The Literal Fall of Man

[brinny]

Well he seemed to be that way in the Old Testament with the whole thing about rules for animal sacrifices as "sin offerings" and the smell of burnt flesh being "an aroma pleasing to the Lord". Why couldn't there have been another way, something that didn't involve Jesus dying? Why does it seem like that "blood must be spilled to forgive" thing?

Awwwww ok, i understand it may SEEM that way......

just wondering, how deeply have you delved into the Old Testament, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[miknik5]

Crystal dragon

CHRIST's BLOOD is a mark
(Just like the first Passover where the people had to mark the outside of their houses and hide themselves away)

GOD, when HE looks upon those who believe, HE sees HIS SON's covering

THAT GARMENT....HIS COVERING

We are to GOD the aroma of Christ

 

[miknik5]

All these things
All these lower signs were simply to point us to HIS SON

High priestly garments
Incense innthe Breast pocket
Shedding of Blood for the forgiveness of sins

That nothing was cleansed except by blood

Holy unblemished offering
Holy unblemished high priest

All these things were just signs and symbols and pictures and shadows and representations pointing us to The ONE planned from the beginning

 

[-57]

First, can we go back to the question you raised?

Why did God create hell?

Matt 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[brinny]

Matt 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Profound verse there.

 

[-57]

I agree there about the devil and his angels there. I assume no human would want to be tortured forever though. So yeah, I'd say they should go to a Purgatory type place, where they're given punishment that actually fit the crime, rather than identical torture for really evil people and people who were good but didn't believe just for growing up in the wrong place or not seeing the Bible as anything different from ancient myth.

If people, eventually, were sorry and showed it with complete sincerity, I wouldn't have them prove it in some way (maybe placing them into a simulated situation involving seeing what their past self did and protesting against/stopping it). THEN, if they were really REALLY sincere in their repentance, and they had proven they had truly changed, THEN they would get to heaven.

If the truly vile ones were never sorry (though given eternity I think they would be eventually, given punishment), then they'd stay in Purgatory. Again though, not being eternally tortured (that's evil, people would agree if anyone else but God did it), but being punished in a way that fit the crimes.

Purgatory is not even mentioned in the bible. Purgatory doesn't exist.

 

[-57]

It never said Satan was the serpent. The evidence of Genesis stated it was just a serpent and nothing more.

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

 

[Colter]

Near the beginning at the time of the fall of man, there is speculation by some the account isn’t literal, but rather figurative. There are many points made for the figurative point of view, but at least two of them haven’t had any satisfactory responses that I’ve ever seen. Both of them pertain to the 2-fold curse placed upon the serpent.


Curse Part 1: “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Gen 3:14

This pertains directly to the animal nature of the serpent, a direct comparison to other animals, a change in their body, and a reference to their eating dust all their days.

If this passage were figurative, then it would not be observable now and we would not be told it extends into the new world. Isaiah 65:17 starts with the creation (not evolution) of new heavens and a new earth, and then continues on until the nature of the literal animals is given. Verse 25, “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.”

The animals are restored to their original state, but the curse on the serpent remains, literally. If the curse of the serpent was just a story, it would not still be observable and in literal effect in the new world.


Curse Part 2: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Gen 3:15

Did the serpent actually talk? The second part of the serpent’s curse indicated there was a spiritual force behind the creature, causing it to speak to say what it did. But can supernatural beings cause animals to talk? It seems so. In Numbers 22, we see the mouth of the donkey of Balaam was opened by supernatural means and it spoke as well.

So, I see these as two big problems when people attempt to justify the fall of man as figurative when the curse is literal and not figurative, and the idea of animals talking is not absurd when supernatural forces are involved.

The crafty beast was the devil, if one didn't know it already it was revealed in Johns vision on Patmos.
And the great dragon was cast out — that serpent of old called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world. He was cast out onto the earth

 

[CrystalDragon]

Purgatory is not even mentioned in the bible. Purgatory doesn't exist.

I wasn't saying Purgatory was in the Bible. I was saying it would be more fair and loving than an eternal hellfire for humanity.

Rev 20:2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

Not only was Revelation written symbolically, it was written centuries after anything in the Old Testament. It's like Shakespeare writing about the ghost of Hamlet's father and then someone coming along saying that the ghost of Hamlet's father was actually someone else. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis itself that indicates the serpent was Satan.

Genesis 3:1 - "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”"

It outright says that it was one of the wild animals.

Genesis 3:14-15 -
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

If it was really Satan, wouldn't the punishment have been different? Wouldn't have been God casting out Satan's presence from the serpent? No, God speaks to it as if it was nothing more than a serpent that had legs, and then lost them because it tricked Eve.

The serpent was just a serpent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

[-57]

I wasn't saying Purgatory was in the Bible. I was saying it would be more fair and loving than an eternal hellfire for humanity.



Not only was Revelation written symbolically, it was written centuries after anything in the Old Testament. It's like Shakespeare writing about the ghost of Hamlet's father and then someone coming along saying that the ghost of Hamlet's father was actually someone else. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis itself that indicates the serpent was Satan.

Genesis 3:1 - "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”"

It outright says that it was one of the wild animals.

Genesis 3:14-15 -
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

If it was really Satan, wouldn't the punishment have been different? Wouldn't have been God casting out Satan's presence from the serpent? No, God speaks to it as if it was nothing more than a serpent that had legs, and then lost them because it tricked Eve.

The serpent was just a serpent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Ahhhhhhh, the written later bible excuse pops it's head up again. Perhaps you believe Christ and how He represents Isaiah 53 was introduced into the Gospel and made to fit Isaiah 53.

As to purgatory, true it's not in the bible...... and fairness...fairness is that EVERY human be sent to hell. I trust you do understand that point? If not we can discuss it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Ahhhhhhh, the written later bible excuse pops it's head up again. Perhaps you believe Christ and how He represents Isaiah 53 was introduced into the Gospel and made to fit Isaiah 53.

As to purgatory, true it's not in the bible...... and fairness...fairness is that EVERY human be sent to hell. I trust you do understand that point? If not we can discuss it.

Isaiah 53 says it's about "the arm of the LORD", not necessarily the future Messiah, though there's a big difference between that and my example. In your case with Isaiah, the context implies to be talking about a future time, and with Jesus having done no violence (driving out the Pharisees with a whip and driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff don't count, I guess?), being oppressed, and made as a lamb for slaughter, it seems to be a prophecy of some sort that could refer to Jesus.

In my example, however, there's no indication in the text whatsoever that the serpent was Satan. Even God's punishment isn't anything like "Satan, cease your disguise as a serpent (or possession of a serpent) and you shall not be permitted to join me in the gates of heaven, always cast down into the Earth" or anything like that, just acting as if it's a snake that had legs and now it's meant to lose them, which is an explanation for why snakes slither on the ground. Such a punishment wouldn't make sense at all if the serpent was Satan, because Satan could just easily transform into another form if it was him. The punishment only makes sense if the serpent was just a serpent, and the beginning of chapter 3 outright says that the serpent was the craftiest out of all the animals God had made. It's clearly just a serpent. A serpent with legs, true, but there's no indication the serpent was anything more than a serpent, and the punishment only makes sense if that was the case.

As for hell, why is it fair for every human to be sent there? To punish us for something our ancestors did? Why should we be punished for that? What happened to "I will not punish the son for the sins of the father"? (Oh wait, in other parts he does say he punishes other people for what someone did). No conscious being deserves eternal torture. How can we call that loving, just, or anything other than evil? God supposedly loves us more than the animals, but he doesn't send the animals to hell. It sounds like a twisted concept of love, if that's what love is we need to redefine it, and when we say "I love you" to someone it might as well be a death threat.

 

[expos4ever]

In a nutshell, how is the curse on the serpent considered figurative when the observation is literal, and why are we told it will continue in a literal sense into the new world if it were just a story?

While I still think you are not clearly expressing your argument, I think you are making this argument, which is clearly not very strong:

1. We have the account in Genesis of the snake being consigned to travel on his belly;
2. We observe that snakes travel on their bellies in the present;
3. We are told that even when the curse is "reversed" in the future, the snake will still travel on its belly.
4. Therefore, the snake in Genesis is a real snake.

This argument - which is my guess at what you are saying - is clearly flawed. I can counter that while, obviously, snakes travel on their belly in the present and may well do so in the future, this in no way prevents the author of Genesis from inventing a story about the snake having previously not been on its belly and only been consigned to traveling on its belly as the result of the fall. You seem to think that because snakes are real, writers cannot use them as metaphors - a very odd thing to try to argue. And I don't get the relevance of the prophecy about the snake continuing on its belly in the "new world. Even if we ignore that prophecy, you would appear to believe that because real snakes travel on their belly, this means that the snake in Genesis is an example of such a real snake.

Well, that obviously does not work: real bears eat honey. But surely this does not prevent me from creating a story about a honey-eating bear.

 

[-57]

Isaiah 53 says it's about "the arm of the LORD", not necessarily the future Messiah, though there's a big difference between that and my example. In your case with Isaiah, the context implies to be talking about a future time, and with Jesus having done no violence (driving out the Pharisees with a whip and driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff don't count, I guess?), being oppressed, and made as a lamb for slaughter, it seems to be a prophecy of some sort that could refer to Jesus.

In my example, however, there's no indication in the text whatsoever that the serpent was Satan. Even God's punishment isn't anything like "Satan, cease your disguise as a serpent (or possession of a serpent) and you shall not be permitted to join me in the gates of heaven, always cast down into the Earth" or anything like that, just acting as if it's a snake that had legs and now it's meant to lose them, which is an explanation for why snakes slither on the ground. Such a punishment wouldn't make sense at all if the serpent was Satan, because Satan could just easily transform into another form if it was him. The punishment only makes sense if the serpent was just a serpent, and the beginning of chapter 3 outright says that the serpent was the craftiest out of all the animals God had made. It's clearly just a serpent. A serpent with legs, true, but there's no indication the serpent was anything more than a serpent, and the punishment only makes sense if that was the case.

As for hell, why is it fair for every human to be sent there? To punish us for something our ancestors did? Why should we be punished for that? What happened to "I will not punish the son for the sins of the father"? (Oh wait, in other parts he does say he punishes other people for what someone did). No conscious being deserves eternal torture. How can we call that loving, just, or anything other than evil? God supposedly loves us more than the animals, but he doesn't send the animals to hell. It sounds like a twisted concept of love, if that's what love is we need to redefine it, and when we say "I love you" to someone it might as well be a death threat.

Your post sounds more like fallen mans wishful thinking philosophy rather than biblical theology.
Theology talks of federal headship and how Adams sin was imputed to all humans...and how our sin can be imputed to Christ Jesus.
Adam was the representative of all humanity. Romas 5:18 mentions the following:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
You question fairness. The bible tells us Adams sin led to condemnation for all people. I didn't write it and you shouldn't deny it.

So you call sending people to hell as a twisted kind of love? What is the wages of isn? The bible tells us that answer in Romans 6:23.... For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Is God unjust when He sends people to hell?

 

[brinny]

It never said Satan was the serpent. The evidence of Genesis stated it was just a serpent and nothing more.

Yes. It is written in Genesis that Satan took the form of a serpent and that this serpent had legs before God cursed it.

(This would be an excellent study.)

 

[-57]

While I still think you are not clearly expressing your argument, I think you are making this argument, which is clearly not very strong:

1. We have the account in Genesis of the snake being consigned to travel on his belly;
2. We observe that snakes travel on their bellies in the present;
3. We are told that even when the curse is "reversed" in the future, the snake will still travel on its belly.
4. Therefore, the snake in Genesis is a real snake.

This argument - which is my guess at what you are saying - is clearly flawed. I can counter that while, obviously, snakes travel on their belly in the present and may well do so in the future, this in no way prevents the author of Genesis from inventing a story about the snake having previously not been on its belly and only been consigned to traveling on its belly as the result of the fall. You seem to think that because snakes are real, writers cannot use them as metaphors - a very odd thing to try to argue. And I don't get the relevance of the prophecy about the snake continuing on its belly in the "new world. Even if we ignore that prophecy, you would appear to believe that because real snakes travel on their belly, this means that the snake in Genesis is an example of such a real snake.

Well, that obviously does not work: real bears eat honey. But surely this does not prevent me from creating a story about a honey-eating bear.

If the serpent was only a metaphor...then so was Adam. So was Eve. So was the garden. So was the trees in the garden. So was the fall of Adam and Eve. So was the angel guarding the garden. So was the entire six day creation. So was the statement Eve was the mother of all. So was the curse of thorns. So was the curse of childbirth. So was the curse of man returning to the dust. So was the creation of Adam from the dust....the list goes on and on as each aspect of Genesis is opened.

The problem is you have no explanation...biblical based explanation...explaining what each of the "metaphors" mean.

Considering Genesis is presented as quite literal and historical through out scripture....why should we not believe it is what it says? Might I suggest you believe in evolutionism more than the bible?

 

[-57]

Yes. It is written in Genesis that Satan took the form of a serpent and that this serpent had legs before God cursed it.

(This would be an excellent study.)

You might like this from got questions.

 

[brinny]

You might like this from got questions.

Thanks! I'll check it out.

 

[expos4ever]

If the serpent was only a metaphor...then so was Adam. So was Eve.
So was the garden. So was the trees in the garden. So was the fall of Adam and Eve. So was the angel guarding the garden. So was the entire six day creation. So was the statement Eve was the mother of all. So was the curse of thorns. So was the curse of childbirth. So was the curse of man returning to the dust. So was the creation of Adam from the dust....the list goes on and on as each aspect of Genesis is opened.

Here is the problem: Although there are some exceptions (like me and some others), these boards become an echo chamber where faulty ideas are expressed and then endorsed by members of the very tiny fringe who hold those ideas. I don't mean to be harsh, but I suggest that unless you are an expert in the characteristics of Hebrew culture, you simply do not have the legitimacy to make such a sprawling claim about the nature of ancient writing.

In short, how do you know that the Genesis account cannot contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical elements? The problem with internet discussion boards is that anyone can make claims that only an appropriately qualified expert would make in the "real" world.

Might I suggest you believe in evolutionism more than the bible?

Of course you can suggest it.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Yes. It is written in Genesis that Satan took the form of a serpent and that this serpent had legs before God cursed it.

(This would be an excellent study.)

No, it never says that. Point to where it says it in Genesis. It says it was one of the wild animals, and that God cursed it as a snake to slither on the ground, which is why snakes slither on the ground to this day. It NEVER said it was Satan.

You might like this from got questions.

Again, Got Questions just sites Revelation, which was written much later, is symbolic, and Genesis itself never indicates it was anything but a serpent. The punishment God gave the serpent would have been completely different.

Your post sounds more like fallen mans wishful thinking philosophy rather than biblical theology.
Theology talks of federal headship and how Adams sin was imputed to all humans...and how our sin can be imputed to Christ Jesus.
Adam was the representative of all humanity. Romas 5:18 mentions the following:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
You question fairness. The bible tells us Adams sin led to condemnation for all people. I didn't write it and you shouldn't deny it.

So you call sending people to hell as a twisted kind of love? What is the wages of isn? The bible tells us that answer in Romans 6:23.... For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Is God unjust when He sends people to hell?

The "wages of sin" is only death because God punished Adam and Eve for it to be that way. But death should not by default include eternal torture. Eternal torture is not love or just in any sense. It's wicked and unjust and evil, or anyone would say so if it was anyone else doing it/ Would you toss your child into a burning pit where they are tortured forever and ever and say you still love them? People would call you sick and twisted and evil and the farthest thing from loving or just.

 

[-57]

Here is the problem: Although there are some exceptions (like me and some others), these boards become an echo chamber where the most ridiculous ideas are expressed and then endorsed by members of the very tiny fringe who hold those ideas. I don't mean to be harsh, but I suggest that unless you are an expert in the characteristics of Hebrew culture, you simply do not have the legitimacy to make such a sprawling claim about the nature of ancient writing.

In short, how do you know that the Genesis account cannot contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical elements? The problem with internet discussion boards is that anyone can make claims that only an appropriately qualified expert would make in the "real" world.


Of course you can suggest it.

Could it contain some "metaphorical elements"...perhaps...such as Eve was created from Adams rib (side) so she could stand besides Adam. After all it sound right. Heck, it might even be right but I don't think you'll find any other biblical scripture linking the concept with the creation of eve in that fashion.

If Genesis was simply a metaphor as you and others suggest..then why doesn't the rest of the bible explain the metaphor? What actually happens is that the bible presents Genesis as a literal and historical event.

When you make Genesis a metaphor you tell all of us that the fall in the garden didn't happen and sin and death were not the result of one mans disobedience. You destroy Romans 5...as well as other portions of scripture.

I truly hope above you didn't say the idea of a literal Genesis is endorsed by a tiny thin fridge group of believers...believing in a ridiculous idea.