistic. So this question is almost a ‘test case’ of whether a Christian is able to follow the command of the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15 to be able to give a reason for his or her faith.
The Cain’s Wife answer also exemplifies another skill Christians should have: to think logically about their faith (see also Loving God With All Your Mind—Logic and Creation). We must not just know what Scripture explicitly teaches, but what it teaches implicitly by logical deduction. Many of the questions Ken asks in his seminars are designed to teach people how to think logically about what must necessarily follow from the teachings of Genesis—see, for example, Can you marry your relation?.
Cain’s wife also touches on morality, and this week’s feedback comes from a snail mail letter by MJ from New Zealand. But it enables a response by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, immediately following MJ’s letter, to illustrate the difference between how to argue about moral issues—and how not to argue! It also shows how important it is to let the Word of God instruct us and to follow where it logically leads, and not be misled by emotions (any more than we should be misled by allegedly scientific proof of billions of years—see Q&A pages on Genesis, Radiometric Dating and Young Earth Evidence).
_________________________________________
YEECHH!
Dear Sir/Madam
I have just read Where did Cain get his Wife? by Ken Ham. I find his explanation totally unacceptable and ‘bizarre’ and I am sure it will give the wrong impression to non-Christians. The intimate coupling of brothers and sisters is incest, an abomination! And infusion, a grievous sin. Something that has always been wrong and always will be. Whether the ones involved are ‘married’ to each other or not! Surely he can come up with a better explanation than that. It’s gross and disgusting. I’m sure the answer lies elsewhere. It does nothing for the Creation versus Evolution cause. Back to the drawing board and come up with better stuff than that!
Yours sincerely in Christ
MJ

____________________________________________

Dear MJ
The basis for morality
You disagree with Ken’s explanation of Cain’s wife in the booklet. But I must ask, did you read his explanation carefully? From what I can gather in the letter, when you found that the solution was brother-sister intermarriage, you thought ‘incest’, and wrote Ken off immediately.
However, ‘incest’ is a modern term connoting things like father-daughter abuse, etc. Also, the emotive language diverts attention from the key issues about morality. The main point is: morality is defined by the law of our Creator, who owns us, and who makes the rules, for our good. For example:
Why is murder wrong? Because God has commanded ‘do not murder’ (Ex. 20:13, Romans 13:9), and this goes back to the creation, where man is made in God’s image, and murder destroys this.
Why is homosexual activity wrong? Because God has declared it to be an abomination (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26–27), and this goes back to the creation of the institution of marriage in Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 (both cited by Christ in Mt. 19:3–6). This first marriage, according to Christ, set the pattern of one man and one woman for life, not two men or two women.
Why is adultery wrong? Because God has declared it to be so (Exodus 20:14, Romans 13:9), since it breaks the marriage covenant of the two becoming one flesh.
These are examples of things that have always been wrong, as taught throughout Scripture, because they violate God’s created order. But there are clearly other things which God declared to be wrong in a particular stage of His Messianic program, and again they were wrong because God said so. The obvious example is food:
Adam and Eve were allowed only vegetables (Gen. 1:29).
Noah was allowed to eat any animal he liked as long as it didn’t have the blood in it (Gen. 9:3–4).
To keep the Messianic Line spiritually pure, God commanded the Jews/Israelites to be separate from the nations, to avoid being corrupted by them. Part of this was His command through Moses to abstain from certain foods such as pork and shellfish.
Since the coming of Christ, the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14), so both Jews and Gentiles can now become one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, Col. 3:11). Therefore Christians today are as free as Noah (Mark 7:19, Acts 15:20, Col. 2:16).
When and why did God forbid brother-sister intermarriage?
As Ken pointed out, which you apparently overlooked because of the emotional barriers you erected, the issue of brother-sister marriage is on the same level as the food laws. Although you claim it is ‘something that has always been wrong!’ you provide no evidence that God has always declared it so, or that it violates the created order. Even Abraham testified that he married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and this was a marriage blessed by God, and led to the Messiah. It wasn’t till the time of Moses that God forbade the Israelites from brother-sister marriage (Lev. 18–20).
Ken also provides a logical explanation for why God waited till Moses to outlaw this practice, when he didn’t with Abraham. Originally, there would have been no risk of this causing harmful deformities in the offspring. There is a problem today, because all of us have inherited copying mistakes in our genes, called mutations, which are usually harmful. Mutations are one effect of God’s curse on the entire creation because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19, Romans 8:20–22).
Fortunately, we carry two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent (called alleles). Usually we inherit mutations in different places, so usually the mutated gene’s effect is fully or partly masked by the ‘good’ gene. But if close relatives marry, then there is a one-in-four chance of a child inheriting mutant alleles in the same place (locus) from both parents. This one-in-four chance applies to each mutation, of which there are thousands, so the chance of some deformity is great.
But Adam and Eve were created ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) — the Hebrew meod tov, in the context of a finished creation which God had already called ‘good’ after most creation days, indicates physical perfection without any blemishes. So they would not have had copying mistakes, so brother-sister intermarriage would not have had the problem it has today. Harmful mutations would take many generations to accumulate to levels where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring. As mentioned, even Abraham, living long after the creation of mankind, married his half-sister Sarah, and they were the ancestors of the very vibrant Jewish people group.
But as many centuries passed, many harmful, degenerative mutations accumulated in the human gene pool. So, as Ken pointed out, this is probably a major reason for God giving laws to the Israelites through Moses against intermarriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18–20). Today there would be even more chance of deformity/disease in the offspring of such a union than in Moses’ time—consequently, even first cousin marriages are outlawed in many countries.
Is any other solution logically possible?
Now, you say ‘I’m sure the answer lies elsewhere!’ but this misses a key point. Ken was not merely proposing a solution, but pointing out the only solution that fits the biblical text. The Bible is very clear that all other people are descended from Adam (Acts 17:26), and Adam is called ‘the first man’ in 1 Cor. 15:45. Eve was so named because she was ‘the mother of all living’ (Gen. 3:20). Therefore there couldn’t possibly have been any other solution consistent with Scripture.
Application to society
Finally, it’s very important for Christians to argue for morality on the basis of God’s laws, not subjective feelings. I remember when Fran Wilde [Labour Member of Parliament for Wellington Central, in New Zealand] was promoting the homosexual law reform bill in the mid 1980s. Far too many people used emotive language against homosexual acts, and of course I’m repulsed by homosexual acts, but what I or anyone else feels or even thinks is irrelevant. The emotive language backfired, because many active homosexuals do not appear ‘gross’ etc. (I knew quite a few in my university days, and was even reasonably friendly with some of them as people), so people could gain the impression that the objectors are irrational ‘homophobes’, gay-haters, etc. The only real issue is that God has forbidden such things, because they violate the created order of marriage, as well as the created biological design of men and women. Also, even secular governments are God’s agents for punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).
Unfortunately, much of the church rejects the creation foundation in Genesis, so is incapable of engaging the secular culture on an intellectually coherent level.
Yours in ‘our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (Titus 2:13)
(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Ar … il2002.asp

neal · 02-13-09 12:23 pm

So why all the problem with Lot's buddies and the gay sex thingy?? Following your twisted line of reasoning guys sleeping together were not considered homosexuality and an abomination till the Mosaic Law?

Your discernment is messed up. Get it fixed. Is there a Discernment Repair Service?

Also, Eve was bone of Adam's Bone and flesh of Adam's flesh so he was actually having sex with himself in the Garden Tale. What term should we give that behavior?

neal · 02-13-09 12:25 pm

Now you are going to quote Ken Ham?

That's a sure sign of desperation.

bob_2 · 02-13-09 12:35 pm

No just appeal to your logical thought, instead of absurdity.

If you read about Sodom and Gommorah, it was declare wicked so I assume somewhere along the way whatever was going on in S&G was pretty bad. Make fun if you want, but it's clear to most who can read.

neal · 02-13-09 1:25 pm

Actually, since incest was only bad under the Mosaic Law and you preach continuously how that is not valid anymore I guess under the rationale you provided incest is no longer taboo. Go for it dude.

john8verse32 · 02-13-09 1:57 pm

whatever was going on in S&G was pretty bad.

now, theres a great idea to dive into

and whatever the problem, it was so bad that God had to kill everybody..burning them alive with fire and sulphur, including men, women, AND CHILDREN!

and Lot's wifes crime? she was curious, looked back, to see her neighbors on fire, so God turned her into a sandstone hoodoo overlooking the Dead Sea!!! which the locals thought was salt.

how is that worse than Lot's offering up his own virgin daughters for the crowds pleasure?

then later sleeping with them in a drunken cave stupor? and fathering two tribes which the Israelites would later have to massacre to ethnically cleanse the land they claimed their God had given to them?

how much of this should we believe literally? and is any of it "Edutainment" with a morality story designed for hebrew kids edification and entertainment around the campfire?

(Message edited by john8verse32 on February 13, 2009)

bob_2 · 02-13-09 2:58 pm

Neal, if you think these were allowed in the NT, proof please:

Forbidden Sexual Relations
82.Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as sensual kissing, carnal embracing, or provocative winking which may lead to incest (Lev.18:6)
83.Not to commit incest with one's mother (Lev. 18:7)
84.Not to commit sodomy with one's father (Lev. 18:7)
85.Not to commit incest with one's father's wife (Lev. 18:8)
86.Not to commit incest with one's sister (Lev. 18:9)
87.Not to commit incest with one's father's wife's daughter (Lev.18:9)
88.Not to commit incest with one's son's daughter (Lev. 18:10)
89.Not to commit incest with one's daughter's daughter (Lev.18:10)
90.Not to commit incest with one's daughter (this is not explicitly in the Torah but is inferred from other explicit commands that would include it)
91.Not to commit incest with one's fathers sister (Lev. 18:12)
92.Not to commit incest with one's mother's sister (Lev. 18:13)
93.Not to commit incest with one's father's brothers wife (Lev.18:14)
94.Not to commit sodomy with one's father's brother (Lev. 18:14)
95.Not to commit incest with one's son's wife (Lev. 18:15)
96.Not to commit incest with one's brother's wife (Lev. 18:16)
97.Not to commit incest with one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17)
98.Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's son (Lev.18:17)
99.Not to commit incest with the daughter of one's wife's daughter (Lev. 18:17)
100.Not to commit incest with one's wife's sister (Lev. 18:18)
101.Not to have intercourse with a woman, in her menstrual period (Lev. 18:19)
102.Not to have intercourse with another man's wife (Lev. 18:20)
103.Not to commit sodomy with a male (Lev. 18:22)
104.Not to have intercourse with a beast (Lev. 18:23)
105.That a woman shall not have intercourse with a beast (Lev.18:23)
106.Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24)

http://www.bibleheadquarters.org/THE613 … AMENT.html

bob_2 · 02-13-09 3:02 pm

Neal need a picture painted, can't get your mind out of the gutter???

1 Corinthians 5
Expel the Immoral Brother!
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

neal · 02-13-09 3:24 pm

Neal, if you think these were allowed in the NT, proof please:

snip

106.Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl (Lev. 22:24)

Not only allowed, but REWARDED in heaven per your godman Jesus.

quote:

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

neal · 02-13-09 3:25 pm

Neal need a picture painted, can't get your mind out of the gutter???

It IS hard when you study a gutter-filled book such as the Bible as much as I have.

neal · 02-13-09 3:31 pm

I see that your long list came from Leviticus. Didn't you say that was done away with by the New Covenant?

bob_2 · 02-13-09 3:42 pm

Ceremonial laws were. Are those ceremonial laws??

neal · 02-13-09 3:53 pm

Oh, Right.

So when was the last time you hired a minister to wring a bird's neck over running water to get mold out of your house?

How many times in the past did your wife go to church during her menstrual cycle?

Or is that part of your rationaliz... um, discernment process?

I think you could show up in some camp in the amazon that had never seen a white man nor heard of Moses and they wouldn't sleep with their sister. Yet the barbarians had to wait around for Moses to give them a law about it from a deity?

NOT.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 02-11-09 9:28 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#27 02-12-09 7:12 am

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#28 02-12-09 8:47 am

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#29 02-12-09 5:29 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#30 02-12-09 6:28 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#31 02-12-09 9:02 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#32 02-12-09 10:19 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#33 02-13-09 3:46 am

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#34 02-13-09 6:37 am

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#35 02-13-09 10:08 am

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#36 02-13-09 12:01 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#37 02-13-09 12:14 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#38 02-13-09 12:21 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#39 02-13-09 12:23 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#40 02-13-09 12:25 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#41 02-13-09 12:35 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#42 02-13-09 1:25 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#43 02-13-09 1:57 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#44 02-13-09 2:58 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#45 02-13-09 3:02 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#46 02-13-09 3:24 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#47 02-13-09 3:25 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#48 02-13-09 3:31 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#49 02-13-09 3:42 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

#50 02-13-09 3:53 pm

Re: An Everlasting Covenant????

Board footer