methinkshe

Shalom Eric, I am so sorry about your friend and your loss. I know that she is in the presence of Jesus, where we all want to be! I pray for your comfort and the comfort of her family. I too have had some very dear friends and loved ones die early, one being our 3 1/2 year old son. We prayed for his healing, but G-d chose to take him home instead of healing him here. Either way, we was healed for now he is alive with Jesus! OTOH, G-d still does perform miraculous healings today and I am the recipient of several. It's all up to Him, not us. Dear Vickilynn, Bless you, dear sister, for your confidence in Jesus. How grievous it must have been to lose your son at such a young age. I can remember that for the first 3 or 4 or 5 years after I learned my daughter was brain-damaged that I could not look upon another child of her age without bursting into tears. I can also remember thinking: this is not my daughter, my real daughter has gone and has been replaced by another. Yet, if we allow, the Lord does heal and allow us to accept that our circumstances are known to and encompassed by God's over-ruling will and goodness, and that He is able to Romans 8:28 - work all things together for good to those who are called according to His purpose.... Love in Jesus, Ruth

All sin separates us from God. God is Holy and as such He cannot associate or approve of any sin. Sins are all the same in the sense that they separate us from God and need forgiveness. They differ in their consequences in the lives of both the individual who commited them and the victims. For example, one lie would doom a person eternally just as a murder would. Christ's blood paid for them both. James said this: For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of breaking it all. James 2:10 HCSB However, the consequences of the sins could be very different. If I lie about eating a cookie before dinner (that was a common one for me) the temporal consequences I suffer (and my mom suffered as a result of my lie) would be less than if I had killed her or someone she loved. One of those thumbs up emoti-jobs that I refuse to learn how to use, rebellious so-and-so that I am! Ruth

Amen! Praise the Lord for her faith and confidence in Jesus. I have known, and known of, many dear brothers and sisters in the Lord whose lives have been cut short, who have not attained three score years and ten, either through sickness or accident or even torture and martyrdom. But I also know that they are now with the Lord and that that is a far better place! Furthermore, do I concern myself with my brain-damaged daughter's physical healing? Not at all! But I do concern myself with her spiritual state and whether she has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and received eternal life. God can heal our physical bodies in the here and now, but if He does not, then so be it. He is still God and worthy of our praise and obedience. And in our resurrection bodies we will all be whole. Praise the Lord! In Jesus, Ruth.

How true! Does Jesus have not have authority over His church? And does He not say that His yoke is easy and His burden is light? Is this not what TRUE authority is - an easy yoke? And did Jesus not show how that authority was to be used when He washed His disciples' feet? Authority through service, even to the laying down of one's life. Any other use of authority is ABuse and not what God ordained, nor what Jesus practiced. How is it possible to consider the Godly exercise of authority to be oppressive when we have a clear example from Jesus showing that it is precisely the opposite - it is liberating. In Jesus, Ruth

God created Adam from the dust of the earth. Eve, He formed from Adam. When God brought Eve to Adam, Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Therefore, to the extent that Adam took responsibility for his own physical body and its well-being, by these words he is also taking responsiblity for Eve's physical body and well-being. And that was the way God intended, otherwise He would have created Eve from the dust and not formed her from Adam, and Eve would then have been fully physically independent of Adam. Since Adam acknowledged Eve as his own body, and he knew that death was the penalty that his body would bear for eating from tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then it can legitimately be inferred that Adam made known to Eve all instructions from God concerning THEIR body. Ruth

We are forgiven ALL our sins, past, present and future, the moment we truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and accept his substitutionary atonement for sin. To quote the old hymn: The vilest offender who truly believes THAT MOMENT from Jesus, a pardon receives. We become new creations in Christ, clothed with HIS righteousness, and therefore acceptable to God. It is ALL to do with what Jesus has DONE and nothing to do with what we can DO. We are spiritually reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit and have a new existence that is in and of Jesus. In Christ there is no sin and therefore in Christ we do not sin. But in the flesh we continue to sin because in the flesh there is no good thing. Therefore if we walk according to the Spirit of Christ in us, we will not sin. But if we walk according to the flesh we will sin because the very nature of the flesh is sinful. There is NOTHING good or acceptable to God that we can do in the flesh. Everything that is of the flesh is sin - even good deeds done in the flesh are as filthy rags to God. Which is why we are to count the flesh as dead, because that is its destiny, and walk in the newness of Spirit which is eternal. There is only one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is the sin of not believing in and accepting the forgiveness that Jesus has made available through His death on the cross, which is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (call Him a liar) whose work is to testify concerning Jesus - who He is and what He has done. That is not your situation, praise Jesus! Ruth

I agree with Biblicist's last post. Also, I am going to concur with EricH's observation that this thread has run its course., and should probably have done so before I raised my last observation. We are now in the realm of vain and contentious arguments (probably have been for a long time) that are edifying to no-one. All I can offer is that there are two ways of reading the Bible: one is to justify one's preconceptions through the Bible and the other is to allow the Bible to form one's conceptions. It is my impression that you are doing the former and not the latter. Ruth Ruth

Answer this question becasuse I think you missed what I was saying above. When she told the serpent what they could eat was she quoting God? Or did she only quote God about the prohibiton he gave to them both? She MISquoted God where her words are not in agreement with what God said to Adam IN Genesis 2 and she quoted God where her words are in agreement with what God said to Adam in Genesis 2. Now you answer this question. If I allow for the sake of argument that God told Eve in an unrecorded conversation that that she must neither eat NOR TOUCH, then did He not neglect to inform Adam that he must not touch? Because it is not recorded that God told Adam not to touch. Therefore there are different rules for Adam and Eve. Poor old Adam could've copped for the penalty even before Eve existed if he had decided to have a game of football with a fallen fruit from the tree of knowledge. EEEK! Don't even TOUCH the fru..........shoot, where's a fig-leaf! Ruth

Ok...ok. I would like to say this. I do agree with firehill on this point. I would think that there would be some type of "Rember Lot's wife" type of dealing. Meaning there would have been a dont go after the way of Eve who added and took away from what God said. Fact is...there is not. Also Ruth. I think it is nit-picking to find words that she did not say. Let me ask have you ever para-phrased the Bible. Well according to this logic when ever you para-phrase you take away or add to God's Word. Did Paul take away anthing or add to the Word of God....No. But there was a progression. Revelation was added, and Paul's view increased. Could we not say so with the Eve's words. They sound more progressive, then anything. I thought that was the object of this kind of "contextual analysis" - to find words that weren't recorded and build a doctrine on such omissions. Ruth The objective of contextual analysis is yes, to look at the evidence that is provided. I'll nit pick as I leap from verse to verse. Excellent point, ruck1b! Oh dear, oh dear! Now I am being asked to believe that when Eve added "nor touch" it was because she was having a continuing revelation of God's commandment. Was her omission of "FREELY eat" a part of her continuing revelation, too? Ruth

Well then let's have a look to see if indeed it has run it's course. Under question is, did Eve tell the truth or add to God's word? 1) There is evidence that God spoke to them both about the prohibition because it is encompassed in what they could eat, every tree that has fruit with seed in it. 2) The scriptural context of Eve's quote supports WHEN Eve was deceived according to her heart and thoughts and actions which was after the serpent lied. 3) There is evidence that God gave his prohibition more than once to Adam in different form therefore God could have given it to Eve in different form also since we know that he spoke to them both about what they could eat which encompassed what they could not eat. 4) There is no evidence that she added to God's word. She wasn't reprimanded, God didn't correct here, Adam didn't, Paul didn't, the whole bible is silent on such a matter. To add to God's word is a very serious matter yet the bible is silent about Eve having done so. 5) The difference between what Eve said, God said, and what God told Adam in chp 2 is not in itself evidence that proves that she added to God's word. With ALL this scriptural evidence in mind, it would only be fair TO the bible to say that she told the truth because that's all the evidence IT GIVES! This is what the bible says because this is only what it gives to us regarding the matter. Did I miss anything? I forgot to post earlier this: What God told Adam does not prove that she added to God's prohibition since she quoted God using the plural 'you.' Eve didn't add to what God told Adam because she quoted what God told THEM. That's the point. Not what God told Adam. I have one more observation. In Gen 2:16 God says to Adam: "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat," In Gen 3:2 Eve says to the serpent: "we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:" Seems to me Eve is misquoting God again - what has happened to "freely eat"? But on this occasion she is taking away from God's words. If there is evidence that Eve misquoted God by taking from His words - and the PLAIN meaning of Scripture, sans assumptions of private and unrecorded conversations, provides such evidence - then there is no good reason to disbelieve that Eve also added to God's words. In fact there is a neat correlation with this opening deception of adding to and taking from God's words, with the warning in Revelation 18:19 about not adding to or taking from the words of the prophecy. Ruth Ok...ok. I would like to say this. I do agree with firehill on this point. I would think that there would be some type of "Rember Lot's wife" type of dealing. Meaning there would have been a dont go after the way of Eve who added and took away from what God said. Fact is...there is not. Also Ruth. I think it is nit-picking to find words that she did not say. Let me ask have you ever para-phrased the Bible. Well according to this logic when ever you para-phrase you take away or add to God's Word. Did Paul take away anthing or add to the Word of God....No. But there was a progression. Revelation was added, and Paul's view increased. Could we not say so with the Eve's words. They sound more progressive, then anything. I thought that was the object of this kind of "contextual analysis" - to find words that weren't recorded and build a doctrine on such omissions. Ruth

Well then let's have a look to see if indeed it has run it's course. Under question is, did Eve tell the truth or add to God's word? 1) There is evidence that God spoke to them both about the prohibition because it is encompassed in what they could eat, every tree that has fruit with seed in it. 2) The scriptural context of Eve's quote supports WHEN Eve was deceived according to her heart and thoughts and actions which was after the serpent lied. 3) There is evidence that God gave his prohibition more than once to Adam in different form therefore God could have given it to Eve in different form also since we know that he spoke to them both about what they could eat which encompassed what they could not eat. 4) There is no evidence that she added to God's word. She wasn't reprimanded, God didn't correct here, Adam didn't, Paul didn't, the whole bible is silent on such a matter. To add to God's word is a very serious matter yet the bible is silent about Eve having done so. 5) The difference between what Eve said, God said, and what God told Adam in chp 2 is not in itself evidence that proves that she added to God's word. With ALL this scriptural evidence in mind, it would only be fair TO the bible to say that she told the truth because that's all the evidence IT GIVES! This is what the bible says because this is only what it gives to us regarding the matter. Did I miss anything? I forgot to post earlier this: What God told Adam does not prove that she added to God's prohibition since she quoted God using the plural 'you.' Eve didn't add to what God told Adam because she quoted what God told THEM. That's the point. Not what God told Adam. I have one more observation. In Gen 2:16 God says to Adam: "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat," In Gen 3:2 Eve says to the serpent: "we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:" Seems to me Eve is misquoting God again - what has happened to "freely eat"? But on this occasion she is taking away from God's words. If there is evidence that Eve misquoted God by taking from His words - and the PLAIN meaning of Scripture, sans assumptions of private and unrecorded conversations, provides such evidence - then there is no good reason to disbelieve that Eve also added to God's words. In fact there is a neat correlation with this opening deception of adding to and taking from God's words, with the warning in Revelation 18:19 about not adding to or taking from the words of the prophecy. Ruth

The point from the beginning, when this topic was opened has been to provide contextual evidence for one's belief about Eve's quote. If I couldn't give reason to why Paul would stop 'a woman' from teaching 'a man' by speaking of deceived Eve who didn't even teach Adam in the first place to begin with because he wasn't even deceived (as Paul said) I would be puzzled to as to the bigger picture. The point of this thread is to provide contextual evidence for one's belief for which you haven't done yet. Wanna give it a try? I find that difficult to answer because I've never thought in terms of "providing contextual evidence for what I believe." I am prepared to give account of my faith, but as for providing contextual evidence for what I believe - sorry, no can do. Either the Holy Spirit guides into all truth OR I must rapidly learn how to supply "contextual evidence." I prefer to rely on the former, and not attempt the latter, with a brain like mine! Ruth PS Which is not to say that the Bible is not my authoritative guide. It is. But it is to say that my belief is not founded on contextual evidence - it is founded on the living Lord Jesus who dwells within me through His Spirit.

I'm not very good at using the search function, but I remember this point arising on another thread and I asked for clarification from a member who is familiar with the original Bible languages. Anyway, the point is that the word "judge" has several connotations. It is ALWAYS right, for instance, to judge/discern - we are instructed to do that in many verses. However, it is not our position to judge/condemn - that is God's alone to do. Now, when I read my Bible and come across the word "judge" I think to myself: is it meaning "judge/discern" or "judge/condemn" and then everything seems to fall into place. I should judge in this instance, or I shouldn't judge in that instance. It is a fairly simplistic approach, but it has worked well for me. But I'm sure there are Bible scholars at Worthy who could offer a better explanation. In Jesus, Ruth

Several people have expressed puzzlement concerning the usefulness/direction of this thread. I, too, am puzzled, although I have some vague recollection from another thread that it is important to the "should women teach men in church" debate, and that by proving something or other concerning Eve in Genesis, it can thus be proved that Paul writing to Timothy didn't really advise that women should not teach men in church, but something entirely different. But I cannot for the life of me remember why that should be. Sorry for my poor memory. Perhaps Firehill could explain again why it is so important to establish the point that Eve did not add to God's words, that she wasn't decieved when she said to the serpent "we must neither eat NOR TOUCH" and that she was only repeating what she had heard from God and not adding to what God had said. Sorry to be so dull-witted, but the point of the argument has totally escaped me. If I have totally misunderstood the purpose of this thread, vis-a-vis a half-remembered debate from another thread, then I apologise. Just put it down to a brain that grows less agile and more addled with every passing year! Ruth

Saying that atheism is a belief in no god is just like saying that knowing there are no green men on mars is a belief too Actually, atheism means just that; 'a' denotes the absence of, 'theism' means belief in God or gods. I used to be a Christian until not long ago, When I Decided to actually think about God instead of blindly following. I read the bible and I looked deep inside of myself and I felt no God. I see evidence of God nowhere. There are no eyewitness reports of anything god did outside the bible, as a matter of fact there is no reports of jesus outside the bible either. Personnally my opinion of religion as a whole is that it was made to keep the uneducated masses in control and people flocked to it because they were/are insecure about what happens after they die. My atheism is based on observations that i have made and is in no way a belief As someone much wiser than I once observed: how much do you think you know of all that can be known? 90% ? 50% ? 10% ? 1% ? Let's be charitable and say that you are a genius and know 50% of all that there is to know. Do you think that within the 50% that you do not know, God could exist? Ruth

Thankyou for your graciousness. And thank the Lord for grace! That we can err and stray from His paths like lost sheep but it will not be held against those who are IN JESUS. Hallelujah! IN JESUS, Ruth

That makes so much sense - and nor does it require that one has a degree in Hebrew grammar to understand what God would have us learn from the passage. It's what I've been trying to express but never quite managing. Thanks for explaining so simply yet succintly. I really appreciate it. It's going down as a margin note in my Bible. In Jesus, Ruth That's just what I've been saying! Yeah, I know! Ruth

That makes so much sense - and nor does it require that one has a degree in Hebrew grammar to understand what God would have us learn from the passage. It's what I've been trying to express but never quite managing. Thanks for explaining so simply yet succintly. I really appreciate it. It's going down as a margin note in my Bible. In Jesus, Ruth

I think sin is both a condition and an action. Humans have a sin nature, but commit sinful acts. Murder is sinful regardless of the attitude one has when they do it (as is adultery, gossip etc.) Then may I ask you this: if you are truly born of the Spirit and it is not you who lives but Christ who lives in you, can you commit murder? And just supposing you do, is it Christ in you who commits that murder, or is it your sinful nature in Adam, that should be counted as dead because it died with Christ, that commits that murder? Ruth What if I think about committing a murder, or purpose to do so in my heart? The Lord tells us that we have already done so. A sin is committed every time we offend a brother or sister in the church. Absolutely! So how are we to be saved from ourselves? Ruth I believe that we are in the process of being saved from our sin natures. Slavation has 2 components. We are justified at the moment of salvation. All of our sins are forgiven and cleansed. We receive a new nature at the pojnt of salvation. The second portion of our slavation os ongoing. it is the battle between our new nature and the old one (sanctification). We are saved in this way as we yield to Jesus and become more and more like Him Then keep pedalling, bro, keep pedalling! As for me, my feet are off the pedals and Jesus is working in me to WILL and TO DO... Ruth I think you misunderstand. EricH is not talking about earning salvation from sin. What you need realize that after one has been saved, we spend, or should spend the rest of our lives in the process of sancification. What EricH is referring to is the daily works we are created in Christ Jesus to do AFTER we get saved. Our works do not save us but rather reveal the salvation we have already obtained by grace through faith. Our works are to be an outgrowth of salvation, and also part of the process of sancfication by which we are daily dying to old habits and ways of thinking/living. We are commanded to work and to good works. Jesus NEVER promises to do the works for us. He says, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your faither which is in heaven." We commanded to humble ourselves, we are commanded to be holy, we are commanded to give our bodies as living sacrifices, we are commanded to "put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ." If anyone thinks the Chrisitan life is not about works, they are wrong. Sorry, EricH, I did misunderstand - I thought you were advocating a grace + works salvation! I see now that it was my misunderstanding. My apologies. (Note to self: READ MORE CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU OPEN MOUTH!) As Shiloh says, I believe that works are the evidence of salvation not a means to salvation. Furthermore, if we are not producing works (the fruit of the Spirit) then we should urgently question our salvation, because if we have indeed become a new creation in Christ, and we walk in that newness of life in the Spirit, then works will surely follow. A good tree WILL bear good fruit. The way I understand it is that it is not so much me trying to produce good works, as allowing Jesus in me to produce the fruits that are the natural expression of His character. I see it as having a choice to walk in the newness of life that I have in Christ, or to walk according to the flesh. Before I was born again of the Spirit, I had no choice but to walk in the flesh, because I was dead to Christ. Now I have a choice. Either to count the flesh as dead and walk in the Spirit, or to follow the desires of the flesh. And in any given situation, the two options always present themselves. Whereas before I might have become angry when insulted and have produced an angry reaction, I find I now have a choice, because Jesus in me says: do good to those who spitefully use you. So the choice is to let Jesus-in-me express His character, or to revert to the flesh. In Jesus, Ruth

There isnt a religion that is an absent of belief. However, it is your job to meet once a week to keep reinforcing your beliefs. Why is that? To qoute G.K. Chesterton: "When a man stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing, he believes in anything." Religion is no more or less than a codified set of beliefs. Moreover, it takes as much belief to state there is no God as it does to state there is a God. Any formalised system that is predicated on the non-existence of God is as much a religion as a formalised system predicated on the existence of God. Thus, the theory of godless evolution qualifies as a religion because it is a formalised set of beliefs. We know that evolution is a belief system because it is in a constant state of flux and has been since Charles Darwin first proposed the theory. Evolution is not dependent on the evidence, per se, but on the interpretation of the evidence, and that is subject to the preconceptions/beliefs of the one doing the interpreting. If evolution were true, then the interpretation of the evidence would not keep changing with every new piece of evidence that is unearthed, because truth does not change. It is a 100% accurate record of all existence and all events. However, true Christianity is NOT a religion because it is not a codified set of beliefs, it is the personal, spiritual presence of the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ, manifesting His life and character in Christians. In short, evolution is a religion, Christianity is not. Ruth

I think sin is both a condition and an action. Humans have a sin nature, but commit sinful acts. Murder is sinful regardless of the attitude one has when they do it (as is adultery, gossip etc.) Then may I ask you this: if you are truly born of the Spirit and it is not you who lives but Christ who lives in you, can you commit murder? And just supposing you do, is it Christ in you who commits that murder, or is it your sinful nature in Adam, that should be counted as dead because it died with Christ, that commits that murder? Ruth What if I think about committing a murder, or purpose to do so in my heart? The Lord tells us that we have already done so. A sin is committed every time we offend a brother or sister in the church. Absolutely! So how are we to be saved from ourselves? Ruth I believe that we are in the process of being saved from our sin natures. Slavation has 2 components. We are justified at the moment of salvation. All of our sins are forgiven and cleansed. We receive a new nature at the pojnt of salvation. The second portion of our slavation os ongoing. it is the battle between our new nature and the old one (sanctification). We are saved in this way as we yield to Jesus and become more and more like Him Then keep pedalling, bro, keep pedalling! As for me, my feet are off the pedals and Jesus is working in me to WILL and TO DO... Ruth

I think sin is both a condition and an action. Humans have a sin nature, but commit sinful acts. Murder is sinful regardless of the attitude one has when they do it (as is adultery, gossip etc.) Then may I ask you this: if you are truly born of the Spirit and it is not you who lives but Christ who lives in you, can you commit murder? And just supposing you do, is it Christ in you who commits that murder, or is it your sinful nature in Adam, that should be counted as dead because it died with Christ, that commits that murder? Ruth What if I think about committing a murder, or purpose to do so in my heart? The Lord tells us that we have already done so. A sin is committed every time we offend a brother or sister in the church. Absolutely! So how are we to be saved from ourselves? Ruth

I think sin is both a condition and an action. Humans have a sin nature, but commit sinful acts. Murder is sinful regardless of the attitude one has when they do it (as is adultery, gossip etc.) Then may I ask you this: if you are truly born of the Spirit and it is not you who lives but Christ who lives in you, can you commit murder? And just supposing you do, is it Christ in you who commits that murder, or is it your sinful nature in Adam, that should be counted as dead because it died with Christ, that commits that murder? Ruth It is us who commits the sin. But if you are in Christ and Christ is in you, then in that new, born again spirit that is united with Christ you are perfect and sinless - yes or no? Therefore if you continue to practice that which is abhorrent to God then it emanates from your Adamic nature which is as good as dead to the one who is alive to, and in, Christ and therefore it should have not have any eternal significance. Am I wrong? Is not this the glorious liberty we have in Christ Jesus? And that is absolutely not to argue that because we are free from the penalty of sin that therefore we are free to continue to live the life of the unredeemed, it is only to accept that in Jesus we are perfect before the Father because He is perfect before the Father. Please, tell me if you think I have misunderstood the glorious freedom that I have in Jesus. That I am no longer under the law of sin and death but under grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus. Ruth

I think sin is both a condition and an action. Humans have a sin nature, but commit sinful acts. Murder is sinful regardless of the attitude one has when they do it (as is adultery, gossip etc.) Then may I ask you this: if you are truly born of the Spirit and it is not you who lives but Christ who lives in you, can you commit murder? And just supposing you do, is it Christ in you who commits that murder, or is it your sinful nature in Adam, that should be counted as dead because it died with Christ, that commits that murder? Ruth

Sin is a condition, it is not an action. Unless one understands this basic precept, one will spend forever trying to discern whether this action or that action is or is not a sin. Jesus came to save us from an inherited-from-Adam sin nature, that can only produce evil acts, such that even our good deeds are as filthy rags to God. When one is born again of the spirit of God, then all deeds that result from that spiritual rebirth, i.e. Jesus in me, are inherently good and acceptable. All deeds that come from the flesh remain inherently sinful, whatever they are, including good works. Ruth