firehill

You're welcome, nebula.

Can you give any examples? http://www.worthychristianforums.com/VISIO...ION-t46138.html

You're not the only one having this dream. Watch out for other christians having this same kind of dream for more confirmation. I think it's a great dream. I've been watching things go "backwards", up goes down, down goes up etc, after I heard of the prophecy.

I just have a few thoughts. It literaly reads 'and you become as Elohim (God)' The serpent used the same term of divinity throughout: 'Did God (Elohim) really say' 'you (pl) shall become as God (Elohim) I cannot see why in the first instance it is singular and then the next plural. I've looked at scripture4all.org and did not see any indication that signals any difference. God does not have this 'knowledge of evil' because he is Holy. Did satan tell the truth saying that they would become like God 'knowing' good and evil, implicating that God 'knows' evil?

Looking at Adam, how do you know that he too believed a lie over the truth? Eve, we can understand believed the serpent therefore his lies because she said she was deceived once she realized that she had been. But does scripture tell us that Adam was deceived or that he was not? If Adam was not deceived then he believed the truth but ate anyway, if he was deceived then he did not believe the truth by falling for the same lies that Eve did. What does scripture say? Did Adam and Eve believe satan over God's word or just Eve? Was one of the two deceived or both? FYI:The serpent twisted God's command given to the alone man, and one can read this when comparing what he said to what God said, and when one does sees the comparison one can see exatcly what the serpent does to that command, but only if one knows what the singular command was or what God said to alone Adam. If one is not aware of what God said to the alone Adam, one cannot know the nature of what the serpent does to that singular command and therefore could fall for what the serpent said.

TreeOfKnowledgeOfGoodAndEvil, TOKOGAE Here's some thoughts and questions on lies and the Liar. The father of lies is the best at lieing, yes? Is what he says mostly true? Is there an ounce of truth in him or in what he says, ever? For example, in what he said about the both of them, that they (Hebrew, the serpent's used plural 'you') would not die, and would become like God 'knowing' (see Hebrew meaning) good and evil, was any of it true? John 8:44 Are you sure? Where is this 'lie' recorded or testified to by any character in the bible? (The command that the Eve testified to which is more than the one given to alone Adam shows living by faith began in Genesis...)

I agree that God told Adam not to eat of the tree as we can read that in Gen 2. What we do know about Eve is that she said, 'God said', not 'Adam said, God said', and also that what she said God said about them is different from what we have recorded of what God said to Adam when he was alone. So we have a singular command (Gen 2) and a plural one (Gen 3) which do not contradict eachother. I also agree that nothing was cursed becasue of what the woman did, after all she did what she did out of being deceived and not a willful eyes open, like Adam. And because Adam while not deceived ate, the ground is cursed for what he did. Since the command was God's and NOT Adam's there is no way that Eve could have been disobidient to her husband since he was not the law giver, but God was. In order for her to have been disobidient to Adam she would of had to break Adam's law. A deceived person who merely gave fruit is hardly a temptress. She did not know when she ate and when she gave to her husband that she was deceived. Though she knew after those two facts that she had been deceived, which is more testimony from her. She testified about God's command and then later about the serpent's nature.

The woman's testimony of God's command to both her and her husband without a doubt cannot be shown or proven to have been a false one according to all the accumulative evidence of the scriptures from the OT to the NT. It is not right without any evidence to accuse Eve of being a liar on par with the devil. There was only 1 liar at the fall, the serpent. There is no reason to not accept the 1 recorded testimony (Eve's) of God's command. That Eve 'told the first lie' is not a biblical conclusion.

You've made an interesting observation of the same phrase 'good for food' being used in Gen 2:9 and 3:6 and then noting the difference in what was pleasent to sight in Gen 2:9 vs. pleasane to Eve's eyes (through her deceived eyes), Gen 3:6. When I studied word for word everything that the serpent said and compared it to what God said it was amazing what I found that the serpent was doing to the command that God gave to the alone Adam before the woman was created. Eve believed through her eyes that the fruit could make one (whoever, anyone) wise and she believed this through a state of deception, or her deceived eyes. I would not consider how she saw the fruit to make one wise as 'of this world' though because she believed the serpent's lies which was that both her and her husband's eyes would be opened and that they could become like God knowing good and evil (which implicated that God 'knows' in Hebrew meaning, by experience good and evil which he does NOT) which translated in her mind into 'make one wise'. The wisdom she was deceived into believing was not of the world that she lived in but of the devil because in her world that she lived in there was NOT sin and it was not fallen before she ate. The devil was lieing about God because he does NOT experience evil. Eve was deceived by the lies of the devil. A question I have for you is, how could the TOKOGAE have been good for food?

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. CBMW a leading organization on the teachings of complementarianism. It formed in oppositon to growing egalitarianism. It 'serves as the evangelical voice for the biblical view of gender to the Christian community and the world.' http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#partnering Co-founder and once president of the council is, Wayne Grudem: Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of Over 100 Disputed Questions, Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. CBMW also formed the Danvers Statement. http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers 'Mission The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.' http://www.cbmw.org/Our-Mission-&-Vision

15 years? The bible is much older than that. The popluar sayings, 'equal but different in fucntion' AND 'difference of roles' have not even been around for 30 years . Such ideas are new, having been formulated by CBMW which also created the term 'complementarian'. Problem is they left off the 'with hierarchy' part because I am a complementarian without hierarchy as any other egal. 'Patriarchy' was too negative a term and so they created a new one which was not concise. All these new ways of expressing male dominace jst make it all sound purdy. Right now, at their cite what is being taught? That male headship will exist in heaven. But guess what? THIS is ALSO entirely NEW. CBMW has never published on eternal male headship before. They are now beginning to move to the patriarchal far right and this new teaching sounds similar to Mormonism. Patriarchy is the far right, with complementarianism far from center, egalitarianism being the middle ground and Matriarchy on the far left. Main point is this, 30 years ago the language you use today, er 'roles' did not even exist and even now the language is ABOUT to CHANGE. Watch. I myself believe in balance. More on topic...what will follow? The acceptance of polygamy? If you read my post correctly, you would know I am not for polygamy. I mentioned polygamy in relation to CBMW now moving towards the far right, since it is now being taught at their site that male headship is eternal (or will exist in heaven) which sounds like mormonism. I didn't have you in mind when I questioned a leaning in the near future towards more extremism. 'Complementarianism' taught by CBMW will reach it's final destination eventualy, I am sure of it. I say we should all strive for the middle ground becasue balance is good.

15 years? The bible is much older than that. The popluar sayings, 'equal but different in fucntion' AND 'difference of roles' have not even been around for 30 years . Such ideas are new, having been formulated by CBMW which also created the term 'complementarian'. Problem is they left off the 'with hierarchy' part because I am a complementarian without hierarchy as any other egal. 'Patriarchy' was too negative a term and so they created a new one which was not concise. All these new ways of expressing male dominace jst make it all sound purdy. Right now, at their cite what is being taught? That male headship will exist in heaven. But guess what? THIS is ALSO entirely NEW. CBMW has never published on eternal male headship before. They are now beginning to move to the patriarchal far right and this new teaching sounds similar to Mormonism. Patriarchy is the far right, with complementarianism far from center, egalitarianism being the middle ground and Matriarchy on the far left. Main point is this, 30 years ago the language you use today, er 'roles' did not even exist and even now the language is ABOUT to CHANGE. Watch. I myself believe in balance. More on topic...what will follow? The acceptance of polygamy?

It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Do you think that William's interpretation of the bible is infallible? Neither the bible or it's authority are the issue, interpretation is. William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts. Actually, Firehill, I again remind you (though it may be an effort of futility) that my post clearly stated that it was "My understanding . . . It is my conviction . . . " Which in the balance has equal credibility to your expressed opinion. But, thank you for submitting Complegalitarian.blogspot.com as an infallible source to finally settle all this . . . I thought this was a fair statement, saying you have your interpretation: 'William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts.' You have your understanding of what the bible teaches (not says cause we know what it does not say), your conviction, your interpretation. I asked xan if xan thought that your understanding, interpretation, conviction was infallible. Brother, k, let's get off this and move on...

It is not William that wants to define men's and women's roles, but the Bible. Do you think that William's interpretation of the bible is infallible? Neither the bible or it's authority are the issue, interpretation is. William wants to claim that the bible defines men and women's roles as he interprets it, sees it, or hears about it and accepts.

On the idea that men and not women are leaders of their family I refer you to this post at complegalitarian: http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/

Wrong. I'm not limiting this words unbiblical usage, but it's application. It doesn't matter how you broadly define it, and whether or not my point was implied by you doesn't matter either, a man is not a role to play and neither is being a woman, nor a father or a mother. Implied or not, you didn't get my point. None of this matters because it is you who wants to define what a man's role and woman's role is. That's where the problem with your usage of 'role' begins.

Paul says 'Adam was created first then Eve' (notice his use of proper names) then he adds that 'Adam (proper name again) was not deceived' and he says but this woman 'has fallen' into transgression indicating that he's not talking about 'Eve' becasue this shows that the woman (of v.11) is continuing in this condition yet Eve was dead, plus Paul also said that this woman is 'being deluded'. Eve though came out of her deception and the traditional interpretation is no longer an acceptable one, that all women are deluded/deceived. The deceived woman of the Timothy passage though Paul had hope for as seen in his final statement. (Besides Paul says nothing of who sinned first, only who was formed/created first, and nothing about the serpent or who was accountable.) Paul holds Adam accountable in his other writings. Look again at the scripture you quoted above as I've highlighted what Paul wrote.

No, she had her own fallen nature. Your is the same logic that lead to the Roman Church's conclusion that Mary was born without original sin. Mary had a human father, so how could that be? Eve did have her own fallen nature after she sinned, I agree with you, but every woman born of man has Asdam's fallen n ature because of their human fathers. Do explain how my LOGIC leads to Mary being born without original sin? When Catholicism came up with this, it had NO logic. Religion never does except that which is PURE. Christ had no human father. The human father passes on the sin nature.

Ya know what, I know. I've said this before during discussions and MANY times that God did NOT breath life into Eve because her life came from his. When babies are born they inherit this life, thing is Eve was not Adam's baby. Yes, men and women who have biological parents, but not the first woman, Eve meaning she did not have Adam's fallen nature as all humans born into this world do. The Savior came through woman's SEED.

That we have more questions is good and it shows how much more we are to continue to learn and seek God's word. It takes alot of work to seek answers. Abd we should always be as bereans checking the word to see what is true. Excellent questions. For one we have to remember that only in the NT does it say that NOW God has put his laws on our hearts.

This a fundamental scriptural foundation. Every man woman and child born into the world have inherited their fleshy fathers fallen nature. We are inherintly sinners and have at our heart the full capacity to sin and we will. No one will escape it outside of Christ. Ge

Careful here, Christ did not have a bone moved out of place. We are born of His Spirit by the shedding of his Blood and our Just punishment poured out upon His Flesh. We are born from above and have not yet realized what we will be. We are chidlren of Adam by our flesh born of the will of man and we are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, just like the women we came from. God entered our reality from above born of a woman and thus the flesh of a man however, His nature was that of God and having no Father save God Himself he inherited not our nature. We become children of God by Faith. By Faith we inherit the full promise of a new anture however, we do not fully become bone of His bone and felsh of His flesh until the completion of that promise attained by Faith. When is the fulfillment of that promise attained? When we see the Marriage feast of the Lamb and fully become His Bride. We then become bone of His bone and Flesh of His Flesh. Until then we merely have a promise by Faith and have been taken as it were from His side to stand by His side. Likewise as a picture of the completion of Gods work and the fulfillment of His economy we see woman taken from man. (The literal meaning of the word woman is; from man.) Woman was taken from man and she being part of Him was found to be his completion and help mate she is a part of his nature thus she also is a part of his fallen nature as well. Christ has set about taking a Bride from the world and she is His help mate she is a very crucial part of His plan of redemption for the world. She was indeed taken from His heart because His heart and will from the beginning was for mankind to know Him. God has cleaved unto His people whom He foreknew. Peace, Dave There is a manuscript that reads the same as Genesis, 'bone and flesh', though obviously if this part which is not found in other manuscripts is accurate, it's metaphorical and who would say otherwise? Even you used it in a metaphorical way in you post. I mean, we are not going to be transformed into Jewish people are we? This, if I understand you correctly, I do not agree with. She sinned therefore she became a sinner of her own accord. Now since Christ came through a virgin birth he did not inheret sin passed on through the male. At this time, this is what I understand. Problem is, if the woman had not sinned and the man had only, you seem to be saying that she STILL would have inherited his fallen nature, of which makes no sense. God promised in Gen 3 that through the woman's seed Christ would come, because she was deceived into eating and did not rebel as the man did with eyes wide open, and so she does not pass on the sin nature. Uh, we are going to have talk about this one, but I'm not interested at this time, I've to much to do. Let's keep it in mind for a discussion sometime down the road! I'll just say, this is not the same for the first man and woman though. peace ~