Genesis REVISITED

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest
FrankiE:
Genesis 3:13-14. Please explain the word "beguiled" in verse 13.

Beguiled (English) from nâshâ' (Hebrew)
naw-shaw'
A primitive root; to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.

Deluded, beguiled, deceived, it's all the same thing -- it means tricked.

Do you have other examples from the Bible where God punished people for eating the wrong fruit or picking up the wrong stone?

Do you have any other examples from the Bible where people lived in Eden? If we're gonna make comparisons, let's make sure we're comparing the same thing. The point I was making is that there was only one rule in Eden, and Adam and Eve broke it. Their disobedience brought upon them the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Tambora]

Hmmm, I am intrigued by this.
After researching the following scripture, I am inclined to rethink that there may indeed have been some form of physical contact.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Apostasy is often connected with adultery.
And verse 3 is connected to verse 2 implying a fear of adultery just like Eve did.
Also the word “receive” in verse 4 of another spirit has overtones of physical contact.

Another interesting word is “touch” in the following verse.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Strong’s list “touch” as H5060
I will give his definition here:
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Most interesting is the part I have underlined.



OK Frank, you have my attention now. This could get interesting.

So when we are told in Genesis 3:15 that there will be enmity between Satan’s seed and Eve’s seed, is this referring to a literal seed (offspring) from both of them?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by tambora

Hmmm, I am intrigued by this.
After researching the following scripture, I am inclined to rethink that there may indeed have been some form of physical contact.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Apostasy is often connected with adultery.
And verse 3 is connected to verse 2 implying a fear of adultery just like Eve did.
Also the word “receive” in verse 4 of another spirit has overtones of physical contact.

So, do you think in this passage Paul was warning the Corintian church not to commit literal adultery, or was he warning them to beware of deceptive spirits and false gospels?

Another interesting word is “touch” in the following verse.

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Strong’s list “touch” as H5060
I will give his definition here:
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Most interesting is the part I have underlined.

Guess what: Touch can be used as a euphamism for intercourse in English, too. But that doesn't mean that "touch" always has a sexual connotation. And there's nothing in the context of Genesis 3 that indicates Eve was talking about intercourse. And if touching the fruit did mean having intercourse with Lucifer, what did it mean to eat the fruit? And why did God command Adam not to eat the fruit?

Also, God did not forbid him/them from touching the fruit. He forbade Adam from eating it, period.

• And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:16-17

The command not to touch it was either something Adam added, or something Eve invented on her own. In typical legalistic fashion, they invented their own law to keep themselves from breaking God's law, and failed.

OK Frank, you have my attention now.

Have you read this whole thread? We've already pointed out that the text specifically says that Adam is Cain's biological father:

• Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Genesis 4:1

One would think that verse would take the wind out of Frank's sails, but for some reason it hasn't.

 

[Tambora]

Could be it has nothing to do with sex. But then again maybe it does.

Not the word eat, but the word touch. The word is only mentioned by Eve, not Adam. And yes, it was something she added. They both ate, but only one "touched".

You have made some points that I have always held to.

But, you didn't comment on the fact that enmity would be between Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
I've always been under the impression that Christ was the seed (descendant) mentioned of Eve. Every preacher I have heard talk of this verse says it is Christ. But I can't recall them ever mentioning who the other seed was.
So if Cain is not a candidate for Satan's seed (descendant), then who is?

If the word "seed" means a literal descendant of Eve, then it stands to reason that the seed mentioned of Satan would be also.

Or is it that "seed" refers to something besides a descendant and therefore does not refer to Christ?

 

[OMEGA]

NAAGH, It just says Don't believe everything that

some strange Philosophizer who comes along may say.

Question everything just like the Bereans did.

Acts 17:10 ¶ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.:think:

 

[Frank Ernest]

Turbo:
"Maybe because Cain's was the first conception ever. Or maybe it was to make it easy to debunk false teachers who would someday claim that Cain was Satan's son and not Adam's."

FrankiE:
Maybe, maybe, and then the "advertising." Skip the bunk and stay on the subject. I'm not interested in a string of "maybe." By the way, 2 Corinthians 11:3. You just accused Paul of being a "false teacher." Matthew 13:24-30, 13:37-43 and John 8:42-44. You just accused Jesus of being a "false teacher."

Turbo:
"I'm going to ask you again, Frank:
Where do you think Abel came from? "

FrankiE:
I don't have to "think" about where Abel came from as it is clearly stated in the Hebrew manuscripts from which comes the KJV translation (with its warts). Have you read either?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by tambora

Could be it has nothing to do with sex. But then again maybe it does.

Not the word eat, but the word touch. The word is only mentioned by Eve, not Adam. And yes, it was something she added. They both ate, but only one "touched".

And how exactly does one eat something without touching it?

You have made some points that I have always held to.

But, you didn't comment on the fact that enmity would be between Satan's seed and Eve's seed.
I've always been under the impression that Christ was the seed (descendant) mentioned of Eve. Every preacher I have heard talk of this verse says it is Christ. But I can't recall them ever mentioning who the other seed was.
So if Cain is not a candidate for Satan's seed (descendant), then who is?

Isn't Satan the father of lies?

If the word "seed" means a literal descendant of Eve, then it stands to reason that the seed mentioned of Satan would be also.

Nope. Faulty premise. It is not necessary to take the physical conditions of Eve's seed and apply them to Satan's seed.

Now that doesn't mean that Satan doesn't have any literal offspring. Just that it isn't offspring in the same physical sense.

Or is it that "seed" refers to something besides a descendant and therefore does not refer to Christ?

Again, faulty premise.

John 8:44 --
44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

It seems clear that Satan has offspring. They are not physical offspring, but they are very definitely literal. And there certainly is enmity between the sons of Satan and Christ who is descended from Eve's seed.

 

[Tambora]

Put whatever words you consider "seed" should be in Genesis 3:15 and see if it makes sense.

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"It seems clear that Satan has offspring. They are not physical offspring, but they are very definitely literal. And there certainly is enmity between the sons of Satan and Christ who is descended from Eve's seed. "

FrankiE:
How does one split the hair between "physical" and "literal" to make them distinct and different? How does one use a word, viz. seed, and have two differing meanings within the same context?

 

[philosophizer]

Frank, I'd like to know where you're coming from.

Does Satan have physical offspring living among humans?

Are they the only ones who will be bundled and burned?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Turbo:
"Maybe because Cain's was the first conception ever. Or maybe it was to make it easy to debunk false teachers who would someday claim that Cain was Satan's son and not Adam's."

FrankiE:
Maybe, maybe, and then the "advertising." Skip the bunk and stay on the subject. I'm not interested in a string of "maybe." By the way, 2 Corinthians 11:3. You just accused Paul of being a "false teacher." Matthew 13:24-30, 13:37-43 and John 8:42-44. You just accused Jesus of being a "false teacher."

2 Corinthians 11 --
1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Paul is saying that there is no other Gospel and no other Jesus than the one he is preaching. There is no logical necessity to connect verse 2 to verse 3 in a way that states Eve and Satan had sex. In fact, if you want to go down that pathway of logic, then Paul was saying that we were meant to have sex with Jesus.

 

[Turbo]

philo... Don't give them any ideas. :hammer:

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"Frank, I'd like to know where you're coming from."

FrankiE:
I am a student of scripture.

philosophizer:
"Does Satan have physical offspring living among humans?"

FrankiE:
Yes. Jesus said so. (John 8:42-44)

philosophizer:
"Are they the only ones who will be bundled and burned? "

FrankiE:
No. (Revelation 20:12-15)

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"2 Corinthians 11 --
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Paul is saying that there is no other Gospel and no other Jesus than the one he is preaching. There is no logical necessity to connect verse 2 to verse 3 in a way that states Eve and Satan had sex. In fact, if you want to go down that pathway of logic, then Paul was saying that we were meant to have sex with Jesus. "

FrankiE:
(Matthew 4:10)

In verse 2 Paul speaks of a spiritual (doctrinal) virginity. With your "take" on this that anyone who has ever had physical sex would be excluded from being presented.

Verse 3 is quite clear and you're confusing the issue. Paul says "as the serpent beguiled (Gr: expatao "wholly seduced") Eve through his subtilty ... Paul is not primarily referring to the specific act, but how Satan did it.

Paul continues "so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Simply put, Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting (lying about) what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep Christ's teachings simple and you won't go wrong.

 

[philosophizer]

Great! Let's not muddy the waters.

I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree.

Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children?

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree."

FrankiE:
Apparently your agreement falls in line only with your beliefs and not with what Paul says. Read what I said again.

philosophizer:
"Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children? "

FrankiE:
Beats me. You were the one who brought it up.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"I believe that Paul was making a comparison and was not saying that Eve had sex with Satan. You seem to think so too if I'm reading you right. You said, "Eve was deceived by Satan's subtilty in perverting what God had commanded her. Paul says, keep it simple and you won't go wrong." I definitely agree."

FrankiE:
Apparently your agreement falls in line only with your beliefs and not with what Paul says. Read what I said again.

philosophizer:
"Now what does that have to do with fallen angels having physical children? "

FrankiE:
Beats me. You were the one who brought it up.

Frank, you've managed to confuse me more than I've been in a long time. What are we agreeing/disagreeing about?

What is the point that you came to this thread to make? Was it about Genesis? About Cain and Abel? About Adam and Eve? About angels having offspring?

I really believe you have a point, Frank. I just don't have a clue what it is? Please help.

 

[Turbo]

I think Frank is being purposefully coy.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo

I think Frank is being purposefully coy.

In his case, it's hard to distinguish from being completely confused. :kookoo:

 

[Frank Ernest]

TackyZaky:
"In his case, it's hard to distinguish from being completely confused."

FrankiE:
:sozo: :loser: