Was Adam an historical figure?

[Calminian]

....What do you think God meant in Exodus 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son?

Yes, the term, like any term in hebrew or english, can be used in a figurative sense. Israel was a direct creations of God, conceived and born out of Egypt. Thus he refers to the nation of Egypt as His son, in the singular speaking of the nation as a unit.

But the reason this metaphor makes sense is because of the literal use of the term son in creation. Without the literal, the metaphors don't work. The sons of God (angels) are literally sons. Adam was literally God's son. And Christ is literally God's begotten son, who he actually fathered.

Do you disagree with any of that?

 

[Calminian]

...I believe the author of Genesis 1 was referring to literal days too. I see no reason to interpret them as symbolic of long ages.

Nor did the early fathers nor the early jews. They believe in literal days (most of them, anyway), but also believe they had allegorical meanings as well.

But I don't believe those literal days were days in any historical calendar.

Well, that's just a fancy way of saying you don't take them literally. But there's no reason to do this, save to appease scientific naturalists. I would just trust God, even when the revelations sounds utterly incredible. God will bless you for doing it.

And, in fact, late Judaism and early Christianity did not believe the days of Genesis 1 were literal.

Absolutely false. You've been completely mislead on this. As I mentioned above, virtually all of them, with very few exceptions believe the days were literal. But they believed them to be allegorical about the future as well, representing 1000 year periods in the future. This of course has been completely twisted by old earth compromisers as meaning them did not take the days literally. The truth is, they all viewed genesis as historical narrative, and yet saw symbolic allegory in the text as well, usually pertaining to future events.

The reason for this may be due to the hebrew language, just to speculate a bit. The verbs in hebrew can sometimes be ambiguous and therefore can be both present and literal as well as prophetic. That's just a small theory I'm looking into.

What is sad is that you interpret my position as one of unbelief, distrust and rejection.

Of Genesis, yes. I realize you change your hermeneutic for other portions of scripture, and trust the gospels to be literal, but when it comes to Genesis, yes, I do believe you're trusting secular naturalistic theories of God's word. I don't feel you have experience the blessing of believing and defending God's word in Genesis. You've certainly experienced other blessings, but not this one.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Assyrian

If Adam was created out of dirt rather than God being his biological father, then 'son of God' is not literal it is figurative.

Dear Assyrian, Adam wasn't "created" out of dirt. No man is. To be "created" is only by the agreement of the Trinity. YHWH/Jesus "formed" Adam on the 3rd Day physically, literally, but Adam was NOT created by the Trinity until the present 6th Day. For man to be "created" is for a man to be Born Again from on High, or born Spiritually.

God said, Let US make man in our Image and Jesus said:

John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of Truth;

It takes the AGREEMENT of the Trinity to CREATE a New Christian. God continues to work today to make His Creation perfect. He will NOT rest or Cease Creating until the last sinner to be created in God's Image, is born again Spiritually.

Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

In Love,
Aman

​

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, the term, like any term in hebrew or english, can be used in a figurative sense. Israel was a direct creations of God, conceived and born out of Egypt. Thus he refers to the nation of Egypt as His son, in the singular speaking of the nation as a unit.

But the reason this metaphor makes sense is because of the literal use of the term son in creation. Without the literal, the metaphors don't work. The sons of God (angels) are literally sons. Adam was literally God's son. And Christ is literally God's begotten son, who he actually fathered.

Do you disagree with any of that?

I would say most metaphors come from a literal source, but you also have people who are described as a troll or a grinch. However the the literal meaning of 'son' is when Rebekah conceived and her and Isaac had a baby boy, not God calling the nation of Israel out of Egypt. You may be thinking that unless God created mankind, we would not have the term son, which is true, but it is the reality, the fact of creation that matters there, not the creation being described in Luke as 'Adam son of God'. That can be a figurative use of the term son like so many other figurative meaning of son in the Hebrew language.

 

[Assyrian]

Dear Assyrian, False. Perhaps your problem is reading and comprehending. The fact that people of 500 years ago didn't know the Truth about heliocentrism has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural Fact that we live today on the 6th Day.

I don't see how it is any different from you not knowing evolution is true. What has 500 years got to do with it? Has 500 years of scientific progress somehow given you the ability to disprove science with your interpretation of scripture? Their interpretation of scripture contradicted heliocentrism, your interpretation contradicts evolution. How does your interpretation manage to disprove science, when theirs didn't?

You have Never addressed my point that Today remains the 6th Creative Day. Now, you begin to whine that my views are not reality. Please post your Scripture which shows such. I don't think you can.

I have taken you ideas apart so often it is tedious, especially when you can never respond to what I said.

 

[Calminian]

I would say most metaphors come from a literal source, but you also have people who are described as a troll or a grinch. However the the literal meaning of 'son' is when Rebekah conceived and her and Isaac had a baby boy, not God calling the nation of Israel out of Egypt. You may be thinking that unless God created mankind, we would not have the term son, which is true, but it is the reality, the fact of creation that matters there, not the creation being described in Luke as 'Adam son of God'. That can be a figurative use of the term son like so many other figurative meaning of son in the Hebrew language.

I'm following. I agreed that calling of Israel "son" is metaphorical. The reason seems clear, as God created that nation and it was born out of Egypt (a sort of metaphorical womb).

But the reference to Adam being a son of God is no more metaphorical than directly created angels bearing the title "sons of God." There's no indication that I can see of metaphorical language there. When you create a life directly, being procreation or from dust, those beings are referred to as sons. Seems pretty simple and straightforward.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm following. I agreed that calling of Israel "son" is metaphorical. The reason seems clear, as God created that nation and it was born out of Egypt (a sort of metaphorical womb).

But the reference to Adam being a son of God is no more metaphorical than directly created angels bearing the title "sons of God." There's no indication that I can see of metaphorical language there. When you create a life directly, being procreation or from dust, those beings are referred to as sons. Seems pretty simple and straightforward.

The indication it is figurative would be that there was no sexual reproduction, no mother, no biological womb and no biological birth canal like there is with having literal sons. God created plants, fish and cattle too, are they son of God? It is not about being created in God's image either, because while human were created in his image, the angelic sons of God weren't.

 

[ChetSinger]

...It is not about being created in God's image either, because while human were created in his image, the angelic sons of God weren't.

Be careful with that, because the creation sentence "Let us make man in our image" is thought by many to be a statement made among the divine council, meaning that at least some angelic beings were made in God's image.

 

[Assyrian]

Be careful with that, because the creation sentenceis thought by many to be a statement made among the divine council, meaning that at least some angelic beings were made in God's image.

I am aware of the the divine council interpretation, but surely that only suggests the angel being given power and authority... oh I get it, "Let us make man in our image" would suggest the divine council shared the image of God. Then again the fact that angels are never described as being created in God's image would argue against this being a divine council. A bigger problem is that it take away from God being the creator, if the plural elohiym is the divine council in Gen 1:26 wouldn't it be the divine council throughout the chapter from Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... No I think it is better to read this as God speaking with whatever hints of plurality in the Godhead there are to find in the plural elohiym and us.

 

[Calminian]

The indication it is figurative would be that there was no sexual reproduction, no mother, no biological womb and no biological birth canal like there is with having literal sons. God created plants, fish and cattle too, are they son of God? It is not about being created in God's image either, because while human were created in his image, the angelic sons of God weren't.

But again now you're forcing modern meanings onto the term. Scripture calls directly created beings sons. There is nothing metaphoric about it. Animals procreate and humans procreate. Thus we are sons of Adam, and only sons of God via our unity with Christ. Plus we don't really have a term for what we call the being we make out of dirt, simply because don't have the ability to make someone in that fashion. But I suppose if I could make a child out of dirt, I'd call him my son.

 

[Calminian]

...It is not about being created in God's image either, because while human were created in his image, the angelic sons of God weren't.

Be careful with that, because the creation sentence "Let us make man in our image" is thought by many to be a statement made among the divine council, meaning that at least some angelic beings were made in God's image.

Agreed, who's to say angels are not created in God's image? In fact, even apart from the council interpretation, I would venture to believe they are created in God's image. For angels have moral understandings, and are liable for their choices. Unlike animals they are subject to judgement. I'm of the opinion they are definitely beings created in God's image, having the very same qualities that make us distinct from animals.

 

[Jadis40]

I voted no, as well.

However, if he was, I think it's entirely possible that someone named Adam could very well have been the first in the family tree that led to Mary and Joseph and therefore Jesus. I don't believe that Adam was the first man on this planet.

Then again, I don't really take Genesis 1-3 as being literal.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Dear Assyrian, False. Perhaps your problem is reading and comprehending. The fact that people of 500 years ago didn't know the Truth about heliocentrism has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural Fact that we live today on the 6th Day.
​

Assyrian:>>I don't see how it is any different from you not knowing evolution is true.

Dear Assyrian, I don't object to the fact that changes or adaptation/evolution in the allele frequency in a population over time, is a scientific measurement. Of course it is. It's the FALSE assumptions that SOME men preach and force feed to our children in Public Schools, that I disagree with.

The problem is simple. Today's TOE falsely Assumes that this is the only Earth there was. This distorts their view of God's Truth. They are ignorant of the Fact that we came from an Earth which was destroyed in the Flood. It's all there in Scripture of how God has trapped today's Scoffers into a choice to believe in Him or Science. Here's what will happen in the last days:

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world (Kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (destroyed totally)
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire

Are you willingly ignorant of God's Truth that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned? IF so, then you fit the description of a Scoffer in the last Days. ll Peter 3:3-7


Assyrian:>>What has 500 years got to do with it? Has 500 years of scientific progress somehow given you the ability to disprove science with your interpretation of scripture?

Yes. Humanity is just now beginning to understand the meaning of Genesis chapter one. The Supreme Intelligence of Creation is the Author. The increase in knowledge, today, has caused us to be able to better understand what God told us thousands of years ago. Tradition keeps most people from understanding Genesis.

Assyrian:>>Their interpretation of scripture contradicted heliocentrism, your interpretation contradicts evolution. How does your interpretation manage to disprove science, when theirs didn't?

Can you show us scientifically HOW and WHEN evolution produced Human intelligence in Great Apes? Of course not. Prehistoric mankind adapted or evolved into today's humans AFTER Noah arrived and brought the human intelligence of Adam to this Earth. Only the descendants of Adam are Human.

Aman:>>You have Never addressed my point that Today remains the 6th Creative Day. Now, you begin to whine that my views are not reality. Please post your Scripture which shows such. I don't think you can.
​

Assyrian:>>I have taken you ideas apart so often it is tedious, especially when you can never respond to what I said.

In your dreams. Your inability to support your traditional view with Scripture is legend. Are you able to come up with verses to support your views while you dream? or is your expertise in the flawed views of men of this world?

BTW, You side stepped the answer to my question. Here it is again:

>>>>>Aman:>>You have Never addressed my point that Today remains the 6th Creative Day. Now, you begin to whine that my views are not reality. Please post your Scripture which shows such. I don't think you can.<<<<<<<

Unless you can support silly notions that we have already passed the 6th Day, everyone will see that your view of our Origins, is nothing but your personal opinion blowing in the wind.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Jadis:>>I voted no, as well.

However, if he was, I think it's entirely possible that someone named Adam could very well have been the first in the family tree that led to Mary and Joseph and therefore Jesus. I don't believe that Adam was the first man on this planet.

Dear Jadis, You are correct since Adam was NEVER on this Earth. The Earth of Adam was clean dissolved in the Flood. Noah brought the unique human intelligence of Adam to this planet of Great Apes. It's the Snare or trap set by God with the Flood.

Jadis:>>Then again, I don't really take Genesis 1-3 as being literal.

All of God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way, including literally. The fault lies in the ability of the reader to understand His Holy Word. If your view of Scripture doesn't agree with every other discovered Truth, then your view is only a half truth.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

But again now you're forcing modern meanings onto the term.

No, I understand enough about languages and etymology to recognise when a word is being used literally and when it is being used figuratively. I gave you a long list of different figurative uses of son in Hebrew and you agreed they were figurative. How can you not see that 'Adam son of God' is as far from the literal meaning of the product of sexual reproduction and pregnancy as sons of Babylon or sons of coal.

Scripture calls directly created beings sons.

Like wildebeest and warthogs? Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

There is nothing metaphoric about it.

Why not? You say 'there is nothing metaphoric about it' as though that were a bad thing. It is how languages work and God spoke to the Hebrew in their own language. I did a quick search in Strong's and there are 1838 word definitions that contain the word 'figuratively' and show words used in the bible in both literal and figurative senses.

Animals procreate and humans procreate. Thus we are sons of Adam, and only sons of God via our unity with Christ. Plus we don't really have a term for what we call the being we make out of dirt, simply because don't have the ability to make someone in that fashion. But I suppose if I could make a child out of dirt, I'd call him my son.

We have the same sort of word for someone who creates out of clay as the the Hebrews did, a potter. Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. The difference is you have a verb for pottering in Hebrew while the English verb to potter has a completely different meaning. You actually find the Hebrew verb for a potter pottering, in Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian:>>I don't see how it is any different from you not knowing evolution is true.

Dear Assyrian, I don't object to the fact that changes or adaptation/evolution in the allele frequency in a population over time, is a scientific measurement. Of course it is. It's the FALSE assumptions that SOME men preach and force feed to our children in Public Schools, that I disagree with.

The problem is simple. Today's TOE falsely Assumes that this is the only Earth there was. This distorts their view of God's Truth. They are ignorant of the Fact that we came from an Earth which was destroyed in the Flood. It's all there in Scripture of how God has trapped today's Scoffers into a choice to believe in Him or Science. Here's what will happen in the last days:

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world (Kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (destroyed totally)
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire

Are you willingly ignorant of God's Truth that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned? IF so, then you fit the description of a Scoffer in the last Days. ll Peter 3:3-7

And geocentrists quoted their scriptures that show heliocentrism was wrong. I still don't see how your argument against evolution is different. They had the parts of astronomy they though were right and the part of heliocentrism they thought were unsupported supposition, just like you do with evolution. But issue isn't about the particular arguments each debate had, but how you think your interpretation of scripture can disprove the science of evolution when their interpretation of scripture wasn't able to disprove heliocentrism.

Yes. Humanity is just now beginning to understand the meaning of Genesis chapter one. The Supreme Intelligence of Creation is the Author. The increase in knowledge, today, has caused us to be able to better understand what God told us thousands of years ago. Tradition keeps most people from understanding Genesis.

If anything their argument that the church had always believed that the sun went round the earth is stronger that your assumption you have suddenly got it right after all these years. Your argument about the increase of knowledge would hold more water if you weren't busy trying to argue against that knowledge. The fact is, it was our increase in scientific knowledge about astronomy that showed us the geocentric interpretation was mistaken, just as the increase in knowledge about evolution and the history of the earth shows us that both six day creationists and your third day creationism are wrong too.

Can you show us scientifically HOW and WHEN evolution produced Human intelligence in Great Apes? Of course not. Prehistoric mankind adapted or evolved into today's humans AFTER Noah arrived and brought the human intelligence of Adam to this Earth. Only the descendants of Adam are Human.

I have answered your questions about the evolution of intelligence, and you could only dodge and change the subject.

In your dreams. Your inability to support your traditional view with Scripture is legend. Are you able to come up with verses to support your views while you dream? or is your expertise in the flawed views of men of this world?

People can read Aman. They only have to look through the threads where I discussed your ideas with you:
Adam's world totally destroyed in the Flood
God's 7 Days
Theistic Evolution Challenged
theological problem with the "sons of god" being human
Man made on 3rd Day

BTW, You side stepped the answer to my question. Here it is again:

Unless you can support silly notions that we have already passed the 6th Day, everyone will see that your view of our Origins, is nothing but your personal opinion blowing in the wind.

In Love,
Aman

You are just trying to change the subject to get away from the problem I raised. Besides, I answered that before.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

Assyrian:>>I don't see how it is any different from you not knowing evolution is true.
​

Aman:>>Dear Assyrian, I don't object to the fact that changes or adaptation/evolution in the allele frequency in a population over time, is a scientific measurement. Of course it is. It's the FALSE assumptions that SOME men preach and force feed to our children in Public Schools, that I disagree with.

The problem is simple. Today's TOE falsely Assumes that this is the only Earth there was. This distorts their view of God's Truth. They are ignorant of the Fact that we came from an Earth which was destroyed in the Flood. It's all there in Scripture of how God has trapped today's Scoffers into a choice to believe in Him or Science. Here's what will happen in the last days:

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world (Kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (destroyed totally)
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire

Are you willingly ignorant of God's Truth that the first world was totally destroyed in water and that our world will be burned? IF so, then you fit the description of a Scoffer in the last Days. ll Peter 3:3-7
​

Assyrian:>>And geocentrists quoted their scriptures that show heliocentrism was wrong. I still don't see how your argument against evolution is different.

Dear Assyrian, I don't object to the fact that changes or adaptation/evolution in the allele frequency in a population over time. If that line is familiar, it's the SAME line I just used which YOU had NO comment about. Must i also accept every false assumption which comes from so called "scientists"?

Assyrian:>>They had the parts of astronomy they though were right and the part of heliocentrism they thought were unsupported supposition, just like you do with evolution. But issue isn't about the particular arguments each debate had, but how you think your interpretation of scripture can disprove the science of evolution when their interpretation of scripture wasn't able to disprove heliocentrism.

I know you love to accept the theories of ancient men since they are so easy to refute, but you are comparing the knowledge of ancient men with a modern man. Do you think I have a little more scientific knowledge than people who lived 500 years ago? Or do you consider that I'm just a Bumpkin who fell off the turnip truck last night?

Aman:>>Yes. Humanity is just now beginning to understand the meaning of Genesis chapter one. The Supreme Intelligence of Creation is the Author. The increase in knowledge, today, has caused us to be able to better understand what God told us thousands of years ago. Tradition keeps most people from understanding Genesis.
​

Assyrian:>>If anything their argument that the church had always believed that the sun went round the earth is stronger that your assumption you have suddenly got it right after all these years. Your argument about the increase of knowledge would hold more water if you weren't busy trying to argue against that knowledge. The fact is, it was our increase in scientific knowledge about astronomy that showed us the geocentric interpretation was mistaken, just as the increase in knowledge about evolution and the history of the earth shows us that both six day creationists and your third day creationism are wrong too.

Judging my view, which is supported by Scripture, with the mistaken views of ancient men, is ridiculous. I don't think you can support the geocentric view with Scripture. Fool me and actually support your views with Scripture. I won't hold my breath though, since you seem to be weak in supporting your assertions.

Aman:>>Can you show us scientifically HOW and WHEN evolution produced Human intelligence in Great Apes? Of course not. Prehistoric mankind adapted or evolved into today's humans AFTER Noah arrived and brought the human intelligence of Adam to this Earth. Only the descendants of Adam are Human.
​

Assyrian:>>I have answered your questions about the evolution of intelligence, and you could only dodge and change the subject.

Sure, and the check's in the mail, too. I have noticed that people who change God's Truth into fables always CLAIM they have already answered the subject.

Aman:>>In your dreams. Your inability to support your traditional view with Scripture is legend. Are you able to come up with verses to support your views while you dream? or is your expertise in the flawed views of men of this world?
​

Assyrian:>>People can read Aman. They only have to look through the threads where I discussed your ideas with you:
Adam's world totally destroyed in the Flood
God's 7 Days
Theistic Evolution Challenged
theological problem with the "sons of god" being human
Man made on 3rd Day

BTW, You side stepped the answer to my question. Here it is again:

Unless you can support silly notions that we have already passed the 6th Day, everyone will see that your view of our Origins, is nothing but your personal opinion blowing in the wind.

Assyrian:>>You are just trying to change the subject to get away from the problem I raised. Besides, I answered that before.

Sure, and the check's in the mail, too. I have noticed that people who change God's Truth into fables always CLAIM they have already answered the subject. That way they can avoid embarrassment. Good move. Keep it up and everyone will see the Truth about you.

In Love,
Aman

​

 

[Aman777]

Assyrian:>>People can read Aman. They only have to look through the threads where I discussed your ideas with you:
Adam's world totally destroyed in the Flood


To start with you final question first

Originally Posted by Aman777

...Can anyone explain WHY Christians don't teach this Scriptural FACT?
​

Assyrian:>>The problem is that while you have a coherent interpretation yourself, not everyone will assemble all these different pieces together the way you do. Lets have a look.

God told Noah that He was going to destroy the violent men of the first world "with the Earth". Genesis 6:13
God told Noah "neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth." in Genesis 9:11
God tells us in the New Testament that He "spared NOT the old world" in ll Peter 2:5
God tells us the world that "THEN WAS" perished, which in Greek means destroyed, totally. ll Peter 3:6
​

Assyrian:>>Does this mean we are living on a seconds earth? Even if you take the flood account as referring to the whole world, it was the same earth that emerged once the waters subsided. Everything on it was destroyed, but it grew against and was repopulated.

Dear Assyrian, As usual, your thinking is ancient. You didn't answer the Scripture which clearly shows that the first earth was destroyed in the Flood. All you can seem to do is ask if our Earth is the 2nd Earth. Yes. The Earth of Adam was totally destroyed in the Flood. I'll bet you think Noah left the Middle East, floated around the world for months and then landed exactly where it left. Right?

Assyrin:the passage may be using the word 'earth' in a quite different way to Genesis 1:1, referring to a flood that covered a region rather than the planet.

Ridiculous. Earth means "ground" in Hebrew. Ground without form and void is NOT the Planet Earth. It's the dust, which Jesus will use to make an Earth.

Assyrian:>>
The Hebrew erets can be translated either way as the earth or referring to a particular land. In 2Peter the word used for the flood is kosmos translated 'world' which is a different word to the one Peter uses to describe the creation of the earth, ge. kosmos has a range of meanings from cosmetics to the whole cosmos, but one that fits particularly well here is the ordered civilisation in Noah's time, it was 'the world of the ungodly' that was destroyed rather than the whole planet.

Then kindly tell us WHERE is the heavens and earth (Kosmos) of Adam. Remember that is was completely surrounded by water. You believe that our Cosmos is surrounded by water? Of course not. You have confused the 1st Heaven (firmament) with our Cosmos, made on the 3rd Day. The first world (heavens and earth) are gone, never to rise again.




Aman: saiah tells us the world was "clean dissolved" and yet some people teach that our world is the only world God made. Isaiah 24:19

Assyrian:>>
You need to watch the used of verb tenses in Hebrew, they are used to indicate the completeness of an action rather than telling you when it happens. So you often get what look like past tenses in prophetic passages that are actually speaking about the future. Sometimes the Hebrew can use grammatical structures to tell us if it is past or future, but often you need to look for indications given in the context to find out when it happens. I think the key here is Isaiah 24:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall...

Go back to the verses and look for the SNARE, the Trap, which catches men in the last days and shows that their TOE is WRONG, Scripturally.

Aman:>>The first heaven, made on the 2nd Day (Genesis 1:6-8) is no more for it was totally destroyed in the Flood.
Our present second heaven, made on the 3rd Day (Genesis 2:4) will be burned. ll Peter 3:10
The third heaven, made on the 3rd Day (Genesis 2:4) is where Jesus is today, physically. It is also called the New Heaven and the New Earth in Revelation 21:1. Paul speaks of the THIRD Heaven in ll Corinthians 12:2.

Assyrian:>>
Is Paul's third heaven referring chronologically, or, for want of a better word, spatially? Instead of being the latest heaven is it referring to the 'highest heavens' we read about in scripture (1Kings 8:28, Psalm 148:4)?

No. Paul was taken to the 3rd Heaven, where Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us. After all, our Cosmos will be burned. Where did you think Christians woud go at the end of time? To the 3rd Heaven is the answer.

Assyrian:>>
In all of the passages you refer to in Genesis the Hebrew word for heaven is plural, heavens, it doesn't actually have a singular form. It is important not to read too much either way into heaven being plural or singular and especially into English translation that appear to distinguish between plural and singular. Genesis 1&2 does not actually describe a sequence of each individual heaven being created after another, after another. You could interpret it that way, but it is not specified by the text.

It doesn't matter since God uses the term "3rd Heaven" showing that there are two more. You keep getting lost in the traditional religious view of ancient men.

Assyrian:>>
You also seem to see a series of three creation events in Genesis 1:6-8 and Genesis 2:4 that is not at all clear from the text, and is not one of the more usual interpretations of the text. Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created... What are the 'these' in Gen 2:4 it is not describing the heavens and the earth being created yet again, but it is referring to an account of the creation out the verse itself and describing it as the 'genealogy' or 'generations' of the heavens and the earth. The two most common interpretation are that it is referring to either the description of creation in Genesis 1 or the description that follows it in in Genesis 2.

Doesn't make sense, since it leaves on with a confused view. Genesis 2:4 is taking us BACK to the events of the 3rd Day and ADDING information that man was made on the 3rd Day after the Earth was made but before the plants grew. All of these events happened on the 3rd Day, but traditional religion has confused God's Truth.

Assyrian:>>
e the second half of the verse is actually the start of the following creation account Gen 2:4b In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...

This account matches Genesis 1:9-12 which shows that man was formed of the dust of the ground on the THIRD Day. I told you it was taking us BACK to the events of the 3rd Day, but YOU don't believe me nor God.

Aman:>>
Jesus tells us that He is going to prepare a place for us and that if it was not so, He would have told us. John 14:2

Assyrian:>>
ren't these dwelling place/mansion in his father's house? Thanks for sharing this, I enjoy discussing the different way people approach these texts.

Where do you think these mansions are. Where do you think the Father's house is? Could it be the 3rd Heaven as I have told you over and over?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Assyrian]

I know you love to accept the theories of ancient men since they are so easy to refute, but you are comparing the knowledge of ancient men with a modern man. Do you think I have a little more scientific knowledge than people who lived 500 years ago? Or do you consider that I'm just a Bumpkin who fell off the turnip truck last night?

No, I think of you as someone who rejects science because of your interpretation of scripture, just like the geocentrists 500 years ago. 500 years of scientific advancement just means the science you are rejecting is more modern and advanced than the science they rejected.

Judging my view, which is supported by Scripture, with the mistaken views of ancient men, is ridiculous. I don't think you can support the geocentric view with Scripture. Fool me and actually support your views with Scripture. I won't hold my breath though, since you seem to be weak in supporting your assertions.

In fact they had a stronger case than either you or six day creationists have for your interpretations of Genesis. There have always been different interpretations of Genesis in the church, showing it is a text that is easily understood in different ways, but until Copernicus there never were any other interpretations of geocentric passages than the plain geocentric meaning of the text.

However it doesn't matter if I can support the geocentric view, or if you agree with the arguments in favour of it, what matters is that they thought scripture was very plain that the sun went round the earth. Just as you think you think your interpretation is must be right. Now apart from the chronologiocal snobbery of thinking you are much smarter than them, do you have any basis for claiming your interpretation of scripture can disprove evolution science when their equally fervently held interpretation of scripture couldn't never have disproved heliocentrism?

 

[ChetSinger]

I am aware of the the divine council interpretation, but surely that only suggests the angel being given power and authority... oh I get it, "Let us make man in our image" would suggest the divine council shared the image of God. Then again the fact that angels are never described as being created in God's image would argue against this being a divine council. A bigger problem is that it take away from God being the creator, if the plural elohiym is the divine council in Gen 1:26 wouldn't it be the divine council throughout the chapter from Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... No I think it is better to read this as God speaking with whatever hints of plurality in the Godhead there are to find in the plural elohiym and us.

Certainly the "let us..." may be the Father and the Son in conversation. But not necessarily so, as even many Christians hold other opinions. The concept of a divine council is entrenched in both Israelite and Caananite cultures. And the highest-ranking beings in it, the "sons of God", were certainly freewill beings with authority, because God put them in charge of mankind from the dispersion to perhaps as recently as the resurrection (Deut 32:7-9, Matt 28:18). How could they have been placed in charge of men if they were lesser beings than ourselves?

But in truth I'm not really sure how to respond to you, because you believe the oldest parts of the Bible are allegorical. I don't know if you believe that the sons of God were ever actually in charge of mankind, or if you even believe they actually exist.