Did Adam sin?

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,890
Pacific Northwest
✟732,295.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Please the two uses could not be further apart in their usage. Paul quote them to illustrate the fallacy of false idol worship.

The 2 occurrences, between Paul and Jude you cite could not be in any more diametric opposition of you tried.

Paul is citing a false premise and uses them to expose this false premise.

Jude cites Enoch IN SUPPORT of a point he is making.

I completely disagree with your dating of the book of Jude as it is NOT a second century book but is dated circa 75 AD. In fact, I can not find ANY mainstream dating that even begins to support your absurd assumption of a second century date.

I looked at 3 different mainstream dates for Jude the earliest being 67 AD and the latest being 85 AD

And if you continued to look you'd find that opinion is far more extensive; with dates ranging from between 90 and 120 AD. Maybe it actually was written in the middle to last quarter of the 1st century, but many have noted certain internal elements of the epistle and have from these argued for a later date.

As far as what you're trying to argue concerning Paul's use of Greek poets, I really don't see how your view of this defends the premise that Jude's use of Enoch renders Enoch in anyway substantial beyond Jude's specific use.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
How could Adam sin when he did not know the difference between good and evil. When he did not know the understand what death was or what disobedience was. God gave him two commandments in which God knew that he didn't understand either. He was innocent like a child. What Adam did do was disobey like a little child does. Can a little child sin? Christ wants us to be as little children and come unto him. Humble and submissive.


Oh please... just stop it. G-d said don't do it.... You act like Adam and Eve were flipping morons. Got news for you... they made Einstein look dumb. They were brilliant.

There is this idea that ancient man were knuckle dragging, drooling cavemen... they weren't. Who do you think built the ancient monoliths? You know, the ones so big that we don't even have cranes that can lift them... The same ones that have stones so preciously cut that you cant fit a razor blade between them.

Stones made of Pink Granite, a stone so hard that you need things like diamond tipped saws to cut them. Some of the ancient monoliths are made of stone even harder than Granite. Granite by the way can NOT be carved, shaped and cut with bronze tools. This then begs a whole host of questions.... how were they quarried since Bronze could not have been used how did they cut the rocks to quarry them... since they are SO large how did they move them? How did they engineer such precise measurements with tolerances that were so precise that mortar was not needed or used?

Clearly, without any question pre-flood mankind had an understanding of his environment that in many ways, FAR exceeds our understanding today.

There is a VAST difference between obedience Don't do X and knowledge of evil. Evil is the desire to oppose G-d preferring darkness over light. Of that mankind had no knowledge. That is a vastly different supposition than the vain attempt to suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand disobedience which I utterly reject.

Adam KNEW what he was doing. Adam was not deceived, Eve was. Adam failed on at least 2 fronts. First he failed to give Eve the word of G-d and ONLY the word of G-d. He ADDED to what Adonai said to him... this allowed Lucifer to deceive Eve when she touched the fruit and nothing happens to her. This allowed fertile ground for the real like that Satan was trying to sell her... that G-d was holding back on her and Adam.

Adam's equally big mistake was leaving Eve alone. Where was Adam? He was not present when the serpent came to deceive. He FAILED as the head of his family to execute his primary role as protector and covering for his wife.

The one thing Adam did that was amazing was that he willingly laid down his life for Eve. He COULD have said "Well, you really screwed up woman" I'm not dying for you... you have to deal with G-d on your own.... instead he took the fruit and ate knowing full well what the consequences were.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And if you continued to look you'd find that opinion is far more extensive; with dates ranging from between 90 and 120 AD. Maybe it actually was written in the middle to last quarter of the 1st century, but many have noted certain internal elements of the epistle and have from these argued for a later date.

As far as what you're trying to argue concerning Paul's use of Greek poets, I really don't see how your view of this defends the premise that Jude's use of Enoch renders Enoch in anyway substantial beyond Jude's specific use.

-CryptoLutheran


zz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I utterly reject your silliness. I will side with well respected mainstream dating of scripture... I don't need to "look deeper" I will side with mainstream thinking as it is consistent and I have no use for outliers who are LARGELY interested in undermining the veracity of scripture

If you cant see the difference between citing a pagan poet to lay ground for the fallacy of Idolatry in setting the stage for an argument Paul was making AGAINST Idolatry

and Jude citing Enoch in SUPPORT of a scriptural point he is making then you have far deeper spiritual confusion issues you need to work out.

The 2 could not possibly but further apart in their usage. If you cant see that, I'm sorry but you are blind.

One does not quote a source to support a point you are making if the audience to which you are principally addressing is unknown and/or is NOT considered authoritative. Your attempt to discredit Jude is primarily based on weak and deeply flawed attempt to suggest that the book of Jude was written by someone who was not a contemporary of the apostolic age. This of course would undermine the validity of Jude as scripture and by affiliation further reduce the quoting of Enoch as trivial in nature and therefore cast the quote as being rendered as largely meaningless.

Only a person who believe that the Bible is NOT inspired by G-d and is NOT inerrant could ever hold such a position. This line of thinking is insidious in nature and is of the flesh. Scripture is either the very Word of G-d and by NATURE is inerrant or it is not. There is NO middle ground. The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us or it did not. If it DID then it is perfect and inerrant.

G-d is either in control or he is not. If he is in control then no matter how messed up, how flawed how politically motivated the council of Nica was G-D's perfect will decreed the outcome regarding scripture.

If the paragraph above is not true then following this "book" is an absurd waste of time. If G-d can not control something as simple as his word to mankind then he is not G-d and should not be even given a second thought.

However, I KNOW HIS word is truth. PERFECT truth. When he called Cyrus BY NAME 250 years before he was born to liberate Y'israel from Babylonian captivity that tells me I can have FULL confidence in knowing that what is canonized is without question scripture I can base my life upon.

That means when someone floats out a date on a less quoted book in the bible I can disregard it for what it is.. an attempt to undermine the veracity of scripture. It also means when Jude quotes Enoch and calls him a prophet I can know that while the book if Enoch is not scripture, I can read from it as a commentary or as a historical perspective detailing what G-d spoke concerning the first couple of chapters of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,458
26,890
Pacific Northwest
✟732,295.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I utterly reject your silliness. I will side with well respected mainstream dating of scripture... I don't need to "look deeper" I will side with mainstream thinking as it is consistent and I have no use for outliers who are LARGELY interested in undermining the veracity of scripture

Mainstream scholars do argue for a 2nd century date. In much the same way that mainstream scholars disagree on the dating of other New Testament texts, such as the Synoptics, so do mainstream scholars disagree here on Jude. Saying that dating Jude late "undermines the veracity of scripture" is an assumption on your part.

Only a person who believe that the Bible is NOT inspired by G-d and is NOT inerrant could ever hold such a position. This line of thinking is insidious in nature and is of the flesh. Scripture is either the very Word of G-d and by NATURE is inerrant or it is not. There is NO middle ground. The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us or it did not. If it DID then it is perfect and inerrant.

Okay this needs some untangling.

Scripture is very capable of being divinely inspired without being inerrant. No, I do not hold to Scripture being inerrant, but I very much believe it is the inspired and authoritative word of God. The assumption that Scripture has to be inerrant in order to be inspired is just that, a particular assumption. In Scripture itself we frequently see God speaking through and using rather fallible people in order to communicate and fulfill His purposes.

The biggest problem however is that you've managed to somehow drag the Incarnation into this. The Word which became flesh is the Eternal Logos, the Logos became flesh, we know Him as Jesus the Christ, the incarnate God-Man. The Logos became flesh, not text. Jesus Christ is God's very Word, eternal and uncreated. Scripture is the word which points us to that Word; because Scripture points us to Jesus, because Scripture communicates God's Law and Gospel we also say Scripture is the Word of God. But let's not get confused and entertain heretical and idolatrous opinions here by conflating the Divine Logos--Jesus Christ--with Scripture.

Scripture is not Jesus. Scripture points us to Jesus, and it does this quite well. The Church has received these books down through the ages as faithful testimony to Jesus Christ and for our edification, for which reason they were read in the course of the liturgy--that's where the Bible comes from in the first place, as the authoritative collection of received books that were to be faithfully read and heard in Christian worship. Christianity does not follow a book, but a Person, Jesus Christ. Scripture points us to Jesus Christ. And it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to speak of the process by which the Bible came to be historically by talking about the fact that some books were regarded as doubtful (Antilegomena) while others were universally accepted (Homolegomena); and that there is a good amount of doubt among many scholars as to whether Jude was was written within the first century or in the second. That is a valid question and one that a Christian who wants to take the Bible seriously ought to be willing to engage in.

Fundamentally, however, Jude's dating was entirely tangential to my point: Which is that the New Testament quoting a text does not make said text by any means authoritative.

Jude quotes Enoch--that doesn't make Enoch authoritative or a reliable source of information except as something some believed in the 2nd Temple Period, it certainly doesn't make Enoch actually written by Enoch. That Paul's purpose for quoting Epimenides and Jude's purpose for quoting Enoch may be very different doesn't change my point.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: smaneck
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,554
428
85
✟489,164.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
im asking this question because there are many who believe that Adam is a dirty dog. Here is my reasoning to why they are not and were following the plan of God. Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden. They were innocent of knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them and Eve partook of the fruit and gave it to Adam. I believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods law to not eat the fruit. God had told them not to eat of the fruit or they would die. Since there had not yet had death enter into the garden did they understand what the consequences of their choice? Since they did not know good and evil, could Adam and Eve understood what the law was and the consequences? They did disobey and as a result death came into the world. Sin also came into the world because of imperfection. I believe that to justice it does not matter if someone disobeys having full knowledge and understanding of the law broken or if someone is innocent of the law. It is still disobedience and there are consequences that must come as a result. The punishment is the same. Logic dictates that this was Gods plan all along because why would he allow satan to tempt them? Why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil for them to be tempted. I believe that God wanted Adam to eat the fruit so mortality would come to this earth as well so we could know good from evil. To experience the opposites of life so we could continue to progress. So to me Adam and Eve did not sin. They did transgress Gods law which had the same punishment.


Sin is essential to the definition of man; the real issue is why Adam was there in the first place. Did Judas sin; Judas’ crime was the fulfilment of prophesy which God controls; Peter’s crime before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed three times was prophesied by Christ; was Judas’ sin worst than Peter’s?
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Mainstream scholars do argue for a 2nd century date. In much the same way that mainstream scholars disagree on the dating of other New Testament texts, such as the Synoptics, so do mainstream scholars disagree here on Jude. Saying that dating Jude late "undermines the veracity of scripture" is an assumption on your part.



Okay this needs some untangling.

Scripture is very capable of being divinely inspired without being inerrant. No, I do not hold to Scripture being inerrant, but I very much believe it is the inspired and authoritative word of God. The assumption that Scripture has to be inerrant in order to be inspired is just that, a particular assumption. In Scripture itself we frequently see God speaking through and using rather fallible people in order to communicate and fulfill His purposes.

The biggest problem however is that you've managed to somehow drag the Incarnation into this. The Word which became flesh is the Eternal Logos, the Logos became flesh, we know Him as Jesus the Christ, the incarnate God-Man. The Logos became flesh, not text. Jesus Christ is God's very Word, eternal and uncreated. Scripture is the word which points us to that Word; because Scripture points us to Jesus, because Scripture communicates God's Law and Gospel we also say Scripture is the Word of God. But let's not get confused and entertain heretical and idolatrous opinions here by conflating the Divine Logos--Jesus Christ--with Scripture.

Scripture is not Jesus. Scripture points us to Jesus, and it does this quite well. The Church has received these books down through the ages as faithful testimony to Jesus Christ and for our edification, for which reason they were read in the course of the liturgy--that's where the Bible comes from in the first place, as the authoritative collection of received books that were to be faithfully read and heard in Christian worship. Christianity does not follow a book, but a Person, Jesus Christ. Scripture points us to Jesus Christ. And it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to speak of the process by which the Bible came to be historically by talking about the fact that some books were regarded as doubtful (Antilegomena) while others were universally accepted (Homolegomena); and that there is a good amount of doubt among many scholars as to whether Jude was was written within the first century or in the second. That is a valid question and one that a Christian who wants to take the Bible seriously ought to be willing to engage in.

Fundamentally, however, Jude's dating was entirely tangential to my point: Which is that the New Testament quoting a text does not make said text by any means authoritative.

Jude quotes Enoch--that doesn't make Enoch authoritative or a reliable source of information except as something some believed in the 2nd Temple Period, it certainly doesn't make Enoch actually written by Enoch. That Paul's purpose for quoting Epimenides and Jude's purpose for quoting Enoch may be very different doesn't change my point.

-CryptoLutheran

And I completely disagree with you. You seem to ignore that I am not saying that Enoch is on the same footing as scripture it is not but Do I consider it to have the same standing of the Midrash or Talmud? Yes, I do.

I completely disagree with your 2nd century dating of Jude and I believe it is a fringe view and is not mainstream as you attempt to assert that it is.

You vainly attempt to tie the use of Enoch by Jude in the same light as Paul and your thesis is completely, intellectually dishonest. The two comparisons have virtually nothing in common in their usage. You COMPLETELY ignore that.

I think you are in fundamental GROSS error when you assert that scripture is errant. If scripture has error then G-d does not exist it is just that simple. Every Word of scripture is truth and you base your life upon it or its not and if not, its a complete waste of time.

Yeshua said I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.
You will see all through the Hebrew scriptures that the Torah is called the way, the truth and the life. The tree of life in the Garden was the Torah. Yeshua is the Torah become flesh. Every Sabbath when the Torah scroll is placed back in its Ark regardless of you are Messianic, Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed... Every Jewish synagogue quotes Proverbs 3:17-18 speaking of the Torah: Her ways are pleasant ways And all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast.

You can try and twist the word becoming flesh all you want but at the end of the day the author's of the Gospels were JEWS, speaking about a Jewish culture with Jewish customs writing about a JEWISH MESSIAH to a JEWISH audience.

Since the 3rd century in there has been this vain attempt to remove anything Jewish about Messiah, the apostles and the gospels at large. The very idea that John was not speaking about the Torah shows a complete misunderstanding of the message John was delivering. It is an attempt to marginalize the entire Tanakh to keep followers largely ignorant of the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. People try and state that the G-d of the OT is different than the one of the reNEWed covenant. He is not, the problem is that the do not see or understand what was going on in Genesis and as a result of that they do not understand why G-d did what he did.

Its the same kind of silliness when one tries to ignore Yeshua's own words concerning the law: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. I see people all the time try to argue that Yeshua (Jesus) did abolish the law in spite of the fact that he PLAINLY, OPENLY states the exact opposite
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Sin is essential to the definition of man; the real issue is why Adam was there in the first place. Did Judas sin; Judas’ crime was the fulfilment of prophesy which God controls; Peter’s crime before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed three times was prophesied by Christ; was Judas’ sin worst than Peter’s?

The wages of Sin is DEATH.

People need to get their head around the fact that G-d created evil. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Everything in creation responded to G-d in the fashion it was created. G-d knew Lucifer would sin, he knew Adam and Eve would sin and he knew from beginning to end what mankind would to to earth and to each other. Without the freedom to chose evil mankind can not have a free will. Mankind had to freely choose to be in relationship with Adonai.

We see things from mankind's perspective meaning we see in a very limited fashion. Scripture states that the heart is deceitfully wicked we can't even fully know our own heart let alone those of someone else. That's why when we are born-again we are a new creature with a new heart a heart of flesh and the one of stone (old man) is removed. That's also why Paul admonishes us to have our minds RENEWED by the washing of the Word so that our way of thinking lines up with this new creature that Paul speaks of... our war is against our own old mindset our old way of thinking.

Clearly, there are degree's of punishment in this life for the degree's of severity of sin primarily against other or the community at large. The difference between Judas and Peter is that Peter knew Yeshua was the Son of Man. Judas did not believe Yeshau's message about G-d's plan. Judas was trying to force Yeshua to literally take the throne of David and over throw Rome. Judas never understood even right up to the moment of his suicide.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
There are too many different layers of narrative in the Bible to come up with a unified picture - at least not without some serious retcons (which the younger Abrahamic religions are very fond of).

There's proto-semitic polytheism with El and his sons (mostly translated as the "sons of God").
There's the henotheism of YHVH, the angry desert deity who demands to be put before all other gods because he forcefully liberated his followers and defeated the gods of Egypt.
There's the strict monotheism of Judaism-as-we-know-it, partially obfuscating earlier layers (cf. Daniel's angel declaring that he arrived late because he had to combat the Zoroastrian angels first).
There's the trinitarian omnimax God of the New Testament and the (strangely incompatible) dualist opponent Satan.

And that's just a crude overview. It's a wild hodgepodge in there!
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There are too many different layers of narrative in the Bible to come up with a unified picture - at least not without some serious retcons (which the younger Abrahamic religions are very fond of).

There's proto-semitic polytheism with El and his sons (mostly translated as the "sons of God").
There's the henotheism of YHVH, the angry desert deity who demands to be put before all other gods because he forcefully liberated his followers and defeated the gods of Egypt.
There's the strict monotheism of Judaism-as-we-know-it, partially obfuscating earlier layers (cf. Daniel's angel declaring that he arrived late because he had to combat the Zoroastrian angels first).
There's the trinitarian omnimax God of the New Testament and the (strangely incompatible) dualist opponent Satan.

And that's just a crude overview. It's a wild hodgepodge in there!


No, you make the mistake that most people make of not understanding what is going on from the beginning. When you do not understand the beginning you are lead down a path that brings you to where you are today. A fragmented, distorted view of G-d based on a misunderstanding of what is occurring. A view or perception of a different G-d in the Hebrew Bible and the one who is seen in the N.T.

This misunderstanding primarily comes as a result of a deeply flawed assumption concerning both the intelligence and technology of the Antediluvian civilizations or more correctly the pre flood world. Because the world largely accepts without questioning the concept of Darwinian evolution, a highly advanced, technologically advanced, highly intelligent civilization dating from creation to the flood is incompatible with any Darwinian model. Because of this many/most "christians" can not conceive of the idea that ancient man in many ways was far more advanced than we are today.

It matters not if the "Sons of G-d" were angels that committed acts of abomination in the sight of G-d OR if the Sons of G-d spoken of in Genesis were the sethian "godly" line. The fact is that both man and animal DNA became utterly corrupted I believe as a result of mankind manipulating DNA. This illuminates the statement by G-d about how ALL FLESH had corrupted its way. After all HOW could an animal become "corrupted in its way?" The Only way this could have happened is if man was creating beings that were a perversion by mixing human DNA with animal DNA, or the DNA of animals not closely related (ex birds with reptiles or reptiles with mammals) resulting in the creation hybrids and trans-human beings. As a result G-d severely punished those angelic beings that departed from their "first estate" and wiped out ALL creatures that "had the breath of life" Noah, his wife and their 3 sons were pure genetically speaking but we have no evidence that suggests that their wives did not have corrupted DNA. I think it has to be the case because no where in scripture do we see even the mildest of hints that there was either the technology or an angelic incursion to explain the existence of nephillum on earth post flood. People try and argue that there are 2 accounts of the flood but this is inaccurate. The first account deals with only those animals that are classified as clean. A clean animal is both one that (later) can be used as food but also is an acceptable sacrifice to Adonai vs an unclean animal which can not be used for either purpose. This begs an obvious question. If the Torah/Law did not exist as some suggest how did Noah know the difference between clean and unclean? The answer is I believe the law was given to Adam from the beginning. I could go into detail as to why I believe scripture supports this view but it is outside the boundaries of the discussion at hand.

Satan from the beginning wanted to corrupt mankind's DNA as a means to prevent the coming of Messiah. In order to prevent that G-d needed to have a people who were "a peculiar people" who were set apart, who were bound to G-d and were not to intermarry with ANYONE not a part of Israel. It explains why in some Canaanite cites that were sacked why G-d allowed the children of Israel to take animals but were to destroy all the inhabitants, why in some they were allowed to take both animals and people and why in some that everything was to be destroyed. G-d was wiping out this corrupted DNA from the earth. It took almost 400 years from Joshua to David for this culling out of corrupted DNA in mankind.

The key to all of this is something Yeshua says in Matthew: "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."

when you look at the surface of this it seem like nothing is really being said. What is unique about eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage that we can use to identify anything as special or unique? The answer is we cant. For those things are true of EVERY generation... but why say "As in the days of Noah" and there in lies the key. What is unique about TODAY verse every generation since the Flood until THIS generation??? Man has rediscovered how to manipulate DNA. We hear science touting trans humanism and presenting it as something to achieve... just like the days of Noah.

What was the tower of Bable really about? Do you really think that Adonai was ticked about a building? No.. it had nothing to do with the building but rather what it represented... they wanted to return to the knowledge they possessed before the flood. Which we see clearly when G-d says The LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

They wanted to recreate the science they lost in the flood. When you see Genesis in this light G-d become remarkably consistent and his actions make sense in stopping Satan's efforts to prevent the coming of the Messiah. When you see and understand that Satan was trying to prevent the coming of Messiah by means of corrupting Mankind genetically, G-d's directions to Israel make sense. Some cities both man and beast had corrupted DNA that had to be removed from the gene pool. Some just animals were corrupted or just man was corrupted... and in some neither.

With the backdrop of knowing G-d was preventing Satan's plan to prevent the coming of Messiah promised to Adam and Eve, then later Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then through the prophets, this corrupted DNA had to be removed from the earth.

Additionally scripture can not be well understood if you take a Hellenistic approach to reading and understanding it. Hellenistic being defined as dealing with absolute facts, figures that lead to a logical progression and conclusion. Rather scripture is written in cycles, patterns, types and foreshadows that repeat from beginning to end. It is why if you want to understand the end you have to know the beginning because the end is shown in the beginning. It is an eastern way of thinking which is not Hellenistic in is approach to revealing truth. This is NOT to say that scripture does not deal in fact that lead to a logical conclusion because you indeed see this reflected in scripture but you simply can not employ a strictly Hellenistic approach to understanding scripture for when you do, you come to conclusions that scripture is contradicting itself and is therefore flawed and full of error when in fact is it not at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fatboys

Senior Veteran
Nov 18, 2003
9,231
280
70
✟53,575.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, you make the mistake that most people make of not understanding what is going on from the beginning. When you do not understand the beginning you are lead down a path that brings you to where you are today. A fragmented, distorted view of G-d based on a misunderstanding of what is occurring. A view or perception of a different G-d in the Hebrew Bible and the one who is seen in the N.T.

This misunderstanding primarily comes as a result of a deeply flawed assumption concerning both the intelligence and technology of the Antediluvian civilizations or more correctly the pre flood world. Because the world largely accepts without questioning the concept of Darwinian evolution, a highly advanced, technologically advanced, highly intelligent civilization dating from creation to the flood is incompatible with any Darwinian model. Because of this many/most "christians" can not conceive of the idea that ancient man in many ways was far more advanced than we are today.

It matters not if the "Sons of G-d" were angels that committed acts of abomination in the sight of G-d OR if the Sons of G-d spoken of in Genesis were the sethian "godly" line. The fact is that both man and animal DNA became utterly corrupted I believe as a result of mankind manipulating DNA. This illuminates the statement by G-d about how ALL FLESH had corrupted its way. After all HOW could an animal become "corrupted in its way?" The Only way this could have happened is if man was creating beings that were a perversion by mixing human DNA with animal DNA, or the DNA of animals not closely related (ex birds with reptiles or reptiles with mammals) resulting in the creation hybrids and trans-human beings. As a result G-d severely punished those angelic beings that departed from their "first estate" and wiped out ALL creatures that "had the breath of life" Noah, his wife and their 3 sons were pure genetically speaking but we have no evidence that suggests that their wives did not have corrupted DNA. I think it has to be the case because no where in scripture do we see even the mildest of hints that there was either the technology or an angelic incursion to explain the existence of nephillum on earth post flood. People try and argue that there are 2 accounts of the flood but this is inaccurate. The first account deals with only those animals that are classified as clean. A clean animal is both one that (later) can be used as food but also is an acceptable sacrifice to Adonai vs an unclean animal which can not be used for either purpose. This begs an obvious question. If the Torah/Law did not exist as some suggest how did Noah know the difference between clean and unclean? The answer is I believe the law was given to Adam from the beginning. I could go into detail as to why I believe scripture supports this view but it is outside the boundaries of the discussion at hand.

Satan from the beginning wanted to corrupt mankind's DNA as a means to prevent the coming of Messiah. In order to prevent that G-d needed to have a people who were "a peculiar people" who were set apart, who were bound to G-d and were not to intermarry with ANYONE not a part of Israel. It explains why in some Canaanite cites that were sacked why G-d allowed the children of Israel to take animals but were to destroy all the inhabitants, why in some they were allowed to take both animals and people and why in some that everything was to be destroyed. G-d was wiping out this corrupted DNA from the earth. It took almost 400 years from Joshua to David for this culling out of corrupted DNA in mankind.

The key to all of this is something Yeshua says in Matthew: "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."

when you look at the surface of this it seem like nothing is really being said. What is unique about eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage that we can use to identify anything as special or unique? The answer is we cant. For those things are true of EVERY generation... but why say "As in the days of Noah" and there in lies the key. What is unique about TODAY verse every generation since the Flood until THIS generation??? Man has rediscovered how to manipulate DNA. We hear science touting trans humanism and presenting it as something to achieve... just like the days of Noah.

What was the tower of Bable really about? Do you really think that Adonai was ticked about a building? No.. it had nothing to do with the building but rather what it represented... they wanted to return to the knowledge they possessed before the flood. Which we see clearly when G-d says The LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

They wanted to recreate the science they lost in the flood. When you see Genesis in this light G-d become remarkably consistent and his actions make sense in stopping Satan's efforts to prevent the coming of the Messiah. When you see and understand that Satan was trying to prevent the coming of Messiah by means of corrupting Mankind genetically, G-d's directions to Israel make sense. Some cities both man and beast had corrupted DNA that had to be removed from the gene pool. Some just animals were corrupted or just man was corrupted... and in some neither.

With the backdrop of knowing G-d was preventing Satan's plan to prevent the coming of Messiah promised to Adam and Eve, then later Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then through the prophets, this corrupted DNA had to be removed from the earth.

Additionally scripture can not be well understood if you take a Hellenistic approach to reading and understanding it. Hellenistic being defined as dealing with absolute facts, figures that lead to a logical progression and conclusion. Rather scripture is written in cycles, patterns, types and foreshadows that repeat from beginning to end. It is why if you want to understand the end you have to know the beginning because the end is shown in the beginning. It is an eastern way of thinking which is not Hellenistic in is approach to revealing truth. This is NOT to say that scripture does not deal in fact that lead to a logical conclusion because you indeed see this reflected in scripture but you simply can not employ a strictly Hellenistic approach to understanding scripture for when you do, you come to conclusions that scripture is contradicting itself and is therefore flawed and full of error when in fact is it not at all.
And you have the correct understanding Because you have received divine revelation that and have started to record this as new scripture?
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And you have the correct understanding Because you have received divine revelation that and have started to record this as new scripture?

You have not cited any scripture in any of your responses. I have quoted SEVERAL in this thread. Your response is summed up by saying

"Well, I cant really argue with your points because they are rooted in scripture but I dont like them, so Ill attack you personally since I have no logical, well thought out debate from which I can provide a destining view."

I'm not at all surprised that this is your tact
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
No, you make the mistake that most people make of not understanding what is going on from the beginning.<snip>.

Do you expect me to take all that rambling seriously? After dismissing ViaCrucis's erudite responses out of hand and insisting that mainstream scholarship is in fact a minority view?

Constructing bizarre meta-mythologies that include references to DNA, yet utterly fail to understand basic biology is a REALLY bad idea.
Sorry, I'm not that interested in utterly unfounded fundamentalist opinions.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Do you expect me to take all that rambling seriously? After dismissing ViaCrucis's erudite responses out of hand and insisting that mainstream scholarship is in fact a minority view?

Constructing bizarre meta-mythologies that include references to DNA, yet utterly fail to understand basic biology is a REALLY bad idea.
Sorry, I'm not that interested in utterly unfounded fundamentalist opinions.


Im not really interested in what a pagan thinks
 
Upvote 0

fatboys

Senior Veteran
Nov 18, 2003
9,231
280
70
✟53,575.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have not cited any scripture in any of your responses. I have quoted SEVERAL in this thread. Your response is summed up by saying

"Well, I cant really argue with your points because they are rooted in scripture but I dont like them, so Ill attack you personally since I have no logical, well thought out debate from which I can provide a destining view."

I'm not at all surprised that this is your tact
Why use it to quote scripture when you can interpret it the way you want it to mean. For example you believe that Paul says that Adam sinned when he wrote "through on man sin entered into the world". I take a different meaning. It doesn't say that Adam sinned but that his disobedience brought about sin into the world. What is the difference? Well I believe disobedience has the same results whether you know good or evil. It is a transgression against Gods laws. One is a transgression having full knowledge of good and evil and the other is not having a knowledge of good and evil. Both are transgressions. One is a sin which is a transgress the other is just a trangression
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why use it to quote scripture when you can interpret it the way you want it to mean. For example you believe that Paul says that Adam sinned when he wrote "through on man sin entered into the world". I take a different meaning. It doesn't say that Adam sinned but that his disobedience brought about sin into the world. What is the difference? Well I believe disobedience has the same results whether you know good or evil. It is a transgression against Gods laws. One is a transgression having full knowledge of good and evil and the other is not having a knowledge of good and evil. Both are transgressions. One is a sin which is a transgress the other is just a trangression

It doesn't work that way. Good exegesis of scripture means understanding the translated words properly. The passage of scripture in Romans 5:12 is the greek word hamartia which is rendered as SIN (to miss the mark.)

Transgression (greek Pesha:refers to a willful transgression done specifically to spite God.) is actually worse than Sin.

Sin can occur by either commission or omission. Commission being I do something I know I shouldn't be doing. Adam ate the fruit fully knowing he had been specifically forbidden to do so.

Omission being I do something I should be doing but am unaware what I do is contrary to the Law.

Transgression however involves rebellion. Which is far worse than Sin because it involves open rebellion against G-d and his statues, decree's and laws. A better way to understand transgression would be the person who knows what they are doing is wrong, takes joy in doing the wrong not because of the pleasure it brings but rather to establish they either do not care or don't believe (in)G-d.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ChetSinger

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
3,518
650
✟124,958.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Why use it to quote scripture when you can interpret it the way you want it to mean. For example you believe that Paul says that Adam sinned when he wrote "through on man sin entered into the world". I take a different meaning. It doesn't say that Adam sinned but that his disobedience brought about sin into the world. What is the difference? Well I believe disobedience has the same results whether you know good or evil. It is a transgression against Gods laws. One is a transgression having full knowledge of good and evil and the other is not having a knowledge of good and evil. Both are transgressions. One is a sin which is a transgress the other is just a trangression
Romans 5:16 says he sinned. End of story, imo. I don't understand why you're going to the mat over this.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Romans 5:16 says he sinned. End of story, imo. I don't understand why you're going to the mat over this.
He is trying to redefine the word Sin which is why I showed the Greek word and its corresponding translation
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He is trying to redefine the word Sin which is why I showed the Greek word and its corresponding translation
It's in their theology to redefine Biblical principles without regard to original language or practice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BukiRob
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
As far as what you're trying to argue concerning Paul's use of Greek poets, I really don't see how your view of this defends the premise that Jude's use of Enoch renders Enoch in anyway substantial beyond Jude's specific use.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you think Revelation could have been written without reference to Enoch?
 
Upvote 0