Genesis REVISITED

[Frank Ernest]

julie21:
"Further to Matthew 13:24-30
The 'field' in our day is the World we are now in. Strongs definition of seed does mention 'remnant', possibly this could apply to the 'remnant' of Israel that will always exist.
The word of God has been spread as the 'good' seed throughout the World, but the crop has been defiled by Satan, who comes as the enemy and sows his seeds, greed; discontent; hate ;malice, untruths, the 'weeds' that spring up amongst the good crop and will strangle all ruin the field.
As your next reference in Matthew alludes to, we in the World must be wary of this thief who tries to overtake the good seed sown.

The Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13:3 - 9 leads well into the Parable you have noted, and if read in conjunction with the latter, defines it better I believe."

FrankiE:
Fine with me, Julie21. I have gone as far as I should with this. Will put you with the Matthew 13:43 folks. May God love you and continue to bless you.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

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

Repeat question: Why did Eve say she had acquired a man from the Lord if Cain's father was Adam?

First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.


So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?

"A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world."

I thank God for my wife every day. Yet I know she came from her mother and father and was not directly created by God. When I have children I will thank God for them too, though I know they came from me and my wife.

That seems like a pretty easy explanation to me.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:Brandon:
So, what happened with Adam? Since he ate of the fruit as well...

FrankiE:
First he tried to shift the blame to Eve (Genesis 3:12) then God stated the punishment (Genesis 3:17-19). After that God evicted them from the Garden (Genesis 3:22-24). Moving right along, Adam had a bunch of kids and died (Genesis 5:1-5).

That didn't answer lighthouse's question.

If "eating the fruit" meant that Eve had sex with Satan, what does it mean when Adam "ate the fruit?" Did he have sex with Satan too?

 

[Lighthouse]

Thank you, Philo.

Yes, FrankiE, that was my question.

 

[Infamous Plug]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Eve never had Satan's child.

And you were doing so well, with the gun control and things...:doh:

Ah well i can't win them all.

I do think it's relevent but that doesn't make it completly true .

I think somthings could be open for discussion with this ,but just don't condemn me just because I stated a point

 

[Lighthouse]

If you stated it as an idea, I would be less condemning, but you put it forth as if it were fact...or that you at least believed it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

That didn't answer lighthouse's question.

If "eating the fruit" meant that Eve had sex with Satan, what does it mean when Adam "ate the fruit?" Did he have sex with Satan too?

FrankiE:
Genesis 3:12. "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

What do you think? There is an implication that he did, but no statement that Adam partook of the "tree" directly.

 

[Frank Ernest]

First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

FrankiE: I ask again, why did Eve say, "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Are you suggesting Lord = Adam? In the manuscript, "Lord" always refers to God, Adam (in this case Hebrew "ha Adam") always refers to "the" Adam specifically.

Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.

FrankiE:
God's punishment came after the sin, not before it. She could not have mistaken Satan for God after He punished them? Why not? Does having a knowledge of good and evil mean that one does distinguish between them without fail? Satan's ability to deceive ended? It may be obvious to you that Satan was not the Lord because scripture is specific. Can you answer for Adam and Eve? They lived it, we are reading about it.

Do we not have difficulty still in discerning what is of the Lord and what is of Satan? Do we not have people who still mistake Satan for God?

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?"

FrankiE:
That isn't what she said. What she "could have meant" is speculation, therefore, not the simplest answer.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

First:
The verse clearly says that Adam and Eve had sex and then Eve had Cain. I don't know why you were asking about Abel so much if your point was on Cain. This verse pretty clearly establishes Adam's fathership of Cain.

FrankiE: I ask again, why did Eve say, "I have acquired a man from the Lord." Are you suggesting Lord = Adam? In the manuscript, "Lord" always refers to God, Adam (in this case Hebrew "ha Adam") always refers to Adam specifically.

Yeah, Lord = God (YHWH). Big surprise.

Do you have kids? Did you get them with the help of the Lord?

Did you wake up this morning? Did you do it with the help of the Lord?

How many things that we do can we also credit God with?

They wronged God. They sinned. God came and punished them. God said that it would HURT when she had kids. God kicked them out of the garden.

But God also clothed them in animal skins. God punished, but he also helped and maintained.

What was Eve thinking about God? She must have been scared out of her mind. Especially since the thing He said about childbearing was true-- it really hurt!

But she also would have had respect for God as a Father, caretaker, and provider. He had the power and right to take away her life at any time, but also the love and willingness to sustain it.

With all of that... why would she not thank God for her child? Why would she not be grateful to her Father and Creator as wholly and surely as she is greatful to her husband? Why does it seem like a problem to you that she says she aquired a man from the Lord? Come on! It's a just plain logical thing to say.

Second:
Who do you think she means when she says she acquired a man from the Lord? I mean, it's not like she could have mistaken Satan for God after God punished them all. God came walking in the garden, asked where they were, asked what they had done, and then punished them and cursed Satan. It would be obvious at that point that he was NOT the Lord.

FrankiE:
Eve was no longer deceived after the Garden? Satan's ability to deceive ended? It may be obvious to you that Satan was not the Lord because scripture is specific. Can you answer for Adam and Eve? They lived it, we are reading about it.

Do we not have difficulty still in discerning what is of the Lord and what is of Satan? Do we not have people who still mistake Satan for God?

Okay, if you really want to make Eve into the world's first dunce, you can go right ahead.

But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"So what could she have meant? How about the simplest answer? How about she meant that she was thankful to God for her child? And that her labor is over?"

FrankiE:
That isn't what she said. What she "could have meant" is speculation, therefore, not the simplest answer.

Your "theory" is speculation too.

In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain.

There ya go-- simplest answer.

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say that God punished (condemned actually) Satan "right in front of her?"

philosophizer:
"In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain."

FrankiE:
Where does it say that Eve had sex with God? I'd say that requires a bunch of speculation.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"But think about it. If Eve had sex with Satan (or whatever she had to do with him to produce his offspring), and then God came and punished them both for doing it, how could she honestly still believe that the child she conceived was from God? How could she believe that if the child's father was punished by God right in front of her? "

FrankiE:
Where does it say that God punished (condemned actually) Satan "right in front of her?"

Now who's speculating?

It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them.

philosophizer:
"In fact, if you want the simplest answer which requires no speculation, then the baby isn't Satan's child. It's God's. God must have impregnated Eve and fathered Cain."

FrankiE:
Where does it say that Eve had sex with God? I'd say that requires a bunch of speculation.

Well it requires a lot less speculation than your offering.

"I have acquired a man from the LORD."

Must be God's kid. Right?

 

[Lighthouse]

Frank-
What's wrong with you?

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"Now who's speculating?"

FrankiE:
You.

philosophizer:
"It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them."

FrankiE:
Where does it say He didn't? Hebrew manuscripts don't use paragraph breaks. Those were done by translators.

 

[Frank Ernest]

:Brandon: :
Frank-
What's wrong with you?

FrankiE:
Osteoarthritis, essential myeloproliferative thrombocythemia, and high blood pressure. All are being taken care of by some medical folks, who have some really neato machinery and pharmaceuticals.

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
"I have acquired a man from the LORD."
Must be God's kid. Right? "

FrankiE:
Hint: The word is "acquired" not "conceived."

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
"Now who's speculating?"

FrankiE:
You.

philosophizer:
"It says each of the things that God says to Satan, Eve, and Adam. And it says them in succession. There are no break paragraphs to say that God took each of them behind the woodshed before punishing them."

FrankiE:
Where does it say He didn't? Hebrew manuscripts don't use paragraph breaks. Those were done by translators.

Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

 

[Frank Ernest]

philosophizer:
Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

FrankiE:
I didn't speculate on anything. The scripture does not say whether God spoke to them individually or in a group. I stated no opinion on which way it might have been. You did.

philosophizer:
If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

FrankiE:
I can tell you what I have learned from studying scripture. I have made no claims about "right" or "wrong" and I won't. When I started studying scripture, I wanted to know what scripture says, not what I want it to say, not what I think it means, not what I "believe" it to mean. There are more than enough preachers and so-called scholars out there who do that to satisfy anybody's guessing game.

I started on this pursuit because I had a suspicion that there is more to scripture than what I had been taught and led to believe. What I do not accept is that God's Word is meant to be mystifying, obscure, unclear, obtuse, subject to individual beliefs and creative interpretations, etc. I will not accept, "well, that might mean ..." or "this could be ..." as answers to anything. Especially I will not accept a somewhat common statement that "we were not meant to understand ..."

What I believe is that God revealed Himself to us and left His revealed Word in fullness and truth and it is meant to be understood in His fullness and truth. I am sure that, someday, the LORD will correct me if I went wrong somewhere.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

philosophizer:
Frank, if what you just said isn't speculation, then what is it? You're absolutely right. It doesn't say that He didn't. But it doesn't say that He did either. If we imagine that God said all these things to them separately, we are reading into the text things which are not there. THAT IS SPECULATION.

FrankiE:
I didn't speculate on anything. The scripture does not say whether God spoke to them individually or in a group. I stated no opinion on which way it might have been. You did.

Scripture does not say that Cain is the child of Satan and Eve. Anyone who makes that claim is speculating.

philosophizer:
If you want to claim that you are right and I am wrong, that's fine. But you CANNOT claim that you are not speculating. That is just false.

FrankiE:
I can tell you what I have learned from studying scripture. I have made no claims about "right" or "wrong" and I won't. When I started studying scripture, I wanted to know what scripture says, not what I want it to say, not what I think it means, not what I "believe" it to mean. There are more than enough preachers and so-called scholars out there who do that to satisfy anybody's guessing game.

I started on this pursuit because I had a suspicion that there is more to scripture than what I had been taught and led to believe. What I do not accept is that God's Word is meant to be mystifying, obscure, unclear, obtuse, subject to individual beliefs and creative interpretations, etc. I will not accept, "well, that might mean ..." or "this could be ..." as answers to anything. Especially I will not accept a somewhat common statement that "we were not meant to understand ..."

What I believe is that God revealed Himself to us and left His revealed Word in fullness and truth and it is meant to be understood in His fullness and truth. I am sure that, someday, the LORD will correct me if I went wrong somewhere.

That's great! :thumb: You have a really good attitude about Bible study. I've never really discussed biblical issues in a thread with you before. I mostly see you in the political threads bashing the silly commies. I guess your study and my study on this issue has led to differing ideas.