Witnessing

[apothanein kerdos]

apothanein :

I'm sorry I can't reply to your post. I would love to but the length of it would be out-ragious and wouldn't target what this thread is about. If you have 1 out of the bunch you want me to get back on I will. I can't not that many.

Take it one point at a time. Discuss the first point until you feel it has been answered, then move onto the second.

[billie]

Take it one point at a time. Discuss the first point until you feel it has been answered, then move onto the second.

Briefly looking at your reply. I can't answer it because we would need to discuss the existance of the world, the ethics of war. compare all the different types of religions. discuss different conspiracy idealoligies and do research into to answering those questions. The amount of time and material is out-ragious. As I said earlier if you have 1 topic that's fine by me. I will discuss it with you. Dozen's overlapping each other no way.

Come on, Dood! Don't cop out now! This is just getting interesting!

[apothanein kerdos]

Take it one point at a time. Discuss the first point until you feel it has been answered, then move onto the second.

Briefly looking at your reply. I can't answer it because we would need to discuss the existance of the world, the ethics of war. compare all the different types of religions. discuss different conspiracy idealoligies and do research into to answering those questions. The amount of time and material is huge.. As I said earlier if you have 1 topic that's fine by me. I will discuss it with you. Dozen's overlapping each other no way.

Pick whatever disturbs you the most and what you want to discuss the most.

[apothanein kerdos]

Come on, Dood! Don't cop out now! This is just getting interesting!

I'm here for the long haul. Awaiting Anne's reply or someone to hit back on the subjects we were talking about. Tree of good and evil, witness's and difference of view between believers and non-believers.

apothanein kerdos: i'd like to but what am i replying too? Neo-pagism? I don't understand what any of it has todo with the subjects of witness and belivers and non-believers. This is why I asked for you to choose a subject. Or some kind of piece that relates to what is being discussed. Neo-pagism steers of topic, same the topic of war. The discussion is belief's we all know there is wars.

I think you missed all of what i was saying. I responded to your objections against the Bible...and now you don't want to discuss them.

I'd say, let's discuss the complexity of the Bible seeing as you argue that complexity indicates it isn't inspired.

[apothanein kerdos]

I'll go with the benefit of the doubt and say it was inspired. Thousands of years ago. Inspired today? I question it. I'll agree that the bible is mostly true. But through fraudulent acts and just plain human error I think the bible has lost much of the glory it either did or could of had.

I'll agree that translations are not inspired and that mistakes and even purposful representations of the text can be made. However, I believe that the majority Greek texts (even some minority ones) are complete enough that we can count them as inspired. At this point, it's extremely hard to prove that human error or fraudulent acts occured...of which you would need to provide proof that they did.

Look back to the currently going debate between myself, Anne and SummerSun. Have you re-read Genesis 3 was it? plus applied romans 8:20 and thought about it? Lets say I was correct. (no one has proved me wrong as of yet) But if I am correct that competely re-arranges a persons faith in whom most likely has the teaching that Adam & Eve knew better. Which is a teaching don't qoute me I think started with the Roman Catholic Church.

I've seen this argument before and you're right, it does present a very difficult challenge to Christianity. After all, if God is ultimately responsible for man's fall, then man really cannot be held accountable for what he did. So it is no small misunderstanding; the entire theology of the Bible rests upon this doctrine that man willfully fell into sin.

The best way to look at it is that God knew this would happen and counted on it to happen. God created logic and then chose to opperate within it. Under this logic, the only way for love to occur is for there to be a choice. If you don't allow for choice then it's hard to say there is love involved. Thus, God placed the tree there, knowing full well what would occur, but realizing this was the only way to provide us the choice.

As for Romans 8:20, this does not mean that God subjected the world to futility in creation; it refers to what He did post-fall. In other words, God subjected creation to futility once the fall was fully realized...it was God's reaction to man's action.

I do think that the bible through Preacher after preacher, scholar after scholar has for the most part distroyed the message within, Sure 70% 80% 90% maybe 99.99% of the Texts within the bible are still intact and still hold their true meaning even factoring in the hebrew to english, and greek to english translations. But with all this Diversity applied, cults applied, media apllied, preacher applied, vatican applied versions of the bible I do think that a good portion (mostly the negative things within) has been transformed and for the most part wrongfully applied to the very people it suppose to help.

This is a relatively new paradigm that people have adopted, that if something can be or has been misused, then it is evil/useless/not true. When applied to common day things, though, it falls through. For instance, cars have been used to murder people, run people off the road, and as a display of superiority...does this mean we shall get rid of cars?

If we shift this to philosophy, Darwinism has been used to justify genocide, racism (even Darwin believed that the black man would never prevail because he was inferior), removal of morals within society, justification for rape, etc. Does this mean we should remove Darwinism?

In fact, the case against it is stronger than against the Bible because the misuses of the Bible do not match up with the Bible. Speaking of misuses...

I went by the Branch Davidian complex today. The actual building has been torn down but they rebuilt the chapel. They have a plaque using scripture to speak about how these people were martyrs...which makes no sense considering they fired back. This was a blatant misuse of scripture. Does this nullify scripture? Of course not. All it shows is that man is trying to take what God has given us and misuse it to his own interests. Man, absent of God, can only pervert what has been given to us by God.

Make sense?

[Anne]

Quick note for you dood,

I had just about finish my reply to you, when my computer system went down!!! ....so bare with me, i have to type it all out again..........i can tell this is going to be one of those days........

[apothanein kerdos]

Quick note for you dood,

I had just about finish my reply to you, when my computer system went down!!! ....so bare with me, i have to type it all out again..........i can tell this is going to be one of those days........

Of if you're on US time, one of those nights.

[Anne]

Right here's hoping everything goes okay now, otherwise, people might learn that computers do fly on the odd occasion, but only when sufficiently motivated to do so!

Firstly, i want to apologise for not getting back to you right away, but I had my first day off work in a while, so i'm afraid i took full advantage of it.

Secondly, for those who have asked if they can join in, i have no objections, on the understanding that it is also okay with dood, and that you agree to refrain from posting anything that is hurtful or otherwise might be considered abusive. The purpose of this thread is not to score points, but to understand and in turn learn. So by all means, if you can abide by that, please join in. But for the time being, please understand that i will be concentrating on doods points which he has put to me.

Now where was I before ? I have been thinking about a question or rather a point you made in your previous reply:-

You made an observation that "Adam and Eve did not sin intentionally but did it unknowingly, so how can a person be held accountable for sin if they did it unknowingly?"

I think that was the jist of what you were saying, did I get it right?

Okay, I understand that you have no wish to get into a.............what was it you called it,..........a scripture throwing festival I'll try to be as kind to you as i can, but when we are speaking about the Bible and the people therein, then my only point of reference is the Bible and thus I must apply the "Best evidence rule" to this point which you have made, but I promise I will keep it to a minimum...........honestly

Okay, let me just collect my thoughts,.........we read of the Creation Account in Genesis chapter 1 and concluding in Genesis chapter 2, but it is not until chapter 3, that things start to go wrong for the Adam and the first woman. At this point, the first woman is in the Garden of Eden and from what I understand the implication is that she was alone, Adam was off somewhere else, possibly in the garden.........typical man, where is he when you need him ......just a joke folks!

Let me just read the first five verses of Genesis chapter 3 again,.............okay, this is the first time, as far as i recollect, that the serpent (devil), is mentioned and a conversation ensuing between him and the first woman.........Now there's an interesting bit here dood, which is relevant to your point, but i'll just quote these few words, so don't panic! It's the concluding few words of verse five:-

"and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Bare with me, before my computer crashed this was the stage I was thinking about.....this knowledge, I suspect, was unique to the angels and God himself, so I'm just going to get out the old concordance to see if I can try and understand its implication here. Now this is interesting, my fellow scholars here will correct me if i am wrong ..........but I see that this is the only point where this type of knowledge is mentioned, mmmm I wonder..............just a sec dood, let me think this through..................okay, let me try and explain this correctly, this knowledge spoken of here, is not the same knowledge of, or understanding of what is right and wrong. That is to say that I believe, at this stage,that Adam and the first woman would have known the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, for example, I think it would be correct of me to say that Adam and the first woman would have understood that it was right to obey God, and wrong to disobey God, so to say that they had unknowingly committed this sin, I think is incorrect. But nothing I've said so far, proves me right, this is only my impression. So bare with me again..........I think this might take a while can you tell?............The knowledge that the serpent tempted the first woman with, was an entering into the heart of an understanding, a knowledge of how to do something which appears good but by all accounts is achieved by deceptive means, but the outcome of which is evil, understand that the first woman may not have known this, but certainly the serpent would have, remember we are speaking with the benefit of hindsight, does that make sense??? I'll try to clarify, let me look at the good and evil spoken of in this verse...........LOL, i need more space on this desk, there's not enough room for these notes !!!!! I've found something rather interesting, so I'm going to go back to the first time the tree of knowledge of good and evil is ever mentioned.

You're probably wondering "Why on earth is Anne, telling me all this?" I was wondering it too, but I think it best so you understand where i'm coming from and why I conclude the things I do!

Time for another coffee I think! (okay so you didn't really need to know that )

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is first mentioned in Genesis Chapter... my goodness, where did I put my Bible, it's here somewhere.........Genesis Chapter 2 verse 9 together with the tree of life and the tree of knowledge is then later mentioned in verse 17.

Now most people think this tree was not an actually tree, just symbolic of sin.........lol, don't worry i'm not going to go into that......suffice it to say it was an actual tree and as real as the trees we see growing around us to day, now the first Commandment of God to man was "see that there tree there, don't eat the fruit from it, nay don't even touch it, is not good for you, it'll kill you!" Okay so those weren't His actual words but, you see what I mean. The observation is made here, that they were not commanded not to eat of the tree of Life, which is significant, but may not be relevant at this stage. But i am happy to discuss it if you wish.

Now bearing in mind here that Adam and later the first woman, would have been well aware of this commandment, so I would be correct in concluding that they would have known it was against God's will for them to have either touched it or eaten of it, now God didn't just leave that commandment up in the air, that is to say, He told them not to eat it and He told them why, that they would die, not drop dead instantly you understand, but they would begin to die, continue to die, and eventually die, am I making sense to everyone???? But I have a side thought on why death would not have been instantenous (yeah probably didn't spell that right, i know, you can all stop laughing any time now ) I suspect that when Adam and the first woman ate off the tree of knowledge that they were disallowed access to the tree of life. But again that is a side issue, back to the topic in hand I think!

So what is this good and evil then, if it is not the knowing of the different between that which is right and that which is wrong? The first mentioning of the good and evil (the tree folks) by God is the same good and evil with which the serpent tempted the first woman. Check it out if you have concordance, I have strongs concordance the reference numbers are 2896 (good) and 7451 (evil), and you will see that the good and evil mentioned are the same good and evil that the serpent tempted with.

So why on earth, did the first woman fall for it? I think there must be a deception somewhere, but understand not on the behalf of God, let's look at that................I think it is best to look at what God actually said and then what the serpent "implied"!

Folks i'm just going to post this, and then continue, i don't want to lose this again and have to retype, try not to reply to any points i've made until i've shown you my conclusion.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

(oooooohhh, it's like an episode of neighbours )

[Anne]

MEANWHILE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.............

Lost my train of thought there for a moment, couldn't get that stupid neighbours tune out of my head!

Okay, what did God actually command Adam?

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the TREE of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And what was it that the serpent said to the first woman?

" Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of the trees of the fruit of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die (This was calling God a liar): For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

(Here we get insight into what the first woman was thinking!) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, a tree to be desired to make one wise, SHE TOOK of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT....................

Of course you know the scene does not end there dood, but I think this is sufficent to examine the following three points:

1. What did God say?

2. What did the serpent imply?

3. What on earth was the first woman thinking?

Now the first thing I noticed, was the Commandment was given directly to Adam by God, not to the first woman, and the temptation by the serpent was presented to the first woman. I'm wondering why the serpent went directly to the first woman and tempted her, and not to Adam!

Speaking from a my point of thought, I suspect that if you want to break a chain, you hit the weakest point. ( looking around for flying objects coming my way )

So on to answering those point I mentioned above:-

1. God said, to Adam, (my interpretation folks, NOT Gods' actual words) don't eat of the tree of the understanding of how to do good by evil means, or, by eating of this tree you will attempt to achieve that which is good by evil means, this is deception, and is wrong, it will enter your hearts and change your hearts. (Does that make sense? I can explain it better if anyone wants me to).

*OBSERVATION NOTE*

Right here, dood, shows us that Adam knew that it was wrong to eat of the tree, and the first woman would have later known it too, she even admits to knowing this, so it is right to conclude that both Adam and the first woman knew the difference between that which was right and that which was wrong, or more correctly to say, they knew that it was right to follow Gods commandment and not eat of the tree, and that it was wrong to disobey Gods commandment and eat of the tree.

2. The serpent, outright called God a liar, there was no implication here, something which should have alerted the first woman that there was something not quite right with this serpent chap, he had a bit of a screw missing! (but again, we have the benefit of hindsight), afterall God had never led them wrong before, so why would she have had any reason to distrust God. I suppose also, in her innocence, she may have believed, as the devil, then called Lucifer, was also a created being by God she had no reason to believe that he would do her any harm either. Just a thought, not a conclusion folks! Understand that although I am saying that Adam and the first woman knew the difference between the doing of right and wrong, I am not saying it had entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong! No, indeed, I strongly believe the doing of wrong had never ever entered their hearts at this stage. The serpent then goes on to imply, that God is somehow afraid that once she (that is first woman) eats of the tree that she will be just a good as God in power and all knowledge. There is an implication that God didn't want the competition! The serpent then goes one step further, and implys that it would be good for her to have this knowledge, that it would somehow make her a better person. That it would make her as wise as God! Therefore how could that be a bad thing?

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

With regards to "your eyes shall be opened," I think this is a spiritual opening and a phyiscal opening of the eyes (lol....... I don't mean everyone was walking around with their eyes closed folks! prior to this) I think is was a perspective change, a changing of a point of view, a seeing of things differently to what they had previously done.

3. So baring this all in mind, why did the woman then eat the fruit? Maybe she thought that God was with holding something good from her, maybe she thought God had made an error in not allowing them to eat the fruit. I do not know, but certainly she would not have understood deceit, for this knowledge was not in her heart to understand. The first woman, appears to have eaten the fruit, because when she actually looked at it and considered it, such a beautiful fruit, must be very tastey, surely such a thing, such a beautiful thing, made by God Himself, could do no harm? For if what the serpent was saying was true, then she would be wiser and therefore a better person, because of the knowledge gained from this fruit! Alas, this was not the case, for upon eating the fruit "her eyes were open" and in her heart she understood evil and good, and was given the ability to do evil or good, it was now her choice........it had entered her heart the feelings of saddness, misery, deceit, etc and she now had the knowledge how to achieve these, oh Lord God, she must have thought, what have I done? She had listened to the serpent, she had committed the very first sin, disobeying Gods' command to man, she made a mistake an error of judgement, she trusted the serpent to bring her no ill. And as we know, from the Bible, Adam also ate of the fruit of the tree which she gave to him, and here Adam made a decision, for he would have seen, I think it likely, the saddness in his wifes eyes about what she had just done, and he ate also, I suspect knowingly and deliberately disobeying Gods command to man.

*OBSERVATION NOTES*

The first woman committed the first sin by mistake, Adam, committed sin knowingly and deliberately. His possible motivation for this may have been, because he did not want to be seperated from someone he had come to love.

So dood, i must conclude, that Eve(the first woman) and Adam, knowingly disobeyed Gods command and ate the fruit. First Eve, by her misplaced trust in the serpent, and then Adam by his not wishing to be parted from Eve. Either way, they most certainly knew how to do right and wrong, but it had not entered into their hearts to do that which was wrong.

They did sin intentionally, whether by mistake or knowingly, and that was why they were held accountable for sin.

Does this make sense? Not asking for agreement on my conclusion dood, if you want me to explain further..............

God Bless you dood, now i'm going to study example 3 which you placed on your first post.

[Guest Summer Sun]

Hi Dood! Hi Anne!

Thanks for your reply, Dood. Anne your response(s) are superb - I'm envious of your concorodance - I have a limited one only.!

Dood -the Romans 8 v.20 thing - Paul was actually comparing life on earth with life in Heaven:-

v.18-21 ''(That's why) I don't think there's any comparison between the present hard times [Paul was in prison when he wrote this - I think I'm correct aren't I Anne?] and the coming good times. The created world itself can hardly wait for what's coming next. [here I imagine him listening to the odd bird twittering outside his cell!!!lol] Everything in creation is being more or less held back. God reins it in until both creation and all the creatures are ready and can be released at the same moment into the glorious times ahead. Meanwhile, the joyful anticipation deepens.''

The Message translation.

ttfn

Summer Sun