6,000 Years?

[Jerry N.]

The other question would concern the nature of the souls of those outside Eden. Where they like animals that probably don’t have an eternal soul? DNA evidence indicates that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred.

 

[Job 33:6]

The other question would concern the nature of the souls of those outside Eden. Where they like animals that probably don’t have an eternal soul? DNA evidence indicates that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred.

I interpret it in the sense that all of humanity are living souls. Including people outside of Eden. Animals in Genesis are also nephesh as well.

Genesis 1:20 ESV
[20] And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”

In this verse, for example, it says a living nephesh. The term for souls.

 

[Jerry N.]

I interpret it in the sense that all of humanity are living souls. Including people outside of Eden. Animals in Genesis are also nephesh as well.

Genesis 1:20 ESV
[20] And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”

In this verse, for example, it says a living nephesh. The term for souls.

Did we have this discussion before? I don’t clearly remember. Anyway, even though animals have nephesh, they are without sin as far as we know. The “soul” in Christian thought is slightly different and needs redemption from sin. Some say that we have three parts: body, soul, and spirit (nephesh). Do you agree? The nephesh is said to return to God when an animal dies. This is more Greek thought than Hebrew, but it seems possible. If a Neanderthal mates with modern humans, the child would inherit the sinful nature in an immortal soul if the Neanderthal parent didn’t have one. The other option is that Adam’s sin affected all creatures with nephesh, but animals are in a state of innocence like babies. I’m not trying to convince anybody of my ideas, but I am trying to make sense of the ramifications of other humans being around at the time of Adam. If Adam and Eve were the only humans, than the problems discussed earlier seem to persist.

 

[Job 33:6]

Did we have this discussion before? I don’t clearly remember. Anyway, even though animals have nephesh, they are without sin as far as we know. The “soul” in Christian thought is slightly different and needs redemption from sin. Some say that we have three parts: body, soul, and spirit (nephesh). Do you agree? The nephesh is said to return to God when an animal dies. This is more Greek thought than Hebrew, but it seems possible. If a Neanderthal mates with modern humans, the child would inherit the sinful nature in an immortal soul if the Neanderthal parent didn’t have one. The other option is that Adam’s sin affected all creatures with nephesh, but animals are in a state of innocence like babies. I’m not trying to convince anybody of my ideas, but I am trying to make sense of the ramifications of other humans being around at the time of Adam. If Adam and Eve were the only humans, than the problems discussed earlier seem to persist.

I don't really have a developed opinion on how the separation of body, soul, nephesh etc. plays out in scripture. I know that it's something that has been debated for centuries.

Personally, I don't think neanderthals are in scripture or are a part of it. And I don't see sin as something that is transmitted through something like biology and genealogies.

When Adam sinned, we sinned. Or we sin because he first sinned. And through Adam, sin entered the world, and this has impacted all of mankind. And this fall would impact people outside of Eden as well, even if they were not immediately related to Adam and Eve in a biological sense.

Neanderthals went extinct some hundreds of thousands of years ago. Or perhaps tens of thousands, but either way, this is in contrast with Genesis which is staged of much more recent times. And for that reason, I don't see neanderthals being in scripture, anymore than there would be dinosaurs or any other prehistoric lifeform.

 

[Jerry N.]

I don't really have a developed opinion on how the separation of body, soul, nephesh etc. plays out in scripture. I know that it's something that has been debated for centuries.

Personally, I don't think neanderthals are in scripture or are a part of it. And I don't see sin as something that is transmitted through something like biology and genealogies.

When Adam sinned, we sinned. Or we sin because he first sinned. And through Adam, sin entered the world, and this has impacted all of mankind. And this fall would impact people outside of Eden as well, even if they were not immediately related to Adam and Eve in a biological sense.

Neanderthals went extinct some hundreds of thousands of years ago. Or perhaps tens of thousands, but either way, this is in contrast with Genesis which is staged of much more recent times. And for that reason, I don't see neanderthals being in scripture, anymore than there would be dinosaurs or any other prehistoric lifeform.

I really appreciate your response. Neanderthals are just a convenient reference for the other human-like creatures outside the garden, and we seem to know the most about them. You wrote, “this fall would impact people outside of Eden as well, even if they were not immediately related to Adam and Eve in a biological sense,” and that is logical, seeing that all of creation on Earth was affected by the fall. Roman Catholics seem to think that the “original sin” is transferred to the children by the parents, so I was wondering if that would help explain things. Personally, I don’t think the transfer in biological, but I would be willing to be proved wrong.

By the way, many scientist seem to think that Neanderthals died off 10,000 years ago, so 6000 years ago is not impossible. It doesn't matter, but that is another reason I used them as a reference.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really appreciate your response. Neanderthals are just a convenient reference for the other human-like creatures outside the garden, and we seem to know the most about them. You wrote, “this fall would impact people outside of Eden as well, even if they were not immediately related to Adam and Eve in a biological sense,” and that is logical, seeing that all of creation on Earth was affected by the fall. Roman Catholics seem to think that the “original sin” is transferred to the children by the parents, so I was wondering if that would help explain things. Personally, I don’t think the transfer in biological, but I would be willing to be proved wrong.

By the way, many scientist seem to think that Neanderthals died off 10,000 years ago, so 6000 years ago is not impossible. It doesn't matter, but that is another reason I used them as a reference.

Yea, I don't personally subscribe to the biological idea. As if our DNA contains sin or something, I just don't see that making much sense. But that's just me.

While I don't think that Genesis says anything about neanderthals, if there were some around somehow, which I don't think there were, but just for a mental exercise purpose, I would probably just think of them similarly to any other non-human primate.

I read the number 40,000 in terms of neanderthal extinction. But either way...

Just my opinion.

 

[Jerry N.]

Yea, I don't personally subscribe to the biological idea. As if our DNA contains sin or something, I just don't see that making much sense. But that's just me.

While I don't think that Genesis says anything about neanderthals, if there were some around somehow, which I don't think there were, but just for a mental exercise purpose, I would probably just think of them similarly to any other non-human primate.

I read the number 40,000 in terms of neanderthal extinction. But either way...

Just my opinion.

You are correct. My 10,000 number has been "corrected" several years ago. I don't keep up.

 

[tampasteve]

It's just another case of, if people hold to solar scriptura and we are just reading the text as it is, YECism just doesn't make any sense.

Well, I am not sola scriptura, I would be closer to prima scriptura.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, I am not sola scriptura, I would be closer to prima scriptura.

Apparently I'm solar scriptura, given my auto-correct application. Praising the sun.

Thanks for overlooking that.

At least in terms of matters that overlap with science. Human origins. Age of the earth etc. The early church has been radically incorrect. Such as the popular example of Galileo vs the Catholic Church some centuries ago. And the earliest church fathers were all geocentrist with many believing that the earth was flat.

So, while I think that church tradition is an important factor and has some authority in the matter, in terms of overlap with scientific topics, I tend to step away. And I would view Genesis and the question of human origins and the age of the earth specifically within that area of content.

And id say that this is precisely why the church is struggling in this area. We are caught at a crossroads where tradition conflicts with discovery. And, much like the Catholic Church against Galileo, it's just not something that can be swept under the rug.

The text being so ambiguous, I think is a red flag that is telling us that we need to lean more sola scriptura on this one, vs prima scriptura.

 

[Valletta]

We participate or share in the body and blood of Lord Jesus by remembering Him and the sacrifice he made on our behalf by breaking bread together and drinking the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:29 (WEB) 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

What is THIS fruit of the vine referring to? THIS fruit of the vine is referring to what Lord Jesus just gave them all to drink in the Lord's Supper. There is nothing here about a third or fourth cup.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”



This was a hard saying for the Jews because they could not understand the spiritual meaning behind his riddles. The Jews were carnally minded.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, not by drinking his literal blood, but by faith in Christ - following Him into a sanctified life of righteousness and love.

1 John 1:5-7 (WEB) 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and don’t tell the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

Our sins are not forgiven and blotted out by drinking his blood, but by repentance and faith in Lord Jesus.

Acts 3:19 (KJV) Repent ye therefore, and be converted [turned], that your sins may be blotted out

Luke 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Notice that the Gospel is all about repentance and faith in Lord Jesus to so that our sins may be blotted out, that we may be forgiven and cleansed, and NOT by drinking His blood.



I agree that we share in or participate in the blood of Christ by drinking wine at the Lord's Supper. But none of the disciples taught that they were actually drinking the blood of Christ or eating His flesh.

1 Corinthians 10:14-22
14 So then, my dear friends, run away from the worship of false gods! 15 I’m talking to you like you are sensible people. Think about what I’m saying. 16 Isn’t the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Isn’t the loaf of bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one loaf of bread, we who are many are one body, because we all share the one loaf of bread. 18 Look at the people of Israel.

No mention is made the loaf of bread or taking the cup has anything to do with the bread transforming into the flesh of Christ, or that the cup transforms into his blood. That is man-made teaching.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (WEB) 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in?

Lord Jesus, likewise, never stated that the wine and bread turn into his blood and body.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

The life we have in us by faith in Lord Jesus is the Spirit who dwells in those who believe, not by drinking his blood.

John 4:14 (WEB) Whoever drinks [continuous drinking] of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to Eternal Life.

John 7:37-39 (WEB) 37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

The “cup of blessing” also referred to as the “cup of redemption” happens to be the third cup of the four cups of wine for the Jewish Passover celebration. It is referred to in 1 Cor 10:16:

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

This was the cup that Jesus consecrated, telling us to “Do this in remembrance,” meaning the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and the distribution of His Body and consumption of His Body. Jesus did not command as to “remember,” Jesus commanded us to “Do this” in remembrance.
That there are four cups really only comes into importance for us in knowing that after the “Cup of Blessing” the Apostles left the meal without the fourth cup being drunk. That cup, a cup of wine, lifted to him on a stalk of hyssop, was drunk by Jesus on the cross just before He said “It is finished.” Hyssop was what was used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb for the original Passover. What this does is extend the sacrificial ritual, this first mass, right up to the death of Jesus. The killing of an unblemished lamb and the consumption of the lamb makes it part of a ritual sacrifice. Jesus was not just part of just a murder/execution by the Romans, He was part of the ritual sacrifice, hyssop and all, where Jesus was both Priest and sacrifice. The “fruit of the vine” Jesus was to drink again that he referred to was what He drank on the cross. The only cup referred to as a participation in the Body of Christ and a participation in the Blood of Christ, in 1 Cor 10:16, was the cup of blessing—the third cup. Jesus had already told us it was His Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant. That is, Jesus Himself is our New Covenant.

John 6: 48-58 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[a] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?[e] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” RSVCE

In John 6, when doubted and questioned by the Jews, the Greek word for “eat” is changed from a general meaning to one indicated gnawing or chewing—to make it clear one is to physically eat His Body.

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Mark 14:22-24 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

Mt 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:15-20 He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

 

[setst777]

The “cup of blessing” also referred to as the “cup of redemption” happens to be the third cup of the four cups of wine for the Jewish Passover celebration. It is referred to in 1 Cor 10:16:

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Lord Jesus states that we are to do this (Lord's Supper) in remembrance of Him, and not to have his body and blood in are stomachs.

Matthew 26:29 (WEB) 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

What is THIS fruit of the vine referring to? THIS fruit of the vine is referring to what Lord Jesus just gave them all to drink in the Lord's Supper. There is nothing here about a third or fourth cup.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for THIS is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

What is "THIS"? "THIS" is the "fruit of the vine" that he gave them to drink by which we share in the blood of Christ shed for us on the cross for the sins of all those who repent and put their faith in Him. These disciples are to do this in remembrance of Him until he appears in glory.

This was the cup that Jesus consecrated, telling us to “Do this in remembrance,” meaning the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and the distribution of His Body and consumption of His Body. Jesus did not command as to “remember,” Jesus commanded us to “Do this” in remembrance.

That is NOT correct. Lord Jesus commanded us to partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. That is the whole point of the Lord's Supper, to remember our Lord Jesus who purchased us from sin and death by His own blood, and by the sacrifice of his own body.

Luke 22:19 (NASB) “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (NASB)
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

That there are four cups really only comes into importance for us in knowing that after the “Cup of Blessing” the Apostles left the meal without the fourth cup being drunk.

Lord Jesus stated that what he was drinking with them was the fruit of the vine, which he would not drink again until drinking it new in the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for THIS is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

What is "THIS"? "THIS" is the "fruit of the vine" that he gave them to drink by which we share in the blood of Christ shed for us on the cross for the sins of all those who repent and put their faith in Him. These disciples are to do this in remembrance of Him until he appears in glory.

All of you drink it = THIS = my blood of the new covenant = THIS fruit of the vine = from now on

This requires no interpretation. The cup he just gave them to drink is the blood of the new covenant, which Lord Jesus said he would not drink from NOW ON.

That cup, a cup of wine, lifted to him on a stalk of hyssop, was drunk by Jesus on the cross just before He said “It is finished.” Hyssop was what was used to sprinkle the blood of the lamb for the original Passover. What this does is extend the sacrificial ritual, this first mass, right up to the death of Jesus. The killing of an unblemished lamb and the consumption of the lamb makes it part of a ritual sacrifice. Jesus was not just part of just a murder/execution by the Romans, He was part of the ritual sacrifice, hyssop and all, where Jesus was both Priest and sacrifice. The “fruit of the vine” Jesus was to drink again that he referred to was what He drank on the cross. The only cup referred to as a participation in the Body of Christ and a participation in the Blood of Christ, in 1 Cor 10:16, was the cup of blessing—the third cup. Jesus had already told us it was His Blood, the Blood of the New Covenant. That is, Jesus Himself is our New Covenant.

Lord Jesus plainly stated that what he gave them to drink, at that very time, was in participate of his blood, which he stated was the "fruit of the vine."

There is no fourth cup here. What Lord Jesus gave them to drink was the blood of the New Testament, which they did drink. Lord Jesus stated that what they were drinking was the "fruit of the vine."

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for THIS is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

John 6: 48-58 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[a] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”[a] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?[e] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” RSVCE

In John 6, when doubted and questioned by the Jews, the Greek word for “eat” is changed from a general meaning to one indicated gnawing or chewing—to make it clear one is to physically eat His Body.

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Mark 14:22-24 While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

Mt 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:15-20 He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

Lord Jesus, who is also "the vine" and "the door," used similar parables, sayings, and riddles throughout his ministry to hide the Gospel from those who are not meant to understand it and be saved.

Although Lord Jesus plainly stated that we are actually drinking the fruit of the vine, and that by coming to Lord Jesus we are eating of him, these things represent the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ, and the body of Christ as our ransom sacrifice.

Luke 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

Notice that the, according to Lord Jesus, "This cup" is the "New Covenant" in his blood.

This Cup = New Covenant, which is in his blood.

No mention is made the loaf of bread or taking the cup has anything to do with the bread transforming into the flesh of Christ, or that the cup transforms into his blood. That is man-made teaching.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (WEB) 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in?

Lord Jesus plainly taught that by coming to him will not be hungry, and that by believing in him will not be thirsty.

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Therefore, unlike the manna given in the OT that they were to physically eat, Lord Jesus is the manna spiritually; so that, all those believing in him may be saved.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

Lord Jesus did not come down from heaven to fill our bellies, but to ransom by his body and blood those who come to him and believe in him.

The life we have in us by faith in Lord Jesus is the Spirit who dwells in those who believe, not by drinking his blood.

John 4:14 (WEB) Whoever drinks [continuous drinking] of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to Eternal Life.

John 7:37-39 (WEB) 37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”

 

[Aaron112]

That is man-made teaching.

Thank you. It looks like at least half the posts on the internet today are manmade teachings not in line with Scripture at all, rather violating all Scripture!

 

[stevevw]

So, what specifically are you referring to that would have taken thousands of years to get to? Building a pyramid with stones?

Actually the strange thing is the building of the great pyramids, the 6 mega ones only took around 100 years. But thats within over 3,000 years of dynasties we have records of and their works.

But that 3,000 years comes after ealier cultures like Gobekli Tepe and similar Neolithic cultures had to develop and then they came after earlier cultures had to develop. The further you go back the longer it took to develop.

Just like it took the Egyptain dynasties 3,000 years it took other cultures longer to develop into what they become. As I said even before the flood the world had Egyptian size cultures all over the planet. So that must have taken some time just like it did for other cultures.

 

[John Bauer]

I guess that would make perfect sense. However, like Platte wrote, it would imply that Adam and Eve had children after being sent out of Eden, which is supported by the curse. Either Adam and Eve didn’t have sex or they sinned within 9 months of the creation of Eve. That would also fit with human nature.

First, I want to say they were exiled from the garden, not from Eden. Presumably, they were still in Eden. And Cain was exiled further east from there, ending up "in the land of Nod, east of Eden."

Second, I really don't know where you're going with this anyway, so it's difficult to respond. The implication of Adam and Eve having children after being exiled is first found in scripture. Genesis 3 recounts the fall and exile from the garden, followed by the births of Cain and Abel in chapter 4, and then Seth and other sons and daughters in chapter 5. It is scripture that seems to imply that Adam and Eve had children after being sent out of the garden.

At any rate, on my view—which emphasizes covenantal structure, typology, and the redemptive-historical framework—Adam's role in the prelapsarian order was archetypal and federal, in that his headship was over humanity as a covenant representative before God. That is how, in becoming a covenant-breaker, Adam plunged all of humanity into sin and death and the desperate need of redemption through Christ Jesus.

In Christ, the last Adam, the archetypal paradigm is recapitulated but fulfilled, whereby the role of husbands in the postlapsarian order is now analogical and derivative. The husband's headship is now limited to the covenantal sphere of his family, fallibly and imperfectly reflecting the work of Christ on behalf of his church. Thus, the husband's vocation, while retaining echoes of Adam’s original commission, is now framed within the redemptive-historical reality of Christ's consummate archetypal office (munus triplex), such that the postlapsarian husband is responsible for:

• teaching and leading his family in the truth of God's word, guiding them spiritually through instruction and example (prophet),

• interceding for his family in prayer, leading in worship, and ensuring their spiritual well-being (priest), and

• providing for, protecting, and governing his household with wisdom and love (king).
​

The other question would concern the nature of the souls of those outside Eden. Were they like animals that probably don’t have an eternal soul? DNA evidence indicates that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred.

This gets into a fundamental disagreement I have with most Christians. I believe we are souls; I don't believe we have souls. Also, notice that Adam became a living soul (Gen 2:7), but he was never given one.

It answers a lot of questions and solves a lot of problems, but it's often too much for other believers to accept, so I'm happy to set it aside.

Even though animals have nephesh, they are without sin, as far as we know. The “soul” in Christian thought is slightly different and needs redemption from sin.

I draw a distinction on my view between sin or evil (a theological concept) and moral wrongdoing (a sociobiological concept). I contend that apart from a covenant relationship with God there is no such thing as either sin or righteousness, and thus neither condemnation nor salvation. Look at the animal kingdom and observe that no creature other than man is guilty of sin before God or stands in need of salvation, that man alone is guilty of sin and in need of being saved. Why?

We know from animal studies that humans are not unique in their capacity for moral agency, but they are definitely unique in their capacity to sin and it's precisely because of that covenant relationship between God and his image-bearers. Indeed, it is the context by which the term itself, sin, is defined (vis-à-vis the promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities of that covenant).

Before Adam and the garden, humans were capable of wrongdoing but not sin, a term which was meaningless until the events of the garden. Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God. (As such, this view preserves Adam's state of posse non peccare et posse peccare, as per Reformed theology.) On this view, Adam and Eve understood right and wrong as moral concepts but, up to this point, had not sinned existentially. They had an awareness of sin intellectually—they knew the will of God—and they knew disobedience was wrong, but they had no existential awareness of sin as sin. They did not know sin. This distinction can be seen by way of contrast, wherein it is said that God made the one who "did not know sin" to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21). Christ draws out the difference. He knew of sin (intellectually) but he didn't know sin (existentially), for he never sinned (Heb 4:15).

Satan was right—but in a catastrophically bad way!—for when Adam and Eve ate from that tree, they did indeed become their own gods (Gen 3:22), insofar as the covenant relationship was instantly broken. Satan was portraying this as a good thing, but clearly it was not. Now Adam and Eve had an awareness of sin existentially. Whereas they had known of sin, now they knew sin. Now, through one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin (Rom 5:12; cf. 6:23). They were now covenant-breakers or sinners, and they experienced that severed covenant relationship—the first death—as nakedness and shame. It was on account of that historical covenant-breaking man, the first Adam, that we need to be redeemed by a historical covenant-keeping man, the last Adam (Jesus Christ).

Some say that we have three parts: body, soul, and spirit (nephesh). Do you agree?

I do not, myself. Our mortal body + the breath of life = living soul. The soul dies when the body returns to dust and/or the breath of life returns to God. "The fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same: As one dies, so dies the other; both have the same breath. There is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting. Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and to dust both return" (Eccl 3:19-20).

Of course, there is more to the story. The advantage for humans over animals is that we are image-bearers of God in covenant relationship to him and, therefore, will experience something animals will not, namely, resurrection from the dead. That is the consistent Christian hope throughout the New Testament, our resurrection in immortal and imperishable bodies. "What we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure" (1 John 3:2-3).

If a Neanderthal mates with modern humans, the child would inherit the sinful nature in an immortal soul ...

Modern humans and Neanderthals stopped interbreeding roughly 40,000 years before Adam and the garden. Homo sapiens were the only humans around.

The other option is that Adam’s sin affected all creatures with nephesh, but animals are in a state of innocence like babies.

That is a viable option only if the federal headship of Adam extended to all creatures. (It did not.) He had dominion over them, but not headship.

 

[AaronClaricus]

I'm just going by the mainstream date for the birth of civilization around 6,000 years ago. Wiki mentions the first tect dates back to 4,000BCE. So cultures like Gobekli Tepe who are located above Mesopotamia Did not have writing but glyphs and look more primitive. But then we have even more primitive glyphs and structures before GT. So theres a whole history of cultural development even before Mesopotamia.

The world's earliest known texts come from the Sumerian cities of Uruk and Jemdet Nasr, and date to between c. 3350 – c. 2500 BC, following a period of proto-writing c. 4000 – c. 2500 BC.
Sumer - Wikipedia

Protowriting is at least 40,000 years old. Actual writing closer to 3,000BCE years than 3350BCE. But it's still not literature or histories. We don't have modern writing(sentences) until about 2,600BCE just in time for Khufu to build the pyramids and leave behind work records of people bitten by scorpions or mummifying their mother.

Thats the point I am making recent dicoveries or I should say rediscoveries for many of them are being dated well before 3500BCE and the architecture is amazing. Its megalithic and precision works. The strange thing is that the later cultures claim they did not make these works but found them and say they were from the gods.

Precision was invented around 4,600BCE in Uruk. They had uniform bricks and standard sizes.

Gods used to mean something different in those cultures.

Then they try and copy the works and thats when you actually see the limited architecture coming in. When I say limited its sort of rough looking and smaller. Most often represented by the mud bricks or mortar. Like the pre dynastic and earliest Egyptians built all the great pyramids at the beginning and then disappeared and this was then replaced with the mud bricks of the later dynasties.

There were always mudbrick and stone tool contemporaries. There are even mudbrick houses and wooden tools today in 2025.

Capital cities, ports, fortresses, trade cities are made of fired bricks and are usually inspired by the architecture of the region. There is a continuous line of capitals from 3,000BCE to modern times. There are quite a few times that urban areas are nearly abandoned due to disease and conflict but there is always a pharoah, even if they are a different race and from foreign lands.

Its like history went backwards for a while and we had the best works all over the world and then more or less disappeared only to start again with basic works gradually building the later Egyptians and Sumariens and all other cultures around the world like in Puru and North American and Asia who did the same. In some ways I don't think modern knowledge has caught up with these ancient megalithic cultures.

Dark ages are extremely interesting because the vast majority of the urban populations disappear. Happens about 6-7 times since 4,000BCE. We know a lot about the last two times(Post classical dark age(350-800CE and 1300-1500CE). It wasn't until 1800 that people would start to see the potential for a city greater than Rome at it's peak.

Its like Gobekli Tepe. The small brick walls in between the 18' T pillars were a later addition. So obviously they found GT abandoned and in ruin. This seems to be a common themes around the world where later cultures find ruins and then try to repair or honor these earlier works.

I'm not familiar with this. My understanding is that construction was many centuries then it was buried.

 

[stevevw]

Protowriting is at least 40,000 years old. Actual writing closer to 3,000BCE years than 3350BCE. But it's still not literature or histories. We don't have modern writing(sentences) until about 2,600BCE just in time for Khufu to build the pyramids and leave behind work records of people bitten by scorpions or mummifying their mother.

View attachment 360093


Precision was invented around 4,600BCE in Uruk. They had uniform bricks and standard sizes.

Actually sometimes I wonder who was smarter with language. It seems there was a lot of unspoken and unwritten communication going on. Its more like an embodiment of language or symbols that communicated a state of being and not just single meanings.

Another interesting aspect is despite not having writing many of these ancient cultures seemed to have good knowledge of nature and astronomy. They understood geometry, the Golden and Sacred ratios, star constellations, the equinox and prosession. Structures align to true noth and even measurements of the cycles of star constellations and alignments. Also an understanding of elements, chemistry and even particle physics. Many locations of structures have high electromagnetic readings.

But the most interest I find is the precision vases that are 6,000 plus years old from the predynastic Egyptians.

Here are the later vases that are no where near as precise or in hard stone

Gods used to mean something different in those cultures.

Yes I think it was paganistic. About nature, animal spirits, cosmic gods, gods of the harvest and sex. A common icon was a creature holding his appendage. Or snake like serpents.

View attachment 360094

There were always mudbrick and stone tool contemporaries. There are even mudbrick houses and wooden tools today in 2025.

Yes but its strange to see precision vases, boxes, columes and statues made of the hardest stone to shape cut and sculptured so precise like its machined at a time when mud bricks were being made even before mud bricks that were used by later Egyptians like Ramese the 2nd.

Its weird to see the best and most massive granite and diorite pyramids at the beginning of the dynasties rather than the end and just disappear. Only to be replaced by mud bricks as though going backwardfs.

Capital cities, ports, fortresses, trade cities are made of fired bricks and are usually inspired by the architecture of the region. There is a continuous line of capitals from 3,000BCE to modern times. There are quite a few times that urban areas are nearly abandoned due to disease and conflict but there is always a pharoah, even if they are a different race and from foreign lands.

Except we have cultures at that time and even before this building in the hardest stone such as Basalt, granite and diorite with mega blocks 1,000 ton plus and with precision cuts like they were machined.

Then we have cultures like Gobekli Tepe and the Natufian culture around the world who are building in hard stone making temples with strange statues and glyphs. This is more advanced than simple mud bricks. This requires another level of tech. The strange thing is this advanced level of tech comes before the smaller and rougher brick works.

For example as a comparison the granite vases above with the clay or softer stone vases that come later. They do not rival these hard stone vases that are precise down to 1/1000th of an inch. The same with the block work. The later clay brick works do not rival these ancient stone works.

Dark ages are extremely interesting because the vast majority of the urban populations disappear. Happens about 6-7 times since 4,000BCE. We know a lot about the last two times(Post classical dark age(350-800CE and 1300-1500CE). It wasn't until 1800 that people would start to see the potential for a city greater than Rome at it's peak.

An even stranger period is how many of the ancient cultures like the dynastic Egyptians, Incas, Aztecs, in the middle East like Suma and across the world speak of finding all the megaliths and amazing stone works as though some ancient people had abandoned them. The cultures that found them say they did not make them and that these works come from the gods or an advanced people with great knowledge.

Some say they were giants. But they all claim that these works are not theirs. The later cultures seem to try and copy the ancient works as though they are trying to emulate the gods. But the work is no where near as precise of big and often more rudimentary and rough in clay blocks or with mud mortar. Whereas the mega works are so precise they don't need mortar. Heres a comparison.

See the precision cut door into granite on the left and the diorite alter which have doorways which the Inca tried to copy on the right with rough smaller stones and mud mortar.

I'm not familiar with this. My understanding is that construction was many centuries then it was buried.

The Temple itself, the large stone T pillars and cross beams as well as the animal carvings and glyphs on the pillars were a seperate culture. They propose it may have had some sort of cover.

But a later people came and found the site and used it. They tried to repair it with the smaller stones in between the pillars. This is a common theme throughout the world where older megalithic structures are found often in ruins as though some major catastrophy had hit them and broken statues or walls.

This is Peru

See the similarity with GT. Its almost like two different cultures with different materials and architect. In fact they found a piece of a broken T pillar used in between the small rocks as part of the repair. You can also see that the smaller stone walls go over the original glyphs and pillars in places showing it was a latter addition.

 

[davetaff]

Hi
There is no 6000 year creation of everything but there is a 6 day creation of man in the image of God it began with Noah and everything on the ark and will end with man in the image of God which is Jesus Christ at his second coming when he will gather together all believers into his body the whole multitude he will present to the Father.
Each day of this creation will be a 1000 years long on the 4th day of this creation God created the sun the moon and the stars these are symbolic the sun represents Christ the light of the world the moon represents the bride of Christ the reflected light of the sun and the stars represents the children of God.
The creation account in Genesis should be viewed starting with Noah an everything on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God and this is what God set about creating it would be achieved in Christ at his second comming let us pray it will be soon

Love and peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

Hi
There is no 6000 year creation of everything but there is a 6 day creation of man in the image of God it began with Noah and everything on the ark and will end with man in the image of God which is Jesus Christ at his second coming when he will gather together all believers into his body the whole multitude he will present to the Father.
Each day of this creation will be a 1000 years long on the 4th day of this creation God created the sun the moon and the stars these are symbolic the sun represents Christ the light of the world the moon represents the bride of Christ the reflected light of the sun and the stars represents the children of God.
The creation account in Genesis should be viewed starting with Noah an everything on the ark the onlything missing was man in the image of God and this is what God set about creating it would be achieved in Christ at his second comming let us pray it will be soon

Love and peace
Dave

I know we have discussed this matter of a new creation starting with Noah many times. Can you point to bible verses that tell us that God started a new creation with Noah, and that each "day" of that new creation lasted 1,000 years? Noah and his family, plus all the animals on the ark, survived the Flood, so where does the new creation come in? According to the bible, "new creation" is a description applied to Christians:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2Co 5:17 NKJV)

As far as I know, we are not told that Noah became a new creation after the Flood.

 

[davetaff]

I know we have discussed this matter of a new creation starting with Noah many times. Can you point to bible verses that tell us that God started a new creation with Noah, and that each "day" of that new creation lasted 1,000 years? Noah and his family, plus all the animals on the ark, survived the Flood, so where does the new creation come in? According to the bible, "new creation" is a description applied to Christians:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2Co 5:17 NKJV)

As far as I know, we are not told that Noah became a new creation after the Flood.

Hi David
Thank you for your post what would you call the time after the flood God did
Create Israel I would call that a new creation of man in the image of God and as you have quoted we are a new creation in Christ.
The first Adam died before the flood so when noah stepped of the ark there was no man in the image of God so God set about rectifying that by creating Israel the man of flesh who must come first then the spiritual Adam Jesus Christ a new creation



Love and Peace
Dave

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David
Thank you for your post what would you call the time after the flood God did
Create Israel I would call that a new creation of man in the image of God and as you have quoted we are a new creation in Christ.
The first Adam died before the flood so when noah stepped of the ark there was no man in the image of God so God set about rectifying that by creating Israel the man of flesh who must come first then the spiritual Adam Jesus Christ a new creation

Love and Peace
Dave

But Israel didn't come into the picture until some time after the Flood, taking the name from the new name God had given to Jacob. I disagree that there was no man in the image of God after Adam had died. You see, according to the bible, every human being is made in the image of God, though of course the image is marred by sin. Think of this verse:

“"Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” (Ge 9:6 NKJV)

If it was only Adam who had been made in God's image, that verse would make no sense.