Did God really walk with Adam & Eve in the Garden?

[busterdog]

You have to exclude Adam and Abraham, otherwise the rest of the Bible would be inconsistent with Genesis. Abraham was also visited by God, so he had to be excluded too. And Moses and the whole people of Israel also saw him in different manifestations.

Interestingly, in the later parts of the Bible God was indeed not seen anymore by anyone. And from a certain point on he was also not heard anymore, he stopped directly talking to humans. In the Hebrew Bible, the last human he directly talked to was Job. In the last books of the Hebrew Bible he also didn't interact anymore with human affairs, and the Hebrew book of Ester does not even mention God anymore.

So it seems God was a lot more active in the early days. The "no one" probably means "no one from now on".

I agree with the common sense use of language.

Well, lets just accept the logic of OP. Would it suggest that Jesus was not God or that he couldn't walk? Enoch? Is the Son of Man not now seated at the right hand of the father, or is he blind now that he is in heaven.

In the zeal to take a shot at Genesis, the OP has created all sorts of very knotty contradictions. Lets see what Fury does.

 

[ClearSky]

Interestingly, in the later parts of the Bible God was indeed not seen anymore by anyone. And from a certain point on he was also not heard anymore, he stopped directly talking to humans. In the Hebrew Bible, the last human he directly talked to was Job. In the last books of the Hebrew Bible he also didn't interact anymore with human affairs, and the Hebrew book of Ester does not even mention God anymore.

As far as the question touches the infallibility of Scripture, we also have to ask which version of Scripture is infallible. Only this version must pass the consistency test.

The mentioned book of Esther in its original Hebrew version indeed does not mention God anywhere. It is a completely secular story. But the book of Esther in the Old Testament mentions God at several places. Obviously it was edited and modified by some person who wanted to make the book more "Scripture suited".

So this arises the question which book is the infallible version, the original or the manipulated one? And I suppose the book of Esther was not the only modification to Scripture.

 

[Melethiel]

I agree with the common sense use of language.

Well, lets just accept the logic of OP. Would it suggest that Jesus was not God or that he couldn't walk? Enoch? Is the Son of Man not now seated at the right hand of the father, or is he blind now that he is in heaven.

In the zeal to take a shot at Genesis, the OP has created all sorts of very knotty contradictions. Lets see what Fury does.

As far as Enoch goes...we can say that people "walk with God" nowadays without meaning they're literally walking next to God.

 

[busterdog]

As far as Enoch goes...we can say that people "walk with God" nowadays without meaning they're literally walking next to God.

OK. No need to camp on that one. That verse seems clear to me, but has considerably less detail than others one could argue about, so I understand the argument. But, think the other counter-examples make the point adequately.

 

[busterdog]

As far as the question touches the infallibility of Scripture, we also have to ask which version of Scripture is infallible. Only this version must pass the consistency test.

The mentioned book of Esther in its original Hebrew version indeed does not mention God anywhere. It is a completely secular story. But the book of Esther in the Old Testament mentions God at several places. Obviously it was edited and modified by some person who wanted to make the book more "Scripture suited".

So this arises the question which book is the infallible version, the original or the manipulated one? And I suppose the book of Esther was not the only modification to Scripture.

My feeling is that it is hard to find a big translation issue here, but I am no Greek scholar. What other word might have been there? Maybe "father". What about the word for "seen" or "never"?

If you look at the concordance, you wonder whether John was not summarizing the earlier words of Jesus, which are much clearer.

Jhn 5:37 And 2532 the Father 3962 himself 846, which hath sent 3992 me 3165, hath borne witness 3140 of 4012 me 1700. Ye have 191 0 neither 3777 heard 191 his 846 voice 5456 at any time 4455, nor 3777 seen 3708 his 846 shape 1491.

1Jo 4:12 No man 3762 hath seen 2300 God 2316 at any time 4455. If 1437 we love 25 one another 240, God 2316 dwelleth 3306 in 1722 us 2254, and 2532 his 846 love 26 is 2076 perfected 5048 in 1722 us 2254.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I agree with the common sense use of language.

Well, lets just accept the logic of OP. Would it suggest that Jesus was not God or that he couldn't walk? Enoch? Is the Son of Man not now seated at the right hand of the father, or is he blind now that he is in heaven.

In the zeal to take a shot at Genesis, the OP has created all sorts of very knotty contradictions. Lets see what Fury does.

Genesis 32:22-30

That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

I'll admit where I'm wrong is what I'll do.

I can see where God in ch. 3 could be considered as a Christophany just like here with Jacob in ch. 32.

P.S. This passage always seemed very strange to me. With no Biblical introduction to the "man" Jacob just starts wrestling with him. Then Jacob asks the man's name and doesn't get a response, but gets the blessing. I've only read one commentary on Genesis a long time ago and, ironically, it was by Henry Morris. I seem to recall being so inundated with talk about the Jabbok that I don't remember any of the theology. Oh well.

 

[busterdog]

I can see where God in ch. 3 could be considered as a Christophany just like here with Jacob in ch. 32.

P.S. This passage always seemed very strange to me. With no Biblical introduction to the "man" Jacob just starts wrestling with him. Then Jacob asks the man's name and doesn't get a response, but gets the blessing. I've only read one commentary on Genesis a long time ago and, ironically, it was by Henry Morris. I seem to recall being so inundated with talk about the Jabbok that I don't remember any of the theology. Oh well.

As in more wrestling than clarity in the language? A nice simple narrative would be nice, but it seems someone went all WWF on your sensibilities?

The entire subject is indeed very strange. Jesus himself calls himself "son of man" directly and specifically. He calls himself God rather inferentially. So, your process of wrestling is understandable and many of us are injured, apart from the Comforter.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Genesis 1:26[bible]And God said, Let us make man(adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [/bible]
Genesis 1:27 [bible]So God created man (eth ha Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[/bible]
Christophany No?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Genesis 1:26[bible]And God said, Let us make man(adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [/bible]
Genesis 1:27 [bible]So God created man (eth ha Adam) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[/bible]
Christophany No?

I'm confused. Are you saying Adam is a Christophany? If that's the case I strongly disagree.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

I'm confused. Are you saying Adam is a Christophany? If that's the case I strongly disagree.

No, I am not suggesting Adam is Christophany.
Lets just talk about verse 27, God created man.
I will twist scripture, but not for deceit.
God created he him. Who is the he? Who is the him?
In the image of God, God made he him in his own image.
Or, created he him, in his own image, in the image of God So God created man (eth ha Adam) It is this same very man or this very particular man.
I am suggesting that perhaps maybe before God created all man, that he created himself in the image of himself in a very particular man. And maybe perhaps this image of God man could have walked and could have wrestled, but not necessarily be the full Lord, but the image of God in man.

 

[busterdog]

I am suggesting that perhaps maybe before God created all man, that he created himself in the image of himself in a very particular man. And maybe perhaps this image of God man could have walked and could have wrestled, ...

Up to this point, sounds great. The Father incinerated the rock of Jabal al Lawz by his presence, so I guess there is a distinction to which you refer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6LPahq8AY&feature=related

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Up to this point, sounds great. The Father incinerated the rock of Jabal al Lawz by his presence, so I guess there is a distinction to which you refer.

/

It was merely a suggestion.
I see where you cut me off.
I was only trying to describe how flesh human man can not lay eyes upon the full God in his glory unless they be in the spiritual dimension.

I wish I could see your youtube. I have a bad connect here. I have to go and I will check it out tonight. Thanks.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Up to this point, sounds great. The Father incinerated the rock of Jabal al Lawz by his presence, so I guess there is a distinction to which you refer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6LPahq8AY&feature=related

I hate to either praise or condemn this video because I don't really know much about this kind of thing, but I did notice people on the youtube site's comment box suggesting that this evidence coincides with Ron Wyatt's. That makes me a little skeptical, but upon first viewing it seems really cool.

Maybe I'll do some research and come back .
Thanks for sharing though.

 

[juvenissun]

Up to this point, sounds great. The Father incinerated the rock of Jabal al Lawz by his presence, so I guess there is a distinction to which you refer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV6LPahq8AY&feature=related

Hey, thanks for finding and showing this. It is quite interesting to me. I am going to see all their YouTube videos.

I don't blame them, they are not rock expert. But something on what they said does not pass through my knowledge: You do not burn a granite into black or dark color. A granite will not change color (except heat radiance) even you burn it to melt. However, they said when the rock is broken, it shows a different (texture) inside (I doubt it is granite). That is also a very strange feature for igneous rock. If what they said (saw) is true, then it is not likely to be a basaltic rock (dark color) either (A different type of rock laid on the peak is the most reasonable alternative to explain the dark color peak.) I could not figure out a natural way that will "coat" a body of any type of rock, on mountain peak, with dark color substance (there was no organic material there to provide the carbon). So, what they said confused me a lot.

Nevertheless, they may well be on something. Wish people can dig more data out of what they found (I am not going toward that geographic direction).

 

[busterdog]

It was merely a suggestion.
I see where you cut me off.
I was only trying to describe how flesh human man can not lay eyes upon the full God in his glory unless they be in the spiritual dimension.

I wish I could see your youtube. I have a bad connect here. I have to go and I will check it out tonight. Thanks.

I kind of thought that was where you were going, so I posted the youtube. Wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[busterdog]

I hate to either praise or condemn this video because I don't really know much about this kind of thing, but I did notice people on the youtube site's comment box suggesting that this evidence coincides with Ron Wyatt's. That makes me a little skeptical, but upon first viewing it seems really cool.

Maybe I'll do some research and come back .
Thanks for sharing though.

If you go through the whole video, you do see lots of interesting stuff. I went through the whole Wyatt series too. There are many coincidences.

 

[busterdog]

Nevertheless, they may well be on something. Wish people can dig more data out of what they found (I am not going toward that geographic direction).

I recommend you watch all five in the series on youtube. There are so many coincidences. It all starts with Paul who says that Sinai is in Midian (Arabia), not where the Carmelite Nuns are on the Sinai peninsula. Also, there are armed guards at the base of this mountain. Someone must be a bit worried about it.

 

[Scotishfury09]

If you go through the whole video, you do see lots of interesting stuff. I went through the whole Wyatt series too. There are many coincidences.

I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure my Old Testament prof. seems to think that Mt. Sinai is Jabal Musa. He's got a Ph.D from Brown in Hebraic Studies and takes a yearly archaeological trip to Israel and Egypt with students. I'll have to ask him about it.

Honestly, I think this exemplifies why Creationism is so popular. When you find stuff like this, that is exactly as the Bible says it is, it makes our faith that much easier and makes God look that much more magnificent. Especially when you've grown up with stories of Noah's Ark and Moses crossing the Red Sea. I'm not looking for another argument here. I'm just stating why I lean more towards the skepticism on this sort of thing. It is really cool if they're right, though.

 

[busterdog]

I'm not positive about this, but I'm pretty sure my Old Testament prof. seems to think that Mt. Sinai is Jabal Musa. He's got a Ph.D from Brown in Hebraic Studies and takes a yearly archaeological trip to Israel and Egypt with students. I'll have to ask him about it.

Honestly, I think this exemplifies why Creationism is so popular. When you find stuff like this, that is exactly as the Bible says it is, it makes our faith that much easier and makes God look that much more magnificent. Especially when you've grown up with stories of Noah's Ark and Moses crossing the Red Sea. I'm not looking for another argument here. I'm just stating why I lean more towards the skepticism on this sort of thing. It is really cool if they're right, though.

The trend does not PROVE the literal view of Genesis, but the trend does cause people to come to YEC. The trend is the roll back of academic consensus on positions like the Sea of Reeds as the place where Moses crossed. There have been similar positions on things like David's Kingdom, the tunnel of Hezekiah, etc. Even when James Cameron comes out with his pseudo-historical drivel about the tomb of Jesus, people get tired of being duped into doubting the Bible. I believe this does have an effect in supporting creationists.

Part of the problem is that, pick your metaphor, academics swung for the fence and struck out, or tried to participate in Nietsche's assassination of the King, to which the reply is E tu Brute , archeologically speaking.

I have read some pretty rank speculation in my time. The works of Raymond Brown are particularly memorable for their vacuity and pretense. He seems to think that if you drop enough footnotes it will make it so. However, heresy cannot be advanced simply because it is catalogued.

One might say that creation scientists did the same thing and created a damaging trend.

 

[Ben12]

The Book of Revelation is the most spiritual Book in scripture; the Book of Genesis I would call it the second most spiritual book in scripture.

Genesis 3: 8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool (or spirit of the day) of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

When Adam fell from God’s grace in The Garden of Eden; He fell from a place of grace and became as a carnal beast or flesh (same as the Beast or it’s mark in Book of Revelations). Adam was a son of God; just like Jesus who is the second Adam. Religion looks for answers everywhere they can find them, be it the natural world, human history or tradition or worst yet they literalize God’s Word. The answer to the Bible is the Bible; just got to let the Spirit of Truth open the mystery; then it is no longer a mystery.

Cool: Genesis 3:8 according to Strong’s
OT:7307: ruwach (roo'-akh); fr om OT:7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):

There are two different Adams in Genesis 1 and 2. The soul is the mind the intellect and the reason. The spirit is that part of God in all of us for we were made in His image and his likeness

Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them

Later in Genesis 2 God made man a living soul
Gen 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So Adam did walk with God before God changed him in the spirit of the day; but than God changed Adam so that Adam would fall. God does not want innocence in the characteristic for his son; nor does he want a son that will do his will because e created him to do so; that would make him a puppet or robot. What God desires is obedience; faithfulness, and a son who will serve him because no matter what happens to him; that son will overcome (just like in Revelation)

In His great victory over the power of Satan He was a sign that pointed unerringly to another company of overcoming sons. In all the churches of Revelation there were two classes of people — those who were overcomers and those who were not. It is to the overcomers that the glorious promises are given, for they follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth, have partaken of His mind and of His will, and thus are equipped to reign in His kingdom.

Thus to them it is said: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Rev. 2:7.

"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Rev. 2:11.

"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it." Rev. 2:17.

"He that overcometh and keepeth My works to the end, to him will I give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessel of the potter shall they be broken to shivers even as I received of My Father, and I will give him the morning star." Rev. 2:26-28.

"He that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God and he shall go no more out and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God which cometh down out of heaven from my God and I will write upon him my new name." Rev. 3:12, 13.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne even as I overcame and am set down with My Father in His throne." Rev. 3:21. "He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."