Official Bible Interpretation Thread

You are easily ignored but I am not going to, your input is too valuable.

 

Yes, he has fallen asleep is the metaphor for death but it is not a "metaphor for the dream of separation", a concept not found in the Bible.

As for the concepts being difficult for me, they are not, they are readily transparent. They are just not Scriptural, so I don't accept them.

 

How "loving" of you.

 

Is it not written that a deep sleep fell over Adam and does it say anywhere that he woke up?

So we are back to if it is not in the bible it is not true? The teaching is there, you just don't recognize it.
Am I against Christ waterbrother?

 

Thank you.

 

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask of you, WaterBrother, for some time. Do you believe that there are any scriptires that are not in the bible?

 

Do you really want to get into this?

Are you doing the will of God? Do you even know what the will of God is?

 

If you mean scriptures inspired by God, then no.

 

I believe that to understand the Bible one must take into consideration the whole Bible.

If as you say there were many men and women and Adam was just one of them, then much of the rest of the Bible becomes very hard to understand and it raises many questions. Such as what happened to these other people? Where did they go? Why didn’t God save some of these people from the flood? Why didn’t God just take his prophets and servants from these people who were untainted by Adam’s sin? Why is Jesus a son of Adam and not a son of these other people? Why did sin and death spread to all man? Is it a contagious disease? Since death only came because of disobedience, why don’t we see these ancients still alive today? Etc?

So what Genesis is talking about is the same thing told over again with increasing details.
First, Genesis 1:1 tells of the creation of the universe.
Second, Genesis 1:2-2:4 turns it’s attention to the earth and tells of the preparation of the already created earth for mankind’s habitation and then the creation of mankind.
Next, Genesis turns its attention to the details of the creation of man and how sin and death entered into mankind.

As for incest, it is a fairly recent concept. If you look to the animal world, it happens all the time and most are not appalled by it. As for the Bible, incest was not prohibited until some 2000 years after Adam and Eve; one might wonder why it took so long for God to prohibit it. Perhaps it was only that at that time that genetic flaws became a real danger and thus God at that time prohibited it.

 

Dodge ball is a school yard game. Put away your toys waterbrother and put some respectful care into your discourse.
The will of god is that I have life and have it more abundantly.

 

I thought Jesus was the son of god.

 

So nothing inspired by God has been written for the past two millennia? Why did He stop, do you think?

 

OWB, I really wish I knew how to take postings apart and answer them like you do, but all I'm able to do is quote, think and type. Anyway, I am aware that there are many (perhaps the majority) that feel that Genesis is pretty much a repetition of itself, giving more/different information as it continues.
I believe that Genesis through Malachi is a history of the Jews. I think that although God created others (besides Adam), they were not of His chosen race, the Jews. Hence, the reason that Jesus would have come from Adam's line.
The prophets and servants of God Jehovah recorded in the OT would have been of this history of the Jews (again jmo). Gentiles (all races, too) came into "the fold" with the entry of Jesus, who was scheduled from the beginning, no? In the OT, it seems that those other races/Gentiles that are discussed are really just background for the ongoing history of the Jews.
There is scripture, I am certain, where Jesus sort of chastizes his disciples about wanting to leave out Gentiles/another people in following Him.

About the incest thing...I still haven't gotten an answer about that land of Nod. I think there were people there already, and were just thrilled to have new blood on the scene, so to say, and that is why Cain so quickly "knew his wife" there in Nod. I just don't see the evidence you do that incest was necessary to populate the world. And in the animal kingdom, incest is avoided by breeders and generations of inbred animals produce genetically defective animals, with the lines dying out. I've seen this. People who fight dogs say they breed siblings, mother & son, etc. to produce violent, agressive animals. So I sort of find it appalling.

I think people die because their bodies give out. Murder is even in the Bible at the beginning, no? There is nothing in the bible that I have ever found that indicates that death is contagious, a disease or whatever. It happens.

But thank you for your reply

 

I just gotta say a big thank you to def zepplin.

 

Ukr, I gotta say - for you that wasn't so bad. Blunt is fine. But we do need to remember one person's interpretation may not be another's.
But I do appreciate your quick response to this.

 

And you play it so well.

Toys? And when have I not respectful?

Nice try but bad answer.

 

Is this the answer to my question to you, do you really believe that Jesus is the Son of God or are you just trying "catch" me in a contradiction?

 

God was writing a book for mankind's instruction and when the book was finished he stopped writing. The instructions do not need to be updated because mankind is still the same creature with the same foibles that God created in the first place, there is nothing new under the sun. Although Man's technology has changed over the years, man himself has not changed. The things that God said would benefit mankind 2000 years ago, will still benefit mankind today.

God's will and how he wants to be worshiped have not changed over the last 2000 years either.

The Bible also contains instructions on how to survive the last days and that information would need time to be spread to all mankind and would not need to be updated either.

 

Certainly I think Jesus is the son of god, I was asking you because it seems you want to point out a biological lineage for Jesus. I'm wondering why you would do this when Jesus is quoted as saying call no man you father and his mother and brothers and sisters were those that did the will of god. Why the double or contradictory teaching.
Should we set aside the reality that Jesus outlines for the sake of tradition, so that the book turns out right?
Mark 12:35-37, and Jesus taught in the temple, he said,"How can the scribes say that Christ is the son of David? David himself inspired by the holy spirit declared: the lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand till I put my enemies under my feet. David himself calls him lord so how is he his son? and the great throng heard him gladly."

 

I asked you two questions and you answered neither one. I asked you a third question, isn't Jesus god's son, instead of answering and explaining what you mean, you ask if I'm trying to "catch" you in a contradiction, you question my motives. You are being hostile toward me and I ask you to show a little respect for the proceedings.

So God's will is not that we should have life and have it abundantly? What is the "good" answer?