Love

[Guest end3]

1. Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. He says Adam will return to the ground, not to a lasting presence. I didn't see where it mentioned how quickly they would die.

 

2. Gen 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.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: See answer to question one. The serpent beguiled.

 

3. I don't have a good answer for question 3 other than they did not do as God suggests, and they will not be in His Presence because of that. They already had proven that they did not obey, so I would assume that He thought that they would eat from the tree of life as well. I also think, that if they would have admitted to the offense other than hiding, that He might have considered a different outcome.

[Ouroboros]

Ruby,

I looked at Gen 3 and Heb 9:27. What questions do you have for me.

Ruby's question was is it according to God's will to maintain life for a human using medical technology, someone who would normally have died?

 

Like this:

 

According to the Bible, life and death is in God's hands.

 

Heb 9:27

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

 

Now, if we, as humans, resist and work our hardest to stop death. Are we doing this according to God's will or against? My opinion, and Ruby's too, is that the Bible does make a clear case the life and death is in God's hands and hence maintaining life, like they did with Shiavo for 10 years, is against God's will. Do you agree, or are you in disobedience?

 

The interpretation of the Bible is that Christians should NOT try to keep someone alive, but let them die. Any effort to maintain life after a deadly injury or sickness is against the will of God.

[Antlerman]

Ruby,

I looked at Gen 3 and Heb 9:27. What questions do you have for me.

Ruby's question was is it according to God's will to maintain life for a human using medical technology, someone who would normally have died?

 

Like this:

 

According to the Bible, life and death is in God's hands.

 

Heb 9:27

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

 

Now, if we, as humans, resist and work our hardest to stop death. Are we doing this according to God's will or against? My opinion, and Ruby's too, is that the Bible does make a clear case the life and death is in God's hands and hence maintaining life, like they did with Shiavo for 10 years, is against God's will. Do you agree, or are you in disobedience?

 

The interpretation of the Bible is that Christians should NOT try to keep someone alive, but let them die. Any effort to maintain life after a deadly injury or sickness is against the will of God.

If Terry Shiavo had been a headless body, would you they have felt like keeping that alive for 10 years? No? Why not? Does the soul live in the skull?

[Ouroboros]

1. Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. He says Adam will return to the ground, not to a lasting presence. I didn't see where it mentioned how quickly they would die.

 

Gen 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The word "die" is: Muwth

 

Definition:

to die, kill, have one executed

(Qal)

to die

to die (as penalty), be put to death

to die, perish (of a nation)

to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)

(Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch

(Hiphil) to kill, put to death

(Hophal)

to be killed, be put to death 1d

to die prematurely

 

Notice "prematurely".

 

But also notice it says "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". In the day means the same day as you eat. In the day you eat = The same day you eat, or The day you eat. So it was supposed to be immediate execution. No question about it.

 

End3, read your Bible.

 

2. Gen 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.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: See answer to question one. The serpent beguiled.

Correct. Beguiled[/b] does not mean literally "lie", but charm or influence to do something.

 

But most Christians say "as the Devil lied in the Garden". Which is false. So when Christians say that, they're the ones lying about the Word of God.

 

The Serpent didn't lie. He tricked them, by telling them the truth.

 

3. I don't have a good answer for question 3 other than they did not do as God suggests, and they will not be in His Presence because of that. They already had proven that they did not obey, so I would assume that He thought that they would eat from the tree of life as well. I also think, that if they would have admitted to the offense other than hiding, that He might have considered a different outcome.

Was hiding an offense? He never said it was.

 

How could Adam and Eve know the difference between what was right and wrong, good and evil, before they ate the fruit? Consider that the fruit would make them able to know the difference, they would not be able to understand what they did was bad or wrong. They didn't liberally disobey in evilness, but because of ignorance and confusion. They didn't know it was wrong or bad. It's like dogs. You tell them it's wrong to pee on the carpet, but it's not until you have punished them plenty of times they start getting what you're telling them. Think about it. Adam and Eve just came to exist. They had never seen death, or evil things, how could they know what was evil or not? They didn't have the concept of obedience either. They didn't know it was wrong to disobey. They probably didn't even understand what the word "die" meant, since nothing had died yet. God gave them an impossible task. God expected them to fail. It was God's plan for them to fail.

[Ouroboros]

If Terry Shiavo had been a headless body, would you they have felt like keeping that alive for 10 years? No? Why not? Does the soul live in the skull?

A-man, you're our Bible geek here. I think the Bible say the soul is in the kidneys, liver or pancreas, is that right?

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby,

I looked at Gen 3 and Heb 9:27. What questions do you have for me.

Ruby's question was is it according to God's will to maintain life for a human using medical technology, someone who would normally have died?

 

Like this:

 

According to the Bible, life and death is in God's hands.

 

Heb 9:27

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

 

Now, if we, as humans, resist and work our hardest to stop death. Are we doing this according to God's will or against? My opinion, and Ruby's too, is that the Bible does make a clear case the life and death is in God's hands and hence maintaining life, like they did with Shiavo for 10 years, is against God's will. Do you agree, or are you in disobedience?

 

The interpretation of the Bible is that Christians should NOT try to keep someone alive, but let them die. Any effort to maintain life after a deadly injury or sickness is against the will of God.

 

 

As I have explained before that is clearly my meaning.

 

I see that end3 is using the paper-writing brain for this stint.

[Guest end3]

First, I do not see that in Heb 9:27....I am seeing that without Christ, there would be death and judgement.

 

Secondly, I am assuming modern technology that helps save lives are invented with intentions such as preserving life, fighting disease etc...so without the legalism and with the freedom that Christ offers for loving your neighbor, how can you come to that conclusion. Do you think these instruments for perserving life are of the devil?

[Guest end3]

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

No Hans,

this is what the serpent said....and all he said was your eyes will be opened, not that you will die on that day

 

I said beguiled, did I say anything else

 

No, God told them don't and the did, regardless.

[Guest end3]

Jump in anytime Ruby

[Ouroboros]

First, I do not see that in Heb 9:27....I am seeing that without Christ, there would be death and judgement.

 

Secondly, I am assuming modern technology that helps save lives are invented with intentions such as preserving life, fighting disease etc...so without the legalism and with the freedom that Christ offers for loving your neighbor, how can you come to that conclusion. Do you think these instruments for perserving life are of the devil?

Zoooooooooom...

 

Have you heard the argument when the scientists or doctors do something new and unique that Christians say "they are playing God"? Have you ever heard that phrase? It's rather common when it comes to stem-cell research for instance.

 

Here's another way of playing God: to stop God from killing a person.

 

According to the Bible Life and Death is in God's hands. Obviously you don't agree with that, which means you don't agree with your Bible, which means you're not a Christian.

 

I don't think those instruments are from the Devil, but you think it's God's will for us to invent tools to circumvent God's will.

 

According to your belief: is it or is it not God's decision if some one's time is up and they should to die?

 

In this case, it was humans decisions for Terry to live or die. Was that acting according to God or not?

 

And when it comes to "love your neighbor". Terry asked her husband years before her sickness that if she ever got into a vegetative state that he would let her die. So by loving your neighbor, then do as they ask and not what you feel like.

 

What you want to do is to force your religion on people. That is NOT love. That is oppression.

[Guest end3]

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

day = yowm - day, time, year

[Ouroboros]

Gen 3:5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 

No Hans,

this is what the serpent said....and all he said was your eyes will be opened, not that you will die on that day

 

I said beguiled, did I say anything else

 

No, God told them don't and the did, regardless.

In Genesis 2, God say "the same day you eat the fruit you will die". They didn't. God lied.

 

Read your Bible. Read you Bible. Read you Bible. Read you Bible. Read your frigging BIBLE! Get a Bible and read what God said in Genesis 2. It says "on that day". My Bible quotes are cut-and-paste from a Bible reading software. It didn't make it up. I didn't invent what it said. I wrote what it said. And I gave you the transliteration of the Hebrew from Strongs concordance according to the KJV (1611).

 

What the term "beguiled" means, is what the dictionary say, and what I said. It doesn't mean "lie", it means "to trick" someone. To charm. Not to lie. So when Christians say that the serpent lied, then the Christians are lying.

[Guest end3]

Hans,

To invent tools to help people is against God's will??????? It is exactly God's will when they leave, regardless of our efforts.

 

Gen 2:17 day=yowm=day, time, year you tell me exactly which one

[Guest end3]

Any time Ruby

[R. S. Martin]

First, I do not see that in Heb 9:27....I am seeing that without Christ, there would be death and judgement.

 

I guess you are seeing wrong.

 

Let's exegete the passage Heb. 9:24-28, KJV, as follows:

 

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: ²⁵ Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; ²⁶ For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ²⁷ And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ²⁸ So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

I will take it apart and look at it part by part. First of all, the writer is using the Tabernacle of the OT as an allegory for understanding the role of Jesus in the church. He is saying the Tabernacle, or (v. 24) "holy places made with hands" were "figures of the true" or heavenly. The high priest used to cleanse himself once a year to enter the Holy of Holies (v. 25), as you will know from Bible Study, I'm sure. Apparently, the true Holy of Holies which Jesus entered was Heaven through death (v. 24). Reason tells us that it would be unreasonable to expect Jesus to go through the passion and crucifixion on a yearly basis (v. 26), esp. since it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (v. 27). The writer of Hebrews is pointing out that since it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment, Jesus did not go into the Holy of Holies (death) every year; he did it only once for all. In other words, (v. 28) "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."

 

That is what the words say. That is what I understood them to say when I was a Christian. I am sure that my seminary teachers would tell me to exegete it according to these lines, but to also use articles and books others have written on this passage. Your understanding of the passage might work for a Sunday morning sermon or dotrinal piece, but it does not work for an exegesis of the passage. It just doesn't because that is not what the words say.

 

Secondly, I am assuming modern technology that helps save lives are invented with intentions such as preserving life, fighting disease etc...so without the legalism and with the freedom that Christ offers for loving your neighbor, how can you come to that conclusion. Do you think these instruments for perserving life are of the devil?

 

Several points.

 

1. The life of a person who has been brain-dead for ten years cannot be said to be preserved by any stretch of the imagination. Remember, you are so young and immature that you had to call home to your daddy to ask how to spell a simple word. Also remember that you are arguing for a case whose facts you admitted you do not know. You lost this case on moral and factual grounds.

 

2. Keeping a body alive when the brain is gone is "hate" in its purest sense. It is not "loving your neighbour."

 

3. You ask: Do you think these instruments for perserving life are of the devil? My dear little boy, we see no evidence of mythical beings!!! How can you ask if we believe that these instruments are of a mythical being??? Are you as crazy as you look?

[sojourner]

HanSolo

 

well the way that 'day' is dealt with by most is that a day in scripture is also listed as being able to mean a thousand years

 

also I recall the life of the soul is in the blood - is that perhaps what you were thinking of?

 

sojourner

[Guest end3]

Ruby, what is your interp. of 9:27 exactly

[Ouroboros]

You know End3, I don't give a damn anymore. It's just getting frigging riddiculous.

 

The word "day" is the same as "day" used earlier in Genesis 1, is it not? Look it up. So was the world created in literally 6 days, and Adam would literally die the same literal day, or is Genesis 2 a figure of speech and Genesis 1 literal? You can twist and turn and make the words work for you and fit into what you believe, but isn't that exactly what the Devil is accused of doing?

 

---

 

Now I'm gonna be nice to you End3,

 

The thing is I can solve the conundrum, but it's not the way you think it is.

 

According to the studies I did as a Christian, a way of interpreting the verse is that Adam and Eve did die that day... spiritually. They lost their spirit. That one day they died in spirit, and through Jesus your spirit is born again. That's the good Christian way of fixing this dilemma. I'm surprised that you never caught on to it, but defended a verse that has a completely different interpretation. What else don't you know about your Bible? Are there other verses you have gotten wrong? I hope not. Because your eternal life might depend on it...

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo

 

well the way that 'day' is dealt with by most is that a day in scripture is also listed as being able to mean a thousand years

True. But would God be so unclear to a person that just had been born and had no experience?

 

also I recall the life of the soul is in the blood - is that perhaps what you were thinking of?

Life is in the Blood. The Bible might say the soul is in the blood too, I'm not sure. Is life and soul the same thing?

 

I think the Bible also say the soul is in the pancreas or something...

 

It's also in the breath, according to Genesis.

[sojourner]

HanSolo

 

well the way that 'day' is dealt with by most is that a day in scripture is also listed as being able to mean a thousand years

True. But would God be so unclear to a person that just had been born and had no experience?

 

also I recall the life of the soul is in the blood - is that perhaps what you were thinking of?

Life is in the Blood. The Bible might say the soul is in the blood too, I'm not sure. Is life and soul the same thing?

 

I think the Bible also say the soul is in the pancreas or something...

 

It's also in the breath, according to Genesis.

 

I went and looked and I was mistaken, it says the life of the flesh is in the blood

 

nevermind, just ignore me lol

 

sojourner

[Guest end3]

Yes, kicked out of the Presence. Were going to die the first death as in back to the dust, end of story.

[Guest end3]

Ruby,

Why do you need cemetary, sorry, seminary teachers to teach you?

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby, what is your interp. of 9:27 exactly

 

According to the Bible it is God's will for humans to live and then to die. According to the Bible it is against God's will to keep humans alive indefinitely on machines. If you interpret it otherwise feel free to do so. You have an agenda here that has nothing to do with discussion and I am not interested in your agenda. Regarding judgment, I stand before God, not men or women.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, kicked out of the Presence. Were going to die the first death as in back to the dust, end of story.

I know, I was being nice. Now back to being a bit of a jerk again.

 

The problem with the interpretation that "surely die" means a spiritual death and not a bodily is that it doesn't say so literally. It's an interpretation outside of what it literally say. And here's what happens:

 

Either you interpret "day" literally, and you have to interpret "death" as non-literal, like this: "you will die today" = "you will die 'spiritually' today". That leaves "today" literal, but reinterprets death as non-literal

 

Or you interpret "death" literally, and you have to interpret "day" non-literal, like this "you will die today" = "you will bodily die sometime in the future but not today".

 

Do you see the problem here? In the same verse you have to take one part for what it says at face value, and the other you have to read as figure of speech. Which interpretation is right? We clearly see that it can't be literal true both ways, since Adam and Eve did not die literally, on that same day.

 

A better solution is to look at the whole verse as a story, and both sides of the verse as allegorical. It's a story, and not a historical or factual event. It's easier, and it makes perfect balance.

 

If you decide to look at it as a allegorical story, remember that you're not alone. Many Church fathers and Jewish theologians and philosophers considered the story as such. The only reason why you have to think of it as factual and historical, is because of religious leaders have forced that idea upon the Church to maintain control and political power over its members. You're a slaved under ideas you didn't choose. If you ever want to be free, truly free, and if you really want to learn the truth, start thinking outside of the box and outside of all control-freak-preachers.

 

And to repeate MM's point. If Adam and Eve had not eaten from the fruit would they have lived for eternity? If that's the case, what was the deal about the other fruit God wanted to keep from them so they wouldn't live forever? Doesn't that imply that God already wanted them to die one day if eternal life only could be achived through eating the second fruit?

[R. S. Martin]

Ruby,

Why do you need cemetary, sorry, seminary teachers to teach you?

 

Maybe so I can learn how to do my own research and don't have to call my daddy when I want to know something? You know, like how to spell a word that is on the internet dictionary? He's going to die someday so I have to be able to live without him.

 

Why do you need chemistry, math, and English teachers?