Question about Genesis

[BobRyan]

Context is everything. There were many holy Watcher angels in Eden, and they are there, still, except for the ones that did not get chained in Sheol below, at the time of the Flood of Noah, andthere were the created evil angels there, called "satans", created specifically to try, test, and tempt holy watcher angels

There is an incredible amount of fiction in that statement. Not at all in the actual Bible.

 

[dms1972]

You have hit on one of the most important subjects in the bible. I am so exicted that you have the unction to find out more here.
There is so much debate on creation and there does not need to be.
there are 2 adams. But adam is not a name like bill or jack..
In chapter one, Adam means "People" In chapter 2 Adam in the greek is actually "eth ha adahm, which is very more specific. it means a very specific person.
so we begin with God making "people" (the races). He created them man and women. they were to hunt and fish. they were made by God. But at the end of those 7 days, while God was resting on the 7th day, He found them to be very bad.
So now we start chapter 2. This chapter IS NOT a repeat of Chapter one. God now made eth ha adahm, a very specific person and placed him in the garden of Eden. He was separated from the other races he had formed in chapter one. This Adam (eth ha adahm) was to till the soil.

Why the confusion of the 2 creations of man?

This is a very indepth study but you can study this by going to youtube, Shephard's Chapel and type in "3 world ages" It will give you step by step instruction and they back up every statement with biblical scripture.

I'm sure they do!!!

Sounds pretty 'indepth'- or maybe in too deep!!!

I've never heard any of this ever before, so I'll stick with the teaching of Jesus in Scripture on this, if he mentions it - otherwise its nothing I need to know about - its just someones interpretation.

From one man God made every nation of men. (Acts Chapter 17:26)http://biblehub.com/acts/17-26.htm

 

[dms1972]

yeshuasavedme said: ↑
Context is everything. There were many holy Watcher angels in Eden, and they are there, still, except for the ones that did not get chained in Sheol below, at the time of the Flood of Noah, andthere were the created evil angels there, called "satans", created specifically to try, test, and tempt holy watcher angels

There is an incredible amount of fiction in that statement. Not at all in the actual Bible.

If there is fiction in it then thats a pity, I think the Bible is amazing without need to be always looking for angels - in fact that it mentions angels so little makes the times they are involved so amazing. I don't want to offend against someones interpretation however (thats why I have changed my comment)

I believe there are angels - I just don't think we have anything much to do directly with them or them with us. We just don't know when they help us mostly. I tend to disbelieve people who talk a lot about seeing them from day to day. Neither do I look for them, that is bound at some point to get one into diffs.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

yeshuasavedme said: ↑
Context is everything. There were many holy Watcher angels in Eden, and they are there, still, except for the ones that did not get chained in Sheol below, at the time of the Flood of Noah, andthere were the created evil angels there, called "satans", created specifically to try, test, and tempt holy watcher angels



Yes - sad that people can't just read the Bible, but impose this sort of stuff (fiction) unto it. I mean its pretty amazing as it is, so why do people add all their own thoughts to it so much? This isn't exposition or commentary, or exegesis to bring out what is there - its just someones overactive mind going into a whirl.

Could you tell us the context of the ruling Holy Watcher angels in Daniel?
Why do they rule; from where do they rule; why did Nebuchadnezzar know them as holy watchers and define them as "holy watchers?"

You'll find the reasons detailed in the Book of Enoch, which is canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
Without Enoch, "the blind lead the blind" as to the study of the writings of holy men of God.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

There is an incredible amount of fiction in that statement. Not at all in the actual Bible.

So what is the "actual Bible" that you think is the "actual Bible"?
My "actual Bible" includes the books that tell us these truths.
You'll find a good list of reading in the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon, and in many other "canons" of the Churches of God, but not one of them includes Ellen White or Joe Smith, late claimers to the office of prophet whose works are rebuked by all the writings considered sacred by all the early believers.
In fact: The last word of Jesus Christ, the last prophet of God by whom God has spoken to us in these last days of the millennial week of this present creation in that sense of giving "The Word of God to men", was given to John on Patmos, and there are no more books after that Revelation of Jesus Christ in which the Word of God is given to men, through a man.

There are histories of the Church, however, after that, and history is useful and instructional; but a history that changes "Thus saith YHWH" in any way, or denies the Written word of God as of no value over the revealed Word, is a fabrication of fallible men; and one who follows men as if they have new revelation from God needs a revelation of Jesus themselves, to set them free from teachings that lead to damnable doctrines.

 

[dms1972]

Could you tell us the context of the ruling Holy Watcher angels in Daniel?

Context for me is beginning with the simpler stuff first. I wasn't asking anything about this, only how to answer questions about Genesis being wrong. And the 'days' thing - I just don't think its necessary to know if these are 24 hour days or, longer ages, or that that is the most important thing.

 

[dms1972]

For CS Lewis - Genesis in its creation account - its a poetic account of creation, its mythopoeic language, but not a myth- but its so hard to explain because of the misuse of these terms. Its perhaps from a mythic story, but if so in the retelling of it divine revelation has broken in and turned it around into a account of a true creation. Its both poetic and informative. Poetry doesn't mean its about someones emotions- but we are talking about a literary genre that is suited to convey an account of God's creation of the world.

You can read more on it in The Language of Religion (a chapter in Christian Reflections) where he talks about ordinary language, scientific language and poetic Language, and also On Scripture, in Reflections on the Psalms.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I believe that the creation account in Genesis is poetic and historical, yet not meant to be taken literally because it is, after all, poetic. I have always held to that view, because it makes the most sense- it couldn't be purely arbitrary because it is revelation, but is nonetheless in an obvious poetic form.

#OldEarthCreationism
REAL old earth creationism, that is. I never went in for the gap theory and all that. I tend to lean toward such things like Hugh Ross's notion that God's recreation and improvement of extinct animals is what is mistaken for 'evolution'.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

For CS Lewis - Genesis in its creation account - its a poetic account of creation, its mythopoeic language, but not a myth. Its perhaps from a mythic story, but if if so in the retelling of it divine revelation has broken in and turned it around into a account of a true creation. Its both poetic and informative.

Those are Lewis' opinions.
He's an excellent storyteller, but he, himself said; "I am no theologian".

And FYI: Lewis leaned much on the Book of Enoch and the history book of Jasher, as anyone familiar with those books and his stories easily detects. He just wove it into interesting fables and he made no claim to "inspired writing".
Lewis was a gifted story teller, but Enoch is revelation of the last things, and Jasher is history of the Patriarchs, with the chronology of creation from the beginning to the time of going into the promised Land, and my studied opinion is that Moses compiled it from the writings of the Patriarchs which he had in his possession; and there, he also filled in the details of his own history..
The book of Jasher is history and was written as a companion book to Torah.

 

[dms1972]

Those are Lewis' opinions.
He's an excellent storyteller, but he, himself said; "I am no theologian".

And FYI: Lewis leaned much on the Book of Enoch and the history book of Jasher, as anyone familiar with those books and his stories easily detects. He just wove it into interesting fables and he made no claim to "inspired writing"...

I don't know anything much about the book of Enoch, if its part of the canon of the church you belong to then I am sure you know much more about it than me. But my question is about Genesis not about 'the last things'

I have read a fair bit of CS Lewis - both his stories and several of his essays, and additionally a good deal of books about his writtings. I have never once come across reference (I have two volumnes of his letters) to this. People see all sorts of things in Lewis's stories (except sometimes the stories themselves!), but that is what they are, he was trying to break the spell of the enlightenment. Analysing them beyond this seems to me counter-productive.


Yes indeed CS Lewis made no claim to inspired writing in his stories, and yes he wasn't a professional theologian - he was a literary critic.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Hi, Although I have christian background, I have some questions about Genesis, partly because others raise these questions and objections at times too. If its possible to answer them I like some answers. In all honesty I suppress some of my questions at times.

What is Genesis the first three chapters - I am inclined to call it mythopoetic (not in the sense of never having happened, or being untrue) but in its language, its not scientific. For myself I no longer demand it should be, and this maybe came gradually.

But others still raise some questions. For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun. If its not chronological in sequence how should it be understood. Whats back of this requirement that Genesis read as a scientific textbook?

Okay, so lets go back to your question.
My answer:
The first three chapters of the Beginnings is the most scientific writing you will ever read.
All else after that is discovery of the science, which men who have no belief in the Word of God being true from the beginning [whether or not they profess faith in Jesus as their Savior], will never discover the truth of the science because they threw out the foundation for all dscovery.
I am not a scientist [whatever that means, in the minds of most, but I am a lover of truth and wisdom], but I do believe the Word of God is truth from the beginning, and higher than our understanding can grasp when we throw it out.
There is no foundation for understanding the creation when the Beginnings is cut out as the foundation.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The universe is electric: Genesis 1
The Holy Spirit "brooded" over the waters of creation: Genesis 1 -giving birth to the forces of His powers, in the waters of creation Genesis 1

The heavens are the "firmament of His Powers, stretched out between the cut in two waters of creation": Genesis 1
The powers are stretched out from the globe of waters of creation on day 2 of creation week [one week of evenings and mornings as we count them, from the beginning] Genesis 1
The light called into being on day 1 was separated from the darkness on day 1, and evenings and mornings were created in the revolving powers of creation which revolved around the earth from the beginning: Genesis 1

Everything that is created is brought into being out of the waters of creation. Genesis 1
The heavens were stretched out and the lights/morning stars/powers/angels came from right here, from the globe of waters of this creation, and were set in place in the stretched out heavens, beneath the half of the waters of creation [but I am not so sure the stars do not revolve in the waters above the heavens, themselves, in this electric universe]: the waters beneath the heavens were gathered together in one place [called seas, then], and the "dry" was commanded to be, to appear, out of the waters.

The dry was then named "earth". It did not come into being as mud, but as "DRY": Genesis 1

 

[2KnowHim]

I see Gen 1:1-2:4 As The Blueprint for the Redemption of mankind. It is Spiritual and in Seed form.
In fact one could actually say that it is The Seed bed for All Truth. IMU it is not about History or Science it is about God's Salvation for us. 7 days or 7,000 yrs of God Creating man in His image and likeness, through the one who is His image and likeness, which is Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Job8]

I see Gen 1:1-2:4 As The Blueprint for the Redemption of mankind. It is Spiritual and in Seed form.
In fact one could actually say that it is The Seed bed for All Truth. IMU it is not about History or Science it is about God's Salvation for us. 7 days or 7,000 yrs of God Creating man in His image and likeness, through the one who is His image and likeness, which is Christ Jesus our Lord.

If we take the creation account as spiritual (which it is) we cannot avoid accepting it as literal and factual, because the spiritual Ten Commandments do not give us the option of either 6 days or 6,000 years. According to the 4th commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) those are six literal 24-hour days followed by one literal sabbath day.

 

[Job8]

I believe that the creation account in Genesis is poetic and historical, yet not meant to be taken literally because it is, after all, poetic. I have always held to that view, because it makes the most sense- it couldn't be purely arbitrary because it is revelation, but is nonetheless in an obvious poetic form.

Just because the format appears to be poetical does not mean that we are not to take the words as literal and historical truth. There is no need to set up a false conflict, since much of the Bible is written in a poetical format. In fact Psalm 119 (for example) is an acrostic, but that does not change its factual content.

 

[2KnowHim]

If we take the creation account as spiritual (which it is) we cannot avoid accepting it as literal and factual, because the spiritual Ten Commandments do not give us the option of either 6 days or 6,000 years. According to the 4th commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) those are six literal 24-hour days followed by one literal sabbath day.

Only to those who do not have eyes to see that it is the pattern of the first ch. of Gen. and the Finished work of God through His Christ.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Christ has now become our Rest, it was finished in Him before it was made manifest in this earth.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Paul tells us to Labour to enter into The Rest of God.
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
This is because Christ is The Finished work of The Father, in Him we are to cease from our own works, for they are done in Christ.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Christ is The Seventh Day Rest this is why we are to hallow Him.

Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Heb 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Heb 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[Job8]

Only to those who do not have eyes to see that it is the pattern of the first ch. of Gen. and the Finished work of God through His Christ.

Not sure how any of this has a bearing on the historicity of the creation account. To the contrary, if Adam and Eve were not real historical people, there would have been no need for the finished work of Christ. The Gospel begins in Gen 3:15.

 

[2KnowHim]

Gen. 1- is not to be taken as a historical account, but Spiritually by Revelation.

 

[Job8]

Gen. 1- is not to be taken as a historical account, but Spiritually by Revelation.

So now we have to wander off into mysticism to grasp Genesis 1 - 3? Then why is it written in language which is comprehensible to a schoolboy?