+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 96
Latest: sneakydove
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7888
Total Topics: 513
Most Online Today: 357
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 205
Total: 205

Author Topic: 2. Genesis Study Continued...  (Read 1972 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ted T.

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Global Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Referrals: 0
2. Genesis Study Continued...
« on: May 22, 2019, 01:16:38 am »
     2. Genesis Study Continued...
Genesis 2:25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 3:7  And the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked. Genesis 3:10  and I was afraid, because I was naked: and I hid myself.
Most people believe that Adam and Eve were created good and naked. Most people also believe that when they ate the forbidden fruit, their good nakedness changed and became a bad nakedness.[25] I am going to try to show that this change in their nakedness is only a presupposition, first, necessitated by a “created on Earth” theology, and second, still in existence on account of an incomplete exegesis of the early chapters of Genesis.[26] Furthermore, I will try to show that this exegesis is even contrary to the message of the Scriptures when they are properly interpreted.[27]

In other words, I am going to try to show you that their nakedness was the same before and after they ate the fruit, and the only thing that changed when they ate the fruit was their comprehension or understanding of the meaning of being naked.[28]
 

Now, before we get started, I think it might be profitable to go over the meaning of being naked (for the sake of those who might not know what being naked means in the Bible). First of all, there are two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, to wit: there is physical nakedness and there is spiritual nakedness. Now, of course, physically naked means being physically uncovered, that is, bodily exposed to the elements or whatever else might be around. (And physically clothed means just the opposite, that is, being bodily covered, protected from or unexposed to such things.)
 

Now, being spiritually naked is a lot like being physically naked. It means being uncovered in spirit, that is, having one's spirit exposed to, or not protected from, the spiritual elements or whatever else of a spiritual nature that might be around. Thus, one thing being spiritually naked signifies is having to satisfy (being exposed to, not protected from) GOD's attributes, in particular, Their justice and holiness.[29] (And being spiritually clothed means just the opposite, that is, being covered, protected from, or unexposed to GOD's attributes, that is, of satisfying the requirements of GOD's justice and holiness, and thus, being at peace with HIM.[30]) Now, as we can see, if one had never done anything wrong, being spiritually naked would not be a problem[31] but, once one had turned away from GOD's purpose (sinned) one would be in big trouble.



Therefore, we can tell that after Adam and Eve turned away from GOD's purpose for them, they were in big trouble. We can also tell that, awhile after they ate the fruit, they could tell too, because they went for the fig leaves, and tried to put them between themselves and GOD's attributes.[32] Well now, having peaked at the two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, we should be able to see that, by this definition, Adam and Eve were spiritually naked after they ate the fruit.[33]) Therefore, the issue before us is whether their spiritual nakedness changed in character due to their eating.



In other words, the real crux of the issue is in regard to the character of their original earthly spiritual nakedness, ie, was it good (as we usually believe) or was it bad (as I am going to try to prove) ie, did it really change when they ate the fruit? (Now, before we get into the next part, I must point out that I am not saying that nothing changed. I admit that they were not ashamed before they ate the fruit and that they were ashamed after. That changed, but that is their shame, not their nakedness, and the differentiation must be made, because they are two different things.)



Okay, now it's time for you to haul out your proof that their nakedness changed. In other words, what proof do you have that says that their pre-fruit fall spiritual nakedness was good? First of all, let me say that I bet that whatever you have isn't in the line of a direct quote from a Scripture. Know why? Well, it's because there isn't any. Take another look. The best you can have is either 2:25 or 3:10, and 2:25 says that they were naked, and 3:10 says that they hid themselves because they were naked. There is nothing that says that the moral quality of their nakedness changed.[34] So then, since there isn't any direct or plain scriptural proof, couldn't one say that this fact might intimate that their nakedness did not change? Well, one could, if it wasn't for the fact that such an intimation is not nearly as strong as the created on Earth theology's need for an original earthly purity (that is, in this case, good nakedness). Therefore it gets buried in the ground of theological necessity and never dug out. But, even if you do not dig this intimation, the Scriptures certainly do not say (in a direct or plain way) that their nakedness changed. Well, having shown that there is no direct or plain scriptural witness to the idea that Adam and Eve's nakedness changed, let's take a look at the theological arguments that say it did.
 
 
Such arguments fall into two categories (both of which we looked at under Genesis 2:18, Adam's aloneness, but a little review won't hurt). First was the “everything was originally good” category. In those arguments, we came to the conclusion that the “good everything” didn't necessarily include Adam (hence, his situation[35] and nakedness) any more than it included the very nasty evil angels,[36] and that the “good” could include good chastisement and the work of subduing the nasty old Earth. In other words, we discovered that everything wasn't necessarily quite as good as we have traditionally believed.
 
 
The second category dealt with the change in Adam and Eve's shame. It is always put forth that this change was due to the changing of the moral quality or acceptability of their nakedness, which changed because they disobeyed GOD (sinned, joined the evil side) when they ate the fruit.
 
 
But just because they became ashamed after they ate the fruit doesn't necessarily mean that they became ashamed because the moral quality (acceptability) of their nakedness changed. Like, perhaps they were blind to their bad nakedness before they ate the fruit, and what happened when they ate the fruit was that their blindness got cured.[37] Hence they became ashamed, not because their nakedness changed, but because they could see for the first time, exactly how bad it really was all along. So, now we have a new way of understanding the change in their shame.
 
 
Well now, having dispensed with anything that the traditional view can throw at us as proof for their interpretation, let's see how well they (you) can do with what we have? In other words, let's take a look at some elephant tracks that prove that their nakedness never changed, ie, that show that it was just as bad before they ate the fruit as it was after. In other words, I would like to show you that, in addition to this lack of testimony to any change in their nakedness, the Scriptures do indeed testify to the effect that their nakedness never changed at all.
 
 
First of all, I think that almost everyone (after reading the Genesis account) is willing to admit that their awareness of their bad nakedness did not arrive immediately upon the breaking of the prohibition. For example, Eve took the fruit and ate. Then, she gave to her husband.[38] So then, she had to be blind (at the particular moment between the grabbing of the fruit and her sharing it with Adam) about her bad nakedness.[39] (You either have to believe this or believe that she was knowledgeably seducing him to join her in sin, which contradicts 3:13b, I think. (Genesis 3:13  And the LORD GOD said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.) So then, I think the Scripture bears witness that their lack of shame (at least, just before it changed) was due to their spiritual blindness and that they became ashamed because their blindness got cured, which witness happens to match the pre-existence point of view exactly.[40] Isn’t coincidence great!
 
Secondly, when GOD 'found out' that they knew that they were bad naked, one would expect that one of HIS first comments would have been a statement somewhat like this: So, you decided to eat some of the forbidden fruit eh! But we didn't get anything like that. Rather, we got two questions, as per Genesis 3:11 And HE said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?[41] Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
 
Now, the order of these questions is very interesting because it would seem that the first thing GOD thought is that they could have found out about being bad naked without even having touched the fruit (ie, just by being told the truth about their nakedness) and that only after HE had drawn a blank on this question did HE move on to the next most possible way for them to have found out about being bad naked (to wit: did they eat of the fruit).[42] So then, if this is what GOD thought first, there is only one way HE could have thought it, and that is if they were already bad naked before they ate the fruit. So, I think that this sort of tips the scriptural scale even more in favour of the view that their nakedness did not change (but that the only thing that did change was their appreciation of their already bad naked condition). Otherwise, GOD's first question seems pretty silly![43]
 
Third, it is generally agreed that if they were ever good naked, they lost (changed) this goodness upon their first sin (transgression or failure to comply with HIS purpose for them). Therefore, even if Adam was "originally" good naked, he had to lose this goodness when he became rebellious to GOD's marriage plans. Now, the Scripture says that they were both naked. Therefore, it should be admitted that Eve's nakedness was the same as his, that is, since his was bad when she was "created", hers must have been bad too.[44] Therefore, it should be admitted that the Scripture testifies that her nakedness was never acceptable to GOD (ie, good).
 
Well now, this being the case, I can say that she was not made holy, righteous or even innocent, and this being the case of the case, we are left with only three alternatives. One, GOD created her in sin (bad naked) on account of Adam's rebellion on the sixth day. Two, GOD created her in sin because HE became finitely perfect.[45] Three, Eve was originally created in a state of innocence, then made her uncoerced (free willed) choice, then had fallen subsequent to that choice,[46] and then was put in the garden of Eden in sin, that is, was given life in this morally deficient condition [to wit: spiritually alone (separated from GOD, fallen, unmarried); spiritually naked (needing justified and holified); spiritually blind (deluded about - not differentiating between - the good and the evil, not believing what GOD had said about it); and not ashamed (needing convicted of her sinfulness)] because that was her exact condition prior to her being given life.
 
Well now, no doubt some of you will flee to the newly revealed theology of Adamic sin on the sixth day.[47] Much to your dismay, you'll find out that it's no better than the old version (when you get about half-way through this book, if your love of the truth can get you that far). This only leaves the third possibility open for those who prefer a theology that does not necessitate a certain degree of self-induced blindness.[48] Well then, if GOD "created" her in sin, I really do not think that I'm at all wrong to presuppose that that was the same condition Adam was in when he was given life. In other words, I believe that their nakedness was always bad,[49] that it never changed, and that because of the dearth of witness to any change in their moral condition, the onus of proof now lies completely with those who would postulate that it had changed in Eden.
 
In other words, I think that the only reasonable course left open to us (in light of these new interpretations) is to believe that it never changed in Eden, and to keep on believing that until we get some very good proof that it did change in Eden (along with a good refutation of the preceding arguments and the rest of this book).
 
Now, I know that all of this is quite the opposite to what you usually think but I think you will have to admit that it is closer to what these Scriptures say, that is, what they say before they get reinterpreted to come into conformity with the prevailing assumptions among Christians regarding the origin of our spirits.
 
Therefore, to conclude this argument, I say that, so far as the garden of Eden is concerned, pre-existence is the more scriptural theology because it exactly corresponds to the state of affairs that really happened there. In other words, both this theology and the Scriptures witness that Adam and Eve were morally fallen before they ate the fruit, and that Eve was given life in a spiritually fallen condition. In other words, both state that we are given life for the purpose of being convicted of our spiritual aloneness, nakedness, blindness, and lack of shame, that is, for the purpose of being convicted and of having our spiritual eyes opened so that we can again discern between the good and the evil, and so that we can see our need: first, of being covered by the white garments (or, as it was in Eden, the skin coat) of the Lamb;[50] and second, our need of entering into a marriage (unified relationship with Him[51] in the area of judgement and justice, so that He can judge His eternal enemies, so that we can get back into HIS garden,[52] that is, HIS school for the exiled from Paradise, so that we may learn to be faultless in HIS sight[53] and thus able to re-enter Paradise.
 

---------------------------------------------------------
Notes for 2. Genesis Study Continued...
 
25.  Or, that being naked was no longer okay.
 
26.  Which is still in existence because GOD did not want this truth revealed before this time.
 
27.  Of course, this is matter of opinion or interpretation!Back:
 
28.  Their nakedness and the acceptability of their nakedness to GOD are the same thing. You can't say that their nakedness didn't change, but that its acceptability did, any more than you can say that they didn't change but their acceptability did.
 
29.  Revelation 3:16-18  I will spue thee out of My mouth ..because thou ..knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed… Another thing it signifies is not being protected by GOD from satan's attributes.
 
30. Revelation 3:4,5  Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments: and they shall walk with Me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment… It also entails being protected from satan.

31. This statement grudgingly acquiesces to the created on Earth theology's presupposition that our original goodness could be symbolised by being spiritually naked, that is, that there can be a good kind of spiritual nakedness. Once again, this is a presupposition that has no spiritual foundation. It just springs from the theory of an earthly original (good) creation.
 
But what if the presupposition is in error, that is, what if GOD created us clothed with something? (The underwear of innocence perhaps?) Then being naked would mean the removal, loss or defilement (Revelation 3:4, see note 30) of such “undies”, and then there would not be a kind of nakedness that was all right with GOD. All nakedness would be evil. I believe that this presupposition is closer to the way “naked” is used throughout the Bible. In other words, when we finally get it all right with GOD, we will not have been restored to being “good naked”. (“Good” naked cannot mean innocence, because they weren't innocent. Therefore, it has to connote either righteousness or unrighteousness, and since we're always restored to being clad correctly, “good naked” has to mean unrighteousness. Think on it. You'll see my meaning.)
 
32.  Unfortunately, they failed to satisfy the demands of GOD's justice and holiness (probably because they had done a lot worse to GOD than the fig leaves were doing to them). Besides that, GOD had not created them to ever wear fig leaves. HE wants them to dress the way HE does.
 
33.  Most people tend to think of Adam and Eve's nakedness in only physical terms. In other words, hardly anyone realizes that their nakedness was spiritual and that both Adam and Eve thought of it in this way. (That they were concerned about their spiritual nakedness is shown by the fact that they were still afraid even after they were physically covered by the fig leaves.) And regarding their physical nakedness, it is more likely that they were never physically naked at all (that is, any more than we are). I say this because 3:7 says that they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. Do you really believe that they instantly invented sewing and were able to so quickly manufacture sewing essentials as well? Should we not accept that they were already familiar with sewing, hence clothing of some sort? I think we have to because, even if they were “created” naked, they surely would have got the idea of clothes from seeing GOD walk in the garden (or do you think They were walking around naked too)?
 
You are probably wondering why they would put on fig leaves if their nakedness were spiritual (rather than physical). How would fig leaves cover spiritual nakedness? Well, they don't, but Adam and Eve thought that they might. How so? Well, it is hard to say for sure, but it might be like this. Fig leaves have one side that is a bit coarse. Of coarse, if someone wore this side next to the skin, they would cause a considerable amount of discomfort pretty soon. Thus we can postulate that they were trying to substitute some suffering for their impending appointment with death, ie, they were trying to satisfy GOD's justice with the only thing they had that was their own, ie, with their sufferings. [On the other hand, just the opposite could be the case. They might have put the fig leaves on, with the coarse side out. If this was the case, then the fig leaves would probably be meant to signify their new holiness, ie, an enmity toward the serpent (since they now had their eyes open and could distinguish between the good and the evil just like GOD, hence they now knew that the serpent was on the evil side). Thus, the fig leaves would be a kind of armour, just like it says in 3:7  (they) made themselves aprons.(“Aprons” can also be translated as armour, as per 2 Kings 3:21 - And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border. See Strong's(#13) 2290.] Of course, their efforts were too coarse to be acceptable, being that they had joined the evil side too. Neither fig leaves nor any other will satisfy the demands of GOD's justice and holiness, but when you find yourself naked, who leaves any leaves unturned? (That is, any except the ones called repentance and faith unto holiness! That would really be turning over a new leaf!!)

34.  Now, I'm sure that you'll say that there is, which is sort of true, but the something is not just a plain, straight forward verse of Scripture. It is a theological argument based on the meaning of the comments that they were not ashamed and that everything was good, which is what we are going to look at next. But before we do that, I just wanted to bring out the difference between those arguments and a straightforward scriptural witness, and show that such a straightforward witness is not there. (It also gives your head a little breather to have a nice easy page!)
 
35.  For example, once again, I do not think that GOD was responsible for making Adam alone for as long as he was, and neither can you, unless you want to put yourself in the position of believing that GOD did something that was “not good”. To my mind, such an interpretation is a pretty blatant contradiction to the revealed attributes of GOD.
 
36.  And let's not forget about the “good” old serpent! He was there when everything was pronounced “very good”, wasn't he? (Wonder what he was very good for?) And why does GOD use so many degrees of goodness, to wit: not good, 2:18; no comment, 1:4b; good, 1:4a; very good, 1:31; and hallowed, 2:3; if everything was very good? Could it be that some things were not so very good after all? (Then again, maybe their submission to GOD's purpose, that is, their “marriage”, made “everything good”, but that's still well short of hallowed isn't it?) I do hope that you can see that “everything” is not all inclusive, and that “good” means good like a good prison work detail, or a good open heart surgery, or a good spanking.
 
37.  Besides two kinds of nakedness in the Bible, there are two kinds of blindness, to wit: physical blindness and spiritual blindness. Now spiritual blindness means that one needs one's eyes (mind) opened to understand spiritual things, which includes one's ability to discern between good and evil persons. (In other words, we can't be spiritually blind unless we're unwilling to believe what GOD has to say about things.) Now, the fact that Adam and Eve could see with their physical eyes means that the eyes which needed opened were their spiritual eyes (Genesis 3:5,7  For God doth know that in the day he eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil...And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked.) So then, Scripture testifies that, in addition to being not good alone, they were spiritually blind. Now, do you really think that that was a “very good” way for them to be? If you do, would you please tell me why Jesus included spiritual blindness in His list of super no no's in Revelation 3:17,18 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.? How could it be “very good” for Adam and Eve to be blind (ie, still willing to accept the nice old serpent as a minister of GOD) but totally unacceptable for the rest of us? Spiritually alone, and now spiritually blind. The situation is going from bad to worse! Thank GOD!!!!
 
38. Genesis 3:6  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
 
39.  Even though their conviction did not arrive immediately, their defilement would have to (presupposing that it arrived then).
 
40.  This may not prove too much but you certainly have to admit that it puts at least one foot inside the door.
 
41.  Ie, who opened your spiritual eyes and convinced you that the serpent is evil and that you're just as defiled as he is?
 
42.  As if HE didn't know eh!! But what's HE saying stuff like this for if HE knew all along? Must be trying to say something?
 
43.  Like, haven't you ever wondered about that question?
 
44.  That is, if you think that it was different, you are the very first, and I really don't like your chances. This also gives us another reason why HE made her out of him, to wit: to supply this proof of her always bad nakedness. (The first reason was to show Adam's rebelliousness to HIS marriage plans.)
 
45.  Ie, made a bad mistake, which is a very mistaken view, because GOD only makes "good mistakes".
 
46.  By not believing GOD about the evil ones and thus became blind.
 
47.  That he sinned, that is, that the fall happened on the sixth day, that is, that she was made in Adam (in sin) because of Adam's sin rather than her own. “Now I know why it is called Adamic sin and not Evic sin. He really did sin first!”
 
48.  There might be another wee witness to the effect that their nakedness did not change. In 2:25 (Genesis 2:25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.) the Hebrew word translated “naked” is exactly the same as the word translated “subtil” in the very next verse, Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty, subtil than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. (I bet that the reason we can tell that it should be naked for Adam and Eve, and subtle for the serpent has something to do with the good old Earth being flat!) I bet you never thought that they are the same word. (They differ only in plurality: 2:25 is plural; 3:1 is singular. Moses did not put the vowels in.) Of course, not being a student of the Hebrew language (or any other besides love) I get a little lost when the subject reaches such depths, and I really can not argue to much effect when I am lost. (I can hardly do it when I'm found!) It should be noted that all the "naked's" in the rest of the chapter three are a different word.   

Now, why do you think Moses used different words? Like, why did he use the subtle naked in 2:25, when he could have used the one he used all the other times? Maybe for the same reason he was so subtle about the Lamb's deity, ie, maybe because he didn't want anyone to find out about these things too early?
 
49.  Which also means that Adam had been “not good” alone since he was given life. In other words, his “aloneness” had not changed either.
 
50.  That is, our need of being holy. For the skin coat, see Genesis 3:21.
 
51.  That is, our need of being holy, so that we can go live in HIS kingdom.
 
52.  GOD will not let you “back into Eden” unless you first believe in HIM enough to be morally HIS alone forever, that is, enough to judge HIS enemies for sure, that is, enough to never eat of the forbidden fruit again, no matter what the serpent has to say about it.
 
53.  That is, always willing to obey HIM more than anyone or anything else, that is, be married to HIM in all our personal relationships.
 
 
Wheat are NOT reborn / regenerate tares !!!

Matt 13:36-43  ...Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

38 the field is the world
good seed are of the kingdom sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil


Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3066 Views
Last post November 25, 2018, 07:46:19 am
by patrick jane
342 Replies
3498 Views
Last post Today at 07:38:35 am
by Olde Tymer
76 Replies
1593 Views
Last post July 11, 2019, 05:52:53 am
by patrick jane
5 Replies
2015 Views
Last post May 22, 2019, 03:24:14 pm
by patrick jane
2 Replies
1504 Views
Last post May 23, 2019, 10:58:18 pm
by patrick jane

+-Recent Topics

Deep State Exposed - Project Veritas and More by patrick jane
Today at 05:11:57 pm

A Journey Thru Genesis by Olde Tymer
Today at 07:38:35 am

Christianity Today Magazine - October 2019 by patrick jane
Today at 04:42:12 am

PJ'S FLAT EARTH LIVE STREAMS ON YOUTUBE !!! by patrick jane
Today at 04:05:37 am

The Iran War 2019 by patrick jane
Today at 03:06:02 am

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
October 15, 2019, 11:34:02 pm

Politics Today by patrick jane
October 15, 2019, 11:33:50 pm

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
October 15, 2019, 11:33:29 pm

Re: Politics Today by patrick jane
October 15, 2019, 11:33:16 pm

R U Ready To Leave?! by MichaelC
October 15, 2019, 09:10:10 pm

ROMANS 3:21 BUT NOW, THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD by doug
October 15, 2019, 11:48:49 am

Does your doctrine/theology limit God? by Lori Bolinger
October 15, 2019, 10:23:16 am

WILL THE BODY OF CHRIST COME BACK WITH CHRIST AT HIS COMING? by doug
October 15, 2019, 08:35:28 am

Christ's Ways by Olde Tymer
October 15, 2019, 07:54:38 am

Your Favorite Music, Images and Memes by Bladerunner
October 14, 2019, 10:07:31 pm

Should Christians Celebrate Halloween? | Is Halloween a Pagan Holiday? by Bladerunner
October 14, 2019, 08:06:40 pm

Late Term Abortion Law by Bladerunner
October 11, 2019, 08:42:28 pm

ROMANS 2:1 WILL THE GOOD BE SAVED? by doug
October 11, 2019, 09:14:04 am