OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Shar]

 

Hmm. I still don't see any conflict there. But I do see the confusion.

Let me explain.

Cause = n. events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something

result - n. a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon

             v. come about or follow as a consequence

 

What you just said (emphasis mine):

Your position is that physical death was not caused by the fall. In this context we have been talking about Adam's physical death and the source I cited above states that physical death is a direct result of the fall.

 

Quote from the text above (emphasis mine):

Death is the consequence and the punishment of sin.

 

Quote from me:

So, it is possible that physical death was a natural part of God's creation. Immortality was intended for us, given by the tree of life, then taken away at the fall of man (see verse below). Therefore, death is a consequence of the fall, but not necessarily caused by it.

My argument was that death is caused by the absence of life (Tree of Life and access to the Garden taken away). Death is also the result/consequence of sin.  I believe both statements are true.

Sorry if I didn't explain it well. I sort of developed this idea on the fly, so it might have shifted a bit in the process. If there's something I've said that doesn't match up, let me know. I will explain (or concede if I'm wrong).

 

 

My position is that Adam's disobedience rsulted in His being separated from God which is why he died spiritually and that result of spiritual death is physical death ( I think that is what you are saying).

 

I don't think God engineered death into creation because the Bible doesn't give us that impression.   Death is not part of God's nature.   He is not a God of death, but of life.   God, throughout the Scriptures calls mankind to choose life, He calls man to receive eternal life.   Death is the very thing Jesus went to cross to conquer once and for all.  

 

It makes no sense to me for God, as some on this board are arguing, to create a world full of death, sickcness, disease and decay and called it "very good."   The position I am advocating is that there was NO death before the fall of Adam in the garden.  Sin is what brought about the decay of our planet.

 

I have not concluded that others are saying G-d created a world full of death, sickness, disease and decay and called it "very good".  I think some believe in Ge.1 that specifically because the word "darkness" in Hebrew  "choshek" can mean death, destruction, etc., but G-d changed that condition, brought forth light, and saw it was good.  

 

Sheniy may be inferring that the essence of death existed, and the vehicle of it was the tree from which Adam ate.  G-d says, "..but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for WHEN you eat of it you will surely die".  True, Adam disobeyed, he sinned.  That is sin - disobedience, doing it our way and missing the mark.  As a result now of this act, eating, by a willful act that disobeyed G-d, the consequences resulted and was realized for all creation.  Hence, the need for a savior and deliverance.

 

Sheniy, am I understanding you correctly?

 

I hope that clarifies for you where I am at. 

 

Hmm. I can't read or speak Hebrew, but I have studied it quite a bit.

Do you recommend this over the other one?

Yes, I do reccomend it over the BDB  only because it is way easier to read than the BDB if you don't know how to read Hebrew.  The BDB lexicon breaks every thing down by various, verb endings.   You would need to know what it means when  a word is a Qal, or Hiphil, or Niphal, or Piel, or Pual, or Hophil, or Hitpael, and so on. You would also need to know perfect vs. imperfect as well root words.  All of that affects how a word is used in the text of Scripture.  BDB does have some editions coded to the Strong's numbering system, but I am not sure how helpful it would be. 

 

Hope that helps.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

I have not concluded that others are saying G-d created a world full of death, sickness, disease and decay and called it "very good". 

 

 

You may not have claimed that God created a world full of death, but then I am not referring to you.  I am referring to those who are arguing that God engineered death into creation in that animal death and universal decay was present before Adam sinned.

I think some believe in Ge.1 that specifically because the word "darkness" in Hebrew  "choshek" can mean death, destruction, etc., but G-d changed that condition, brought forth light, and saw it was good.

 

 

Again, and I cannot stress this too much...   There is a difference between what a word can mean and what it actually DOES mean in a given verse.    The Hebrew "echad"  can mean 18 different things.   It can mean "one" in the sense of unity.  Or it can mean "one" in the sense of singular object.   There are a multiplicty of different meanings for it.

 

It is not good enough in hermeneutics to say, "this word can mean that."   We are not interested in what a word can mean.  We are trying to ascertain the precise meaning that is the actually meaning based on usage and context.   What you are doing is plugging the meaning that fits how you want the verse to read, not the actual word that fits the context.   That is what I mean when I say that you are letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You are deciding what the verse means and then you are choosing the definitions that fit what you have already assigned to the verse.  

 

Khosekh can mean destruction.  That is true.  But what does it ACTUALLY mean in Gen. 1:2??   The word is translated as darkenss.  It makes no grammatical sense to say, "destruction covered the face of the deep."  To arbitrarily assign meanings to words in order to make a verse fit what you want that verse to mean, is eisogesis, not exegesis.  You are inserting the meaning into the verse that you have chosen rather than exegetically leading the proper and correct meaning out of the verse. 

 

Sheniy may be inferring that the essence of death existed, and the vehicle of it was the tree from which Adam ate. 

 

There was nothing about the tree of the knowledgte of good and evil that would impart death.  It had no such properties.  Sin is the result of Adam's disobedience.  The tree did not cause Adam to die spiritually.   The tree was good and perfect just as God created it.  Adam's actions and open rebellion caused the Fall and introduced sin into God's creation.   Adam had dominion over all of the created order and when he disobeyed God, his sin defiled the entire earth.  Like a little leaven that permeates the entire loaf, so Adam's sin, like leaven permeated all of creation.  That's the corruptive character of sin.  It is like a cancer that spreads until it destroys everything.   That's why leaven is such a good picture of sin in the Bible.

 

 

 

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

 

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metaphor ...

 

Duh! So that's why Paul used the word "allegory" in v. 24!

Congrats on once again majoring on a minor; you strained a gnat, but missed the fact that biblical allegory was used by an apostle.

And for the record, an allegory is an extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject; metaphor and allegory are similar as both of them make comparisons; the difference between them is the depth of the comparison, but when it comes to the Bible, apparently some readers prefer more shallow waters.

 

It doesn't take a good reader to see figurative devices when they are mentioned outright by the author.   The point here is that Paul told us he was using an allegory.  That Paul used an allegory doesn't mean that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   If it were, the Bible would have told us so ...

 

Not everything in the Bible is as obvious as Paul's use of an extended metaphor, but the fact that Paul used allegory in Galatians proves the Bible does use allegory and that it may be found elsewhere in scripture; forcing a "one size fits all" literalist interpretation can prove unproductive in finding that allegory.

For the record, a parable "is a short allegorical story designed to teach a moral principal."

Fables, parables and allegories "are all forms of imaginative literature or spoken utterance constructed in such a way that their readers or listeners are encouraged to look for meanings hidden beneath the literal surface ..."

[enoob57]

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metaphor ...

Duh! So that's why Paul used the word "allegory" in v. 24!

Congrats on once again majoring on a minor; you strained a gnat, but missed the fact that biblical allegory was used by an apostle.

And for the record, an allegory is an extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject; metaphor and allegory are similar as both of them make comparisons; the difference between them is the depth of the comparison, but when it comes to the Bible, apparently some readers prefer more shallow waters.

It doesn't take a good reader to see figurative devices when they are mentioned outright by the author.   The point here is that Paul told us he was using an allegory.  That Paul used an allegory doesn't mean that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   If it were, the Bible would have told us so ...

Not everything in the Bible is as obvious as Paul's use of an extended metaphor, but the fact that Paul used allegory in Galatians proves the Bible does use allegory and that it may be found elsewhere in scripture; forcing a "one size fits all" literalist interpretation can prove unproductive in finding that allegory.

For the record, a parable "is a short allegorical story designed to teach a moral principal."

Fables, parables and allegories "are all forms of imaginative literature or spoken utterance constructed in such a way that their readers or listeners are encouraged to look for meanings hidden beneath the literal surface ..."

You know the simple is the best to reason with as 'the beginning' Genesis 1 has nothing to allegorize or to

metaphorize-> thus starting the beginning on not the beginning is a fools venture... for both require a previous understanding

of truth so as we have no previous before this event, 'other than in The Thoughts of God', and God needs neither! Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted ...

 

No, good readers spot metaphors and then take them into account, but sometimes an apostle helps them out.

Galatians 4:21-26 -- King James Version (emphasis mine)

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

Well a good reader knows the difference between  a metaphor and an allegory.   Paul, in that passage is using allegory, not a metaphor ...

 

Duh! So that's why Paul used the word "allegory" in v. 24!

Congrats on once again majoring on a minor; you strained a gnat, but missed the fact that biblical allegory was used by an apostle.

And for the record, an allegory is an extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject; metaphor and allegory are similar as both of them make comparisons; the difference between them is the depth of the comparison, but when it comes to the Bible, apparently some readers prefer more shallow waters.

 

It doesn't take a good reader to see figurative devices when they are mentioned outright by the author.   The point here is that Paul told us he was using an allegory.  That Paul used an allegory doesn't mean that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   If it were, the Bible would have told us so ...

 

Not everything in the Bible is as obvious as Paul's use of an extended metaphor, but the fact that Paul used allegory in Galatians proves the Bible does use allegory and that it may be found elsewhere in scripture; forcing a "one size fits all" literalist interpretation can prove unproductive in finding that allegory.

 

Actually it is ALWAYS obvious when the Bible uses figures of speech like metaphors, allegories, etc.  The problem is that you are arbitrarily assigning metaphorical/parabolic/allegorical values to the Genesis 1-3 which you do not have warrant to do from the text.  There are NO figurative literary devices in the text.   The Bible does use allegory and I never said it didn't. 

 

But allegory is a "this represents that"  kind of approach to the text. Paul explains the allegory in Galatians.  The Bible always explains the allegory.   What you are smissing in Genesis 1-3 is, in the first place, a clear indicator that a parable/allegory is in play, and in the second place, you are missing an explanation of what said allegory would mean.   As it stands, YOU are assigning an allegorical value to the text and YOU are supplying the meaning behind it.  

 

That is not exegesis. It's just YOU assigning an arbitrary value to the text and YOU supplying what you think that value means.  That is how cults handle the Bible, not competent exegetes.   That is how false doctrine is inserted into the Christian faith.   Sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Shar]

 

I have not concluded that others are saying G-d created a world full of death, sickness, disease and decay and called it "very good". 

 

 

You may not have claimed that God created a world full of death, but then I am not referring to you.  I am referring to those who are arguing that God engineered death into creation in that animal death and universal decay was present before Adam sinned.

I think some believe in Ge.1 that specifically because the word "darkness" in Hebrew  "choshek" can mean death, destruction, etc., but G-d changed that condition, brought forth light, and saw it was good.

 

 

Again, and I cannot stress this too much...   There is a difference between what a word can mean and what it actually DOES mean in a given verse.    The Hebrew "echad"  can mean 18 different things.   It can mean "one" in the sense of unity.  Or it can mean "one" in the sense of singular object.   There are a multiplicty of different meanings for it.

 

It is not good enough in hermeneutics to say, "this word can mean that."   We are not interested in what a word can mean.  We are trying to ascertain the precise meaning that is the actually meaning based on usage and context.   What you are doing is plugging the meaning that fits how you want the verse to read, not the actual word that fits the context.   That is what I mean when I say that you are letting your theology drive your interpretation.   You are deciding what the verse means and then you are choosing the definitions that fit what you have already assigned to the verse.  

 

Shiloh, we have had numerous discussions about how your Hebrew interpretation differs from other noted and academically accepted experts.  I am not hear to continually debate that.  I said that some believe it to mean and that is not me, but other noted translations.  The point of discussion is asking can she have a valid point to consider?

 

Khosekh can mean destruction.  That is true.  But what does it ACTUALLY mean in Gen. 1:2??   The word is translated as darkenss.  It makes no grammatical sense to say, "destruction covered the face of the deep."  To arbitrarily assign meanings to words in order to make a verse fit what you want that verse to mean, is eisogesis, not exegesis.  You are inserting the meaning into the verse that you have chosen rather than exegetically leading the proper and correct meaning out of the verse. 

 

Sheniy may be inferring that the essence of death existed, and the vehicle of it was the tree from which Adam ate. 

 

There was nothing about the tree of the knowledgte of good and evil that would impart death.  It had no such properties.  Sin is the result of Adam's disobedience.  The tree did not cause Adam to die spiritually.   The tree was good and perfect just as God created it.  Adam's actions and open rebellion caused the Fall and introduced sin into God's creation.   Adam had dominion over all of the created order and when he disobeyed God, his sin defiled the entire earth.  Like a little leaven that permeates the entire loaf, so Adam's sin, like leaven permeated all of creation.  That's the corruptive character of sin.  It is like a cancer that spreads until it destroys everything.   That's why leaven is such a good picture of sin in the Bible.

 

G-d makes it clear that if they eat of the tree they will surely die.  You cannot get around His spoken word.  If they don't eat from the tree they continue to live.  It was the vehicle of imparting that death, both physically and separation from G-d, which resulted from the act of disobedience.  I think you are missing her point.

 

Edited February 13, 2014 by Shar

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, we have had numerous discussions about how your Hebrew interpretation differs from other noted and academically accepted experts.

 

You haven't provided ONE expert that says I am wrong.   I never disagreed over what words CAN mean.   I agreed with your "experts."   So there is no real difference there.

 

The difference stems in how we handle what the experts actually said.  There is a difference between word meaning and word usage, and interpretation stems from understanding how a word is used.  That is more important than its dictionary/lexical definitions.    In the end, EVERY ONE of your experts agreed with me on the final translation.  The translations never actually say what you say. 

 

 

I am not hear to continually debate that.  I said that some believe it to mean and that is not me, but other noted translations. 

 

 Funny how you can't actually provide any actual translations that agree with you.   In the end, the multiplicity of translations end up agreeing with me.

[Sheniy]

I have not concluded that others are saying G-d created a world full of death, sickness, disease and decay and called it "very good".  I think some believe in Ge.1 that specifically because the word "darkness" in Hebrew  "choshek" can mean death, destruction, etc., but G-d changed that condition, brought forth light, and saw it was good.  

 

Sheniy may be inferring that the essence of death existed, and the vehicle of it was the tree from which Adam ate.  G-d says, "..but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for WHEN you eat of it you will surely die".  True, Adam disobeyed, he sinned.  That is sin - disobedience, doing it our way and missing the mark.  As a result now of this act, eating, by a willful act that disobeyed G-d, the consequences resulted and was realized for all creation.  Hence, the need for a savior and deliverance.

 

Sheniy, am I understanding you correctly?

Sort of...I think.

I need to re-organize this idea a bit, especially with clb's thing on the Holy of Holies and the temple in the Garden. It gave me another idea. lol

And that bit on choshek is interesting. I'm going to look into that, too.

[Shar]

I think there is a further point to consider.  The Tree of Life obviously imparted some type of life-effecting properties to the human body.  The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden for Adam and Eve to eat.  It would not only impart knowledge of Good, but knowledge of Evil. 

 

Now, see what G-d does once they had eaten of it.  He has a very grave concern.  In Ge3:21 G-d says, "NOW man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and live forever."

 

G-d did not want us to live in this state forever because we would have the capacity to do great evil in a forever state.  Now while he made the tree in a good and pleasing form, it was still something that was forbidden and to be avoided.

[Sheniy]

I think there is a further point to consider.  The Tree of Life obviously imparted some type of life-effecting properties to the human body.  The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden for Adam and Eve to eat.  It would not only impart knowledge of Good, but knowledge of Evil. 

 

Now, see what G-d does once they had eaten of it.  He has a very grave concern.  In Ge3:21 G-d says, "NOW man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and live forever."

 

G-d did not want us to live in this state forever because we would have the capacity to do great evil in a forever state.  Now while he made the tree in a good and pleasing form, it was still something that was forbidden and to be avoided.

^^ THIS ^^

 

If the Tree of Life give physical eternal life, than remove it and we physically die/decay/become dust.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Sheniy