Help me find a verse!

[grom777]

I don't remember exactly how it went...but it was something where God was talking to man and mentions man being created or made in the same day that he made the animals or the beasts of the field.

It was incedental to the conversation, but it was something like "in the same day I made the with them together" or something to that effect. This verse occurs later in the bible, after Genesis.

If any one knows what verse this is, please let me know. Thanks.

 

[SG9]

I don't remember exactly how it went...but it was something where God was talking to man and mentions man being created or made in the same day that he made the animals or the beasts of the field.

It was incedental to the conversation, but it was something like "in the same day I made the with them together" or something to that effect. This verse occurs later in the bible, after Genesis.

If any one knows what verse this is, please let me know. Thanks.

Hello grom777, I've looked for such verses as you describe and the only thing that I find is in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 when God first made the beasts of the earth in chapter 1, and this was before the man that God made on the 6th day that was both male and female.

Then later in chapter 2 and after the man were the beasts of the field made. Then on the 7th day God separated the man and the woman from the one body of Adam, and they became two from one.

The language usage is different between 'man and woman' and 'male and female'. This is gender in comparison to their identity in flesh as man and woman. The male was made man, and the female was made woman.

The covenant that God made on the 7th day was before God separated the two genders from the one body with the covenant in mind. I believe that God also gave the one man (male and female) the commanded law while they were still one in body and mind and Spirit so that neither will have excuse to say otherwise and sin. The man nor woman could not then say that he or she didn't hear it or misunderstand it.

This would prevent Eve the privilege to pretend that she didn't hear God give it or understand what God said but I interpret the scripture as Eve knowing all along but she must have played dumb when she spoke back to the serpent and they exchanged words.

If you believe that there are scriptures elsewhere in the Bible that say something different then, may I remind you that the Bible never contradicts itself in truth.

God bless

 

[St_Worm2]

Here is the Sixth Day of Creation from Genesis 1. Both the animals and man were created on that day. You might also read Genesis 2 for more details about the same. --David

God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:24-31 (THE SIXTH DAY OF CREATION)​

 

[SG9]

The Birds and Beasts of Scripture

Here is one example where the beasts of the field are people, and some even believe them to be black but I'm not sold on the difference of race but of a people of a lesser authority and intelligence. The beasts of the earth in chapter 1 are not the same as the beasts of the field in chapter 2. Beasts of the earth may simply be the wildlife beasts while the field beasts are human, and it is because of this difference that God calls them 'beasts'. IMO, all humans, regardless of any debate were made on the 6th day. And the covenant was made between the male and female before they were separated into man and woman, read the scriptures.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Birds and Beasts of Scripture

Here is one example where the beasts of the field are people, and some even believe them to be black but I'm not sold on the difference of race but of a people of a lesser authority and intelligence. The beasts of the earth in chapter 1 are not the same as the beasts of the field in chapter 2. Beasts of the earth may simply be the wildlife beasts while the field beasts are human, and it is because of this difference that God calls them 'beasts'. IMO, all humans, regardless of any debate were made on the 6th day. And the covenant was made between the male and female before they were separated into man and woman, read the scriptures.

1) God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26) and He confirms that applies to both men and women (Genesis 1:27). There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that any human beings were made in a different way than that!

2) When "beast" is used allegorically in certain verses of human beings, it is always an indication that the humans in view are somehow evil and/or have beast-like qualities of some sort (like Nebuchadnezzar, who temporarily lost his ability to reason properly .. Daniel 4:33-34). Yet God clearly calls ALL of His Creation "Good" or "Very Good". "Beasts of the field" may be some sort of subset of the "beasts of the earth", but they are all critters of some kind, they are certainly NOT people!!

3) And last, but certainly not least, BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALSO MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE (just like all the rest of mankind). You sound like old school LDS or the KKK. Be assured that they are "people", not "beasts", and that they, as a group of people, are of no "lesser authority or intelligence" than any other group of people. Why would you even consider that such a thing might be true?

 

[SG9]

1) God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26) and He confirms that applies to both men and women (Genesis 1:27). There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that any human beings were made in a different way than that!

2) When "beast" is used allegorically in certain verses of human beings, it is always an indication that the humans in view are somehow evil and/or have beast-like qualities of some sort (like Nebuchadnezzar, who temporarily lost his ability to reason properly .. Daniel 4:33-34). Yet God clearly calls ALL of His Creation "Good" or "Very Good". "Beasts of the field" may be some sort of subset of the "beasts of the earth", but they are all critters of some kind, they are certainly NOT people!!

3) And last, but certainly not least, BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALSO MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE (just like all the rest of mankind). You sound like old school LDS or the KKK. Be assured that they are "people", not "beasts", and that they, as a group of people, are of no "lesser authority or intelligence" than any other group of people. Why would you even consider that such a thing might be true?

You miss my point, sorry. These people who are called beasts are simply 'called' beasts, got it? They were all created with the same form of body but I'm reaching deeper into the Law and the commandment that was given to the man created on the 6th day. This is not a good branch of the topic to discuss, I know, and it's off topic, perhaps? so let's just stick with what we believe and know that we do agree about the flesh returning to earth and the spirit returning to God. Agreed?

more- I'm sorry if we misunderstand each other, I never said anything about blacks being created differently, I only said that other people believe it, not me! Are we on that same page? I don't want people to skim through my post and not read what I said so please read again if needed to be sure of what I said, cool?

 

[pshun2404]

Hello grom777, I've looked for such verses as you describe and the only thing that I find is in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 when God first made the beasts of the earth in chapter 1, and this was before the man that God made on the 6th day that was both male and female.

Then later in chapter 2 and after the man were the beasts of the field made. Then on the 7th day God separated the man and the woman from the one body of Adam, and they became two from one.

The language usage is different between 'man and woman' and 'male and female'. This is gender in comparison to their identity in flesh as man and woman. The male was made man, and the female was made woman.

The covenant that God made on the 7th day was before God separated the two genders from the one body with the covenant in mind. I believe that God also gave the one man (male and female) the commanded law while they were still one in body and mind and Spirit so that neither will have excuse to say otherwise and sin. The man nor woman could not then say that he or she didn't hear it or misunderstand it.

This would prevent Eve the privilege to pretend that she didn't hear God give it or understand what God said but I interpret the scripture as Eve knowing all along but she must have played dumb when she spoke back to the serpent and they exchanged words.

If you believe that there are scriptures elsewhere in the Bible that say something different then, may I remind you that the Bible never contradicts itself in truth.

God bless

Yes and I always saw these as two sets of animal creatures, the second having nephesh (soulish qualities) that man could befriend and domesticate...

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't remember exactly how it went...but it was something where God was talking to man and mentions man being created or made in the same day that he made the animals or the beasts of the field.

It was incedental to the conversation, but it was something like "in the same day I made the with them together" or something to that effect. This verse occurs later in the bible, after Genesis.

I don't know if it's any help, but Job 40:15 says,
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you".

There may be other references; I'll see what I can find.

 

[SG9]

I don't know if it's any help, but Job 40:15 says,
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you".

There may be other references; I'll see what I can find.

Let's look at the definition of 'behemoth',

1. Something enormous in size or power.
2. often Behemoth A huge animal, possibly the hippopotamus, described in the Bible. behemoth - definition of behemoth by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The definition is not only identifying an animal as a possible identity but perhaps, it's used as symbol of a contemptible human being? It's hardly the case where men have spiritual battles with earthly animals, isn't it?

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm sorry if we misunderstand each other, I never said anything about blacks being created differently, I only said that other people believe it, not me! Are we on that same page? I don't want people to skim through my post and not read what I said so please read again if needed to be sure of what I said, cool?

Hi SG9, I did read your post carefully and considered for a time how I should respond. I'm glad to understand that you don't believe black people to be an inferior type of human being, but what you wrote above is anything but clear on that count.

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

Let's look at the definition of 'behemoth'.

The definition is not only identifying an animal as a possible identity but perhaps, it's used as symbol of a contemptible human being? It's hardly the case where men have spiritual battles with earthly animals, isn't it?

Hi again SG9, this is what the Bible says:

"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.His bones are tubes of bronze;His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God" Job 40:15-19a​

Of man, God says this:

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

"And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Genesis 1:27 & 31
​

The only "them" concerned "male and female" human beings, not an additional, lower type of human being. God created men and women in ONE WAY ONLY, in His own image. He did not create a race of lower beings that would need to be referred to as "beasts". And of all that God made, from human beings to Behemoths, ALL were called "good" and "very good" at Creation, NONE were called "contemptible". Quite frankly, Job 40 makes the Behemoth out to be something quite awsome! It is hardly described in a way that would make it sound like it's a contemptible beast!!

Finally, even if there were to "types" of human beings, why would God refer to those He made in a second class manner as "the first of the ways of God" (but that's exactly what He does where Behemoths are concerned). Surely the higher class of humans would receive that title! Come to think of it, we did receive that title from Him (ALL human beings that is) in Ephesians 2:10 which begins, "We are His masterpiece...."

You know, the cool thing about free will is you are free to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, you are also free to be wrong!

Yours and His,
David

 

[SG9]

Job 5:17-23

17 "Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects;
Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.
18 For He bruises, but He binds up;
He wounds, but His hands make whole.
19 He shall deliver you in six troubles,
Yes, in seven no evil shall touch you.
20 In famine He shall redeem you from death,
And in war from the power of the sword.
21 You shall be hidden from the scourge of the tongue,
And you shall not be afraid of destruction when it comes.
22 You shall laugh at destruction and famine,
And you shall not be afraid of the beasts of the earth.
23 For you shall have a covenant with the stones of the field,
And the beasts of the field shall be at peace with you.
NKJV

It might go well if we assume that Job was sane otherwise he spoke to rocks in verse 23. If this is not symbolic then it's literal?

This is one example where I see verse 22 mention the beasts of the earth and is likely literal, where as verse 23 is symbolic. The Bible speaks in mysterious fashions, mixing the many within context and even in one sentence at times.

What is the covenant made with the stones of the field? or should I say, 'talking rocks'? Thanks

 

[Strong in Him]

The definition is not only identifying an animal as a possible identity but perhaps, it's used as symbol of a contemptible human being? It's hardly the case where men have spiritual battles with earthly animals, isn't it?

I didn't say it was; that wasn't what was asked.

The OP was thinking of a verse where apparently, God told a man that he was created on the same day as the animals. I offered that as a possible, that's all. It remains to be seen if this was the verse that was wanted, if it was; problem solved.

 

[SG9]

Hi again SG9, this is what the Bible says:

"Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.His bones are tubes of bronze;His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God" Job 40:15-19a​

Of man, God says this:

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

"And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Genesis 1:27 & 31
​

The only "them" concerned "male and female" human beings, not an additional, lower type of human being. God created men and women in ONE WAY ONLY, in His own image. He did not create a race of lower beings that would need to be referred to as "beasts". And of all that God made, from human beings to Behemoths, ALL were called "good" and "very good" at Creation, NONE were called "contemptible". Quite frankly, Job 40 makes the Behemoth out to be something quite awsome! It is hardly described in a way that would make it sound like it's a contemptible beast!!

Finally, even if there were to "types" of human beings, why would God refer to those He made in a second class manner as "the first of the ways of God" (but that's exactly what He does where Behemoths are concerned). Surely the higher class of humans would receive that title! Come to think of it, we did receive that title from Him (ALL human beings that is) in Ephesians 2:10 which begins, "We are His masterpiece...."

You know, the cool thing about free will is you are free to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, you are also free to be wrong!

Yours and His,
David

I'm sorry that I don't have time to address every detail but I will like to comment about something, what God creates and makes is very good when it is for his purpose, pleasure, and for whatever reason even if some things appear evil to us. God says that he creates the evil that he brings upon us and the curses and the wrath's and yet we refuse to recognize many of these things because of our haughtiness and pride, it's our human nature as we are all fallen until translated to glory. The verse is not implying that there was no evil, when evil existed before man was made, and this is why God gave the man who was made on the 6th day the commandment to avoid the forbidden tree and it's fruit.

Examine Job 5:19, I posted it in the other post, and see that Job mentions 'six' and 'seven', and see that in six there are troubles and in seven is no evil. Do you know what this means? The six is also a symbol for a man-like beast, is it not in 666 mark of the 'beast'? There is here an association of man and beast in 666 and nobody sees it? This is evidence regardless of ignorance.

There were two trees in the garden of Eden, one good and one evil, and by your doctrine, it nullifies one or either of the two trees, and in this case of error it would cut down the Tree of Life as it gives power to the evil tree. Spreading false doctrines is the same as crucifying Christ, again, and again.

I've provided a part of my defense in this case and I cannot deny the truth when I'm convicted by it. I hope that we can all learn from this discussion and I sure can use the exercise in Bible study.

I will try to find time to present more if you would like to continue this discussion. Thanks

I am adding that the 'man-like beast' that I describe should have been 'beast-like man'.

 

[SG9]

I didn't say it was; that wasn't what was asked.

The OP was thinking of a verse where apparently, God told a man that he was created on the same day as the animals. I offered that as a possible, that's all. It remains to be seen if this was the verse that was wanted, if it was; problem solved.

Problem? I didn't know there was a problem and I am sorry that you feel this way. Well, if it will comfort you, I never implied what you think, I only gave an example in a counter question, it's how you perceive it, my friend. Thanks

 

[Strong in Him]

Problem? I didn't know there was a problem and I am sorry that you feel this way. Well, if it will comfort you, I never implied what you think, I only gave an example in a counter question, it's how you perceive it, my friend. Thanks

The only problem is that the OP can't think of a particular verse - and presumably we haven't found it for them, or if so, they haven't been back to say so.

I don't understand the discussion that's taking place about creation, and don't want to contribute to it; I just want to find the verse that the OP is thinking of.

 

[SG9]

The only problem is that the OP can't think of a particular verse - and presumably we haven't found it for them, or if so, they haven't been back to say so.

I don't understand the discussion that's taking place about creation, and don't want to contribute to it; I just want to find the verse that the OP is thinking of.

I'm not trying to stop you, I understand. I'm not so sure if there is a scripture that will word it so obvious but I too will learn if one is found! Thanks

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm not trying to stop you, I understand. I'm not so sure if there is a scripture that will word it so obvious but I too will learn if one is found! Thanks

Thanks.

 

[St_Worm2]

Job 5:17-23

17 "Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects;
Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.
18 For He bruises, but He binds up;
He wounds, but His hands make whole.
19 He shall deliver you in six troubles,
Yes, in seven no evil shall touch you.
20 In famine He shall redeem you from death,
And in war from the power of the sword.
21 You shall be hidden from the scourge of the tongue,
And you shall not be afraid of destruction when it comes.
22 You shall laugh at destruction and famine,
And you shall not be afraid of the beasts of the earth.
23 For you shall have a covenant with the stones of the field,
And the beasts of the field shall be at peace with you.
NKJV

It might go well if we assume that Job was sane otherwise he spoke to rocks in verse 23. If this is not symbolic then it's literal?

This is one example where I see verse 22 mention the beasts of the earth and is likely literal, where as verse 23 is symbolic. The Bible speaks in mysterious fashions, mixing the many within context and even in one sentence at times.

What is the covenant made with the stones of the field? or should I say, 'talking rocks'? Thanks

"In league with the stones" is an idiom which would have been easily understood by any who lived near Job in the desert of Arabia (which was full of rocks and stones). The full meaning of this particular verse when delivered as an admonition by his "friend", Eliphaz (who is the one speaking in Job 5, BTW), is that a penitent Job would find the Lord blessing his land with good crops, that his soil would be fertile and his farming productive because the stones, which were problematic in this region, would not be a hindrance to him.

As a side note, if a passage (or an entire book) is a poetic narrative, there is no reason to believe that what is written is bound up in some sort of "mystery", just because it's the Bible. Often, the words simply mean what they appear to mean (especially if you take the time to understand the region, the people, and their manners and customs, from the time the book was written)!

It also seems unlikely that the Lord would assign a deeper spiritual meaning to the words of Eliphaz, whose musings demonstrate such a profound misunderstanding of God and His ways that the Lord ends up rebuking him because of them.

Yours and His,
David

 

[SG9]

"In league with the stones" is an idiom which would have been easily understood by any who lived near Job in the desert of Arabia (which was full of rocks and stones). The full meaning of this particular verse when delivered as an admonition by his "friend", Eliphaz (who is the one speaking in Job 5, BTW), is that a penitent Job would find the Lord blessing his land with good crops, that his soil would be fertile and his farming productive because the stones, which were problematic in this region, would not be a hindrance to him.

As a side note, if a passage (or an entire book) is a poetic narrative, there is no reason to believe that what is written is bound up in some sort of "mystery", just because it's the Bible. Often, the words simply mean what they appear to mean (especially if you take the time to understand the region, the people, and their manners and customs, from the time the book was written)!

It also seems unlikely that the Lord would assign a deeper spiritual meaning to the words of Eliphaz, whose musings demonstrate such a profound misunderstanding of God and His ways that the Lord ends up rebuking him because of them.

Yours and His,
David

Yes, you make a good point about misinterpretations, and this was in mind when I read your posts. This is why I'm concerned for the sake of the Bible.

By your words, the stones are allegorical and I can agree with the Biblical history. The stones are then symbolic as you described their parallel. I fail to see how this supports your argument about the beasts of the field, which you believe are literal beasts of a non-human form; in fact it's contrary, you say one thing and then another? The stones are symbols and the beasts are not? I don't get it, I can't see how this is possible. Thanks

Edit, please continue your story about the stones and tell us about the beasts of the field, keeping in mind that by your theology they must be literal beasts and may not be symbolic in any form. Good luck