Not a Rib
English Bibles have a mistranslation that needs to be corrected.
By Jack Hoehn
Humans usually have 24 ribs. The ribs come from the 12 thoracic vertebra (back bones) and provide support and protection for the chest and its contents. The top 7 pair are attached by cartilage directly to the sternum (breast bone) in the front of the chest. Three of the next five are attached indirectly to the sternum through an arch of cartilage that forms the upper margins of your abdomen and an attachment for your thin flexible breathing muscle, or diaphragm. The last two ribs of the bottom five are often not attached and hence can be called “floating” ribs, although all 12 pair of ribs are attached to each other by the several layers of intercostal muscles and connective tissue called fasciae, or on the inside of the chest, pleura.
When you take a breath, the intercostal muscles between the ribs contract to pull the ribs up and out, at the same time that the diaphragm contracts and flattens pulling down, together inflating your lungs.
Bilateria
The Creator used the vertebra/rib design in many Bilateria (creatures with a right and left half, as opposed to round animals like jellyfish or sponges that don’t have two equal halves). Dogs have 13 pairs of ribs; snakes, of course, have many more, but frogs only have one pair. The turtle’s eight ribs are made to fuse into its shell. Fish have two ribs on each vertebra: dorsal and ventral ribs. But sharks only have short ventral bony ribs, with the rest cartilage, and lampreys have no ribs at all.
5th rib?
The King James Bible translates a Hebrew word for “fifth”(chomesh from chamesh, five) as “fifth rib,” as a lethal point of entry for killing. “Under the fifth” of the top 7 ribs on the left would put your sword or spear into the heart. “Under the five” lower ribs would put you into the “belly” (as most modern translations prefer); either entry would be quite lethal. Abner, Saul’s general, killed the brother of David’s general Joab, named Asahel (2 Samuel 2). Then Joab killed Abner (2 Samuel 3). After Abner died, two of Saul’s soldiers murdered their master, Saul’s surviving son Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 4), mistakenly thinking to curry David’s favor. Finally, Joab dispatched his own cousin Amasa who had joined Absalom in rebellion against David (2 Samuel 20). All died using the same lethal method: “and smote him there under the fifth [rib], that he died.”
“Rib” versus “Half” or” Side”?
There a proper anatomical word for “rib,” the Aramaic ala, that appears in Daniel 7:5 where the Bear of Medo-Persia has three of them in his mouth.
But there is another Hebrew word in the Bible, tsela, that 40 times means “side,” as in one of two sides or halves – as in “siding” planks of cedar in 1 Kings 6:15. Or as the two “sides” of the Ark of the Covenant with rings for carrying poles on each of its two “sides,” in Exodus 37:3. Or as rooms along one “side” or the other (north or south “sides”) of the Temple of Ezekiel 41:5,11. The Table of Showbread was on the north “side” or “half” of the Holy Place (Exodus 26:35). Or two cedar “halves” or “sides” of a split door leading into Solomon’s Temple. Each “half” or “side” (tsela) of the split door was covered with carved “ cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; and… overlaid… with gold” (1 Kings 6:33,34). The two sides or half panels made one entrance into the Holy Place.
So why, in Genesis 2:21-22, where it says God took one “tsela” of Adam, does the English translation say a “rib” instead of one of his two “sides?” Or instead of one of the two “halves” of the bilateral first human? This mistranslation starting with Wycliffe through the King James Version has been entrenched in most English Bibles.[1] But the word “side” makes wonderful sense to understand that woman was not 1/24th of a man, but one half.
Adam’s Trance
The deep sleep (Genesis 2:21) that God put Adam into as introduction to his life partner was not surgical anesthesia. It was a dream or trance like the one God put Abram into (see Genesis 15) so God could reveal to Abram in a dream His one-sided covenant of grace. Here Abram divided a 3-year-old virgin cow, a 3-year-old female goat, and a 3-year-old male sheep into 2 halves each, and placed one half on one side, and the other half on the other side. Then Abram too fell into a deep sleep-like trance, and God revealed Himself in Abram’s dream as a moving pillar of cloud and pillar of fire through the two halves of the bilateral animals, the right and left halves. To Abram this meant God was taking a solemn oath, making a promise that must be kept, offering himself to be hewn asunder if He did not keep His word.
So Adam’s deep sleep was not surgical anesthesia; it was a trance, a spiritual dream where he saw himself hewn asunder, and one of his “sides” (not merely one little rib), one half of him, turned into the woman he would shortly be introduced to. God revealed to Adam in this trance that Woman was his side, his half, his equal. When Adam awoke from the dream sleep, he understood that Eve was not just his little rib, but “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” his side, his half, flesh and bones all together.
Formed of Dust
Animals, like man, were formed of chemistry. “God formed from the soil every living thing of the field and every fowl of the heavens” (Genesis 2:19). Man was alike mortal, chemical, “formed of dust from the soil” (Genesis 2:7) and also given the breath of life. This “formed of dust” is not a scientific explanation of how chemistry became biochemistry, how biochemistry became complex cells, and how cells became living beings. It is a statement of our mortality, our earthiness. Dust we are, and except by the grace of God and access to the Tree of Life, dust we will become.
So the dream of Adam is not a scientific explanation of woman’s origin; it is a God-given vision of woman’s place in the order of creation. Although mortal, as animals and men, she is half of humanity, she is one side of mankind’s two sides. She is not a rib, she is one of the two sides that make a human, an equal partner.
What does a human look like? Here is a picture of a human as presented by the Genesis 2 creation of mankind story–male and female, two equal halves of humanity, side by side.
NJV[2] Genesis 2 Translated as Side.
YHWH, God, formed the human of dust from the soil,
he blew into his nostrils the breath of life
and the human became a living being.
YHWH, God, planted a garden in Eden, in the east,
and there he placed the human…
But YHWH, God, said it is not good for the human to be alone,
I will make him an equal helper.
So he had the human name all the other animals formed from the soil,
but found no equal helper for himself.
So YHWH, God, put the human into a trance where he saw God
take one of his two sides and close up the flesh.
And YHWH, God, turned this half of man into woman and
brought her to the man, who exclaimed,
“At last, finally, this is what I have been waiting for!
Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh!
She shall be called ISHA (woman)
because from ISH (man) she was taken.”
Therefore men leave parents and join with a woman,
for they are really two sides of one flesh.
No More Ribbing
Ellen White can also be read (omitting the “rib” mistranslation) in complete harmony with woman as coming from the side or half of man.
“Eve was created…from the SIDE of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his SIDE as an equal…A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self, showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation…they shall be one.”[3]
Many male lips have “ribbed” women, and it helps me to understand that the translation error has served to diminish women from their equality, at creation, with men. My sisters are not a rib; they are my equals.
A man with a paralyzed side is a cripple, having hemiplegia, as seen in some stroke victims. Like Jacob, whose hip was dislocated in struggling with God, he ever after limps along needing a crutch. Till the end of his life Jacob was disabled by loss of one of his sides in that battle, and till the day of his death, worshiped leaning on a crutch.[4]
The male headship heresy promoted by some of my brothers should be challenged not only as un-Christ-like, but also an un-Biblical view of female diminution. Genesis 2 teaches that humans were created mortal (like animals, from dust), and that women were created equal to men
(half of Adam). This is in full harmony with the Genesis 1 account where the image of God is male and female.
A church that does not recognize women’s full equality in service will be hemiplegic, crippled with one weak side, limping along on crutches instead of running quickly towards the kingdom. How can an Adventist church founded by a woman of God not understand this?
John Mark Reynolds, Provost of Huston Baptist University, is quoted in Christianity Today with this insight. “If Genesis is true—if you believe male and female are deep categories that are tied to the creation of humankind and the image of God—then to fail to hear a woman’s voice on a topic would be to fail to hear something the Holy Spirit is saying to our generation.”[5]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, InterVarsity Press, page 78.
[2] NJV=New Jack Version! My paraphrase.
[3] Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, Pacific Press, page 46.
[4] Hebrews 11:21.
[5] Quoted in ChristianityToday.com, April 2015, page 36.
Please feel free to copy or share (by clicking below)
this article with family and interested friends.
Thank you for the comments, they are now closed. If you would like to correspond with the author please feel free to contact him at drhoehn @ msn.com.
This is good. However, a woman is 100 percent whole and not half of a man. The “half of Adam’s side” is the genesis of her beginning. Out of half Adam’s side she was created whole (not half) like Adam. This is imperative to understand. It is where she comes from not where she is going (smile). It is from where she was created not the equality of her creation.
Research what is currently being discovered about DNA after a sexual union between husband and wife. DNA from the husband is shared with and becomes part of the woman.
Where the Bible says “and they shall become one flesh” becomes more clear!
SDA folk don’t run to quick yet with as my bible states not for private interpretation and written under holy inspiration what next Sabbath day was misinterpreted
Hold on to truths that are sound doctrine bone of my bone flesh of my flesh
Line upon line precept ….. You got the picture hold fast guys
Clem UK
Actually, “bone of my bone” might say just a rib. But it also says “flesh of my flesh” and hence needs to be much more than a rib. Which is why the author uses a word that everywhere else in this language and related languages means “one side of two equal sides.”
I guess the plain “thus saith the Lord” isn’t good enough when it comes to a religious tradition.
Jack,
Thank you for one of the most logical and sensible discussions of the topic that I have seen in a long time.
While it is always possible that a word may be used that is less than definitive than the situation demands, I find it interesting that those who advocate a liberal agenda are continually telling the bible doesn’t mean what it says. So we need some “expert” to tell us what the bible means, and it is always far from what was understood by the original word used.
Such as, wrath doesn’t mean wrath. Fear doesn’t mean fear. And now, rib, doesn’t mean rib. I am sure some simply want a more definitive explanation of a comprehensive situation. But in some cases, it seems evident that at least some will go to any length to undermine clear bible teachings to defend what is not defendable. WO is not defendable. Male headship is beyond challenge when the bible is accepted in its clear and comprehensive presentation. Adam sold out the human family. Eve was instrumental in persuading Adam to sin, but Eve was not the federal head of humanity and her decision was not the reason mankind was sold into sin.
All the double talk will not change this reality nor help anyone understand that women are somehow equal in authority to the man, either in society, the family or the church. At some point, it becomes blatant rebellion to keep twisting the bible to advocate something contrary to what is obvious to any open minded evaluation.
So you prefer a closed-minded reading of the actual words of scripture, Bill?
Well, that’s OK. Indeed, there is considerable comfort in not having to experience the ambiguity of change. I’m pretty reluctant to explore change myself. I prefer to leave that for you … and you are not doing a very good job with that, Bill … yeah, I’m smiling about my inadequacies.
To me it is clear that you are going to heaven and that you don’t have to change for that to be true. I know, you want me to change for that to be true … for me. Maybe, but I’m trying not to have to.
Now in regard to this matter Jack is describing, we’ll all be able to hear the answer from Adam himself some day.
My guess is, he’ll say, ‘I have no idea! I was asleep!’ I only partially jest.
On the words of Jesus, Mark 12, it is likely we will be neither male nor female in heaven … or perhaps we’ll be fully androgynous … or at a minimum, marriage will give way to polyamory.
But never mind … Jesus didn’t intend for us to know any of that, just to know that we don’t know … which is universally encompassing … as in none of us even see ourselves clearly, but only as the distorted shadows in a brass mirror … but of course you read “through a glass darkly.” And that is OK. Mean’s the same.
To fulfill Jesus’ prophecy that the world will know we are His disciples because we love one another, as he loves us … without condemnation (John 3:17) … his disciples will, it seems, come to realize we are each and all the object of God’s grace and thus everyone we meet is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh as God’s creation, His possession, and by Jesus life, death, and resurrection destined for eternal life (John 3:16). Is that not what it means to be a Christian?
The setup is right there in Genesis 3. The Creator takes full, unilateral responsibility for the Serpent, with regard to both its presence and effect and most importantly its future. The Creator does not condemn either Adam or Eve but, in accepting without denial their assertion that their nakedness is God’s work, God takes responsibility for them and in them us, too, by taking responsibility for the Serpent.
Go ahead, hum the tune to Leaning On The Ever Lasting Arms … Elisha Hoffman’s words may come to mind … published a year before the momentous 1888 General Conference session when grace overwhelmed the relentless preaching of the law that had made the life of the church ‘as dry as the hills of Gilboa,’ to borrow without citing a famous observation at the time.
Jack has given us a wonderful opportunity to see God in an enriching way. Lean back, relax, and ponder what God intended the meaning of bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh … there is a reason Jesus became bone of own bone and flesh of our flesh … too.
There are a lot of things that are not translated accurately in the King James Version because of the culture of 1611. Adam “knew” his wife? Of course he knew who she was! We “interpret” this to mean that he was sexually intimate with her, but that’s not what it says. Jesus was nailed to the cross in his hands? Crucifixion was never done in the hands as we understand it, but between the ulna and radius in the forearm, since the bones of the hands cannot support the weight of a person. Yet, we choose to preach that the comma is in the wrong place in Matthew 16:18 – “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; …” So we do agree that there are some issues with the 1611 translation when it is convenient to our theology.
Truth is, even if it is a literal rib, what we preach about it is so wrong. A rib is not on your side. It goes around half of the body from sternum to spine and protects all of the vital organs. So this theory that is spouted from the sacred desk about being taken from Adam’s side is somewhat of an oxymoron as translated in 1611. EGW even expounds on this. It’s not double-talk.
One of the van Puttens,
You wrote: “There are a lot of things that are not translated accurately in the King James Version because of the culture of 1611. Adam “knew” his wife? Of course he knew who she was! We “interpret” this to mean that he was sexually intimate with her, but that’s not what it says.”
The English word “knew” is translated from the Hebrew יָדַ֖ע, ya-da. It means: to know, recognize, acquaintance, etc. It is used throughout the OT and does not refer to an intimate relationship.
The meaning of this phrase in relation to Adam and His wife Eve knowing each other, also has a spiritual meaning. Jesus speaks of those who will claim to have done many things in His name, but He will reply: “23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”. Matt. 7:21-23. We also read throughout the NT that all who have been Baptized into His death are One Spirit with Him. Another place Paul mentions having the “mind of Christ”. Unless we are joined to Jesus Christ through the Spirit of God we are not His; and He does not know us, and nor do we know Him.
Therefore, it’s only when we know Jesus Christ and He knows us, being One with Him in Spirit, we also become fruitful Spiritually.
So, no, I do not think the translators mistranslated the Genesis 4:1 passage. It has only one meaning, as the Hebrew Text implies: “to know”.
Appreciate all you state. And this from: creationtips dot com / ribs
Interestingly, research has shown that regeneration of ribs can occur. So Adam may not have lost his rib permanently anyway.
Worth reading the full posting.
Had to be? We know the Bible says God took from the side which appears to mean opened something and then closed it back. Even Ellen’s White explanation could mean that from the side something was taken not meaning the whole side. In any case woman was not meant to be used as something comfortable to walk on. But someone to care for and cherish.
Interestingly enough, ”prevent” doesn’t mean ”prevent” and “constrain” doesn’t mean “constrain” either!
Huh, Mr. Sorensen… Never mind looking at Scripture in its native tongue, eh, for an accounting of woman’s creation that jibes so much more soundly with the character and Person of the Godhead than the rib mistranslation! And lest you think I am a confounded liberal, allow me to share with you that I subscribe to the “side” translation and nonetheless respect and defer to my husband as the head of our family, just as we should defer to Christ – the Word – as the Head of the church. (Please note that I just reminded the , and we are supposed to believe what the Bible teaches. In its original incarnation – that is, in Hebrew -the Torah gives an account of Eve as having been made from Adam’s SIDE.) Just because God created my husband to serve a different role in the family than I do doesn’t make me unequal to him. Indeed, he calls me “the east to [his] west”, because like Adam, God gave him the understanding that it is two halves – two equal portions – that create a whole.
Of course, it is most probable that you will continue in your demonstrated trend of never challenging what you think you know and allowing the Spirit to guide you to a non-Pharisaical understanding of the Christian faith. Loosen up! A sincere search for a clearer and clearer understanding of Scripture will not undermine anyone who is truly rooted in the Word!
I have a question. Wasn’t Adam wholly and completely man at the creation? God had him name the animals and he consequently realized he was alone without a mate. “God said, ‘it is not good for man to be alone.”
Jesus is also wholly and completely man, the second Adam. There is nothing incomplete or unfulfilled in Jesus.
Adam is alone and that is not good. Adam is not incomplete, man is not unfinished. Man is complimented in woman – not completed.
INTERESTING THOUGHTS TO PONDER, My Good Friend, Dr. Hoehn. I pray we ALL will ALLOW the HOLY SPIRIT to guide and lead us INTO ALL TRUTH and NOT RELY on our weak human minds to try to understand and reshape and revise HIS DIVINE HOLY SPIRIT inspired writers/Holy Word to meet our SELFISH DESIRES and DREAMS. May ALL these WISE(???) folks who have commented here YIELD and SURRENDER their/our WILL to HIS [GOD’S] WILL!!! There are time when we humans think we know SO MUCH when in reality, WE KNOW VERY LITTLE!!!
I’m also thinking that it is more about God than about man. It takes the two to represent or best represent God or to be created in His image.
It is sad that investigating the original languages in which the Bible was written — something everyone can do — is considered to be changing the Bible’s meaning rather than reading what the Bible actually says.
It’s painful to see that finding out what the Bible really says, itself, rather than thinking my 20th-century English interpretation is what it really means, is said to be undermining “clear” Bible teaching and “open rebellion.” But we still have many who are ready to say that their own personal modern understanding of an interpretation of an ancient language is somehow more true and more valid than what the original Bible writers were inspired by God to write.
This will only lead to the entrenching of false doctrines. We *must* study the Bible as it is, not as modern minds would rewrite and reinterpret God’s holy book.
Jack,
Thanks for an excellent and thought-provoking article.
I checked to see how this word is translated in other languages. In German Bibles it is translated as “rippe(n)” ie rib(s). In French Bibles it is translated “cote(s)” ie “side(s)”. So different language traditions have gone both ways.
Bill,
According to two different lexicons, “tsela” is translated to mean a human rib exactly once (Genesis 2), and once or twice more (in various translations) as rib(s) to refer to the planks on the sides of a structure or the side of a ridge.
And whether Genesis 2 translates “rib(s)” or “side(s)” is heavily dependent on which language you are looking at. If you were French you might be convinced that Eve was made from Adam’s side, whereas if you were German it would definitely be from Adam’s rib.
It is easy to accuse others of twisting the meaning of the Bible when they point-out that the same passage can be translated in different ways.
I learnt many years ago that my beliefs must not rest upon which way (among reasonable alternatives) a particular passage is translated. Though some translations can be very weak (usually dynamic ones where the translator(s) are trying to tell us what a passage means rather than what it says), the formal translations usually represent a very honest and accurate effort to express what the earliest available texts actually say.
For me looking at alternative translations of the same passage can be highly informative, in understanding the nuances that may not be obvious. So I like to compare different translations to gain more insight into what the original author(s) might have been saying.
It still could mean rib from his side. Taking into account the fact that The whole is used many times even when part of the whole is referee to. IE when Christ was crucified and rose on part of the third day.
Jack, you myth buster! Disturbing the myth, regardless of its “raison d’etre,” with factual adjustments is rife with frightful, unintended consequences!
I don’t think it is accurate to say that “rib” is a mistranslation.
I think it would be more accurate to say that “side” is an equally valid translation.
Each way of looking at this passage will shed light upon what the author intended.
I spite of the various possibilities, the main purpose is to convince us that there is no male headship, nor was there any maleheadship ordained by God. And this was my point.
I am wondering when was the last time that re-reading your Bible in a different language or a different translation or even a familiar translation, convinced you that you were wrong about anything?
Remember that Dutch man’s prayer that I have previously quoted here (and that I learnt from my Dutch father):
Lord help me to always be right, because it is so hard to change my mind when I am wrong>
Consider the following:
Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 17:10
“This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;”
Exodus 23:17
“Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God.”
Exodus 34:19
“The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.”
Leviticus 6:18, 29
“All the males among the children of Aaron may eat it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations concerning the offerings made by fire to the Lord. Everyone who touches them must be holy.”
“All the males among the priests may eat it. It is most holy.”
All of this was after the Fall and says nothing about the original condition of humans.
It is certainly true that in the post-Fall Patriarchal culture the eldest male was the civil and spiritual head of the clan. And after the Passover the law of redemption applied this to the first male born from each female (not just the first son of the sire).
So having the family patriarch appear before God meant that the whole family was represented.
However before you claim that God made this rule and it is therefore inviolable, let me remind you that in four consecutive generation of the Genesis Patriarchs God set it aside. Neither Abraham nor Isaac nor Jacob nor Judah (or Joseph or Levi) was the eldest son of their father. For me this would be a very strong precedent for God choosing whomever God sees fit for a purpose, rather than honoring a rigid human tradition.
Jim,
Before the fall Adam was made whole and complete before Eve. Eve was made after Adam. After Adam realized he was alone and without a a suitable help mate. God made Eve for Adam, to be his help mate. This is the way the scripture expresses it in the original languages.
Jesus is the second Adam. Whole and complete without woman. Jesus is the Son, God is the Father. The Godhead is masculine. Man is created in God’s image. “It is not good for man to be alone” is language that speaks of woman complimenting man, not completing man.
This article beautifully described the original plan God had for us, one which was ‘very good’, and a reality that will one day be again. I too have been thinking on Genesis 3:16 after a sermon this Sabbath, so Jack…
I would disagree with you that Gen 3:16 is a prophecy, rather it was a command or ‘ruling’, spoken by God. Eve made a poor choice, she broke a commandment of God which is sin. The word ‘H559’ (‘amar – to say, speak utter, answer command promise) – does not indicate prophecy. ‘H5012′ (nabar’) to speak under the influence of divine spirit. When God speaks it is not prophecy because he is the divine spirit. The judgment on Eve was to take effect as instantly as creation heeded the spoken word of God, not over millions of years, not as a prophecy through man which may come to pass at some point in the future.
The results of sin are most definitely going to be rescinded. However, your words ‘near’ the time when Eden is to be restored, leaves one to imagine that this might be happening now, as we are so close to the time of the end. In fact When Death and Hell are cast in to the lake of fire Rev 20:14, sin and its results will be gone for ever, not before.
Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Your words ‘reduce’ pain, and ‘control’ conception say it perfectly. We can no more ‘eliminate’ the sorrow of child birth any more than a man can eliminate the sorrow of earning his bread, or thistles and thorns cease to exist, or snake can cease from going along on it’s belly, or cease for a woman’s desire to be for her husband, or for a husband to ‘rule’ over her until dust we return because dust we are.
You do also have a very nice definition of what it means for a man to ‘rule’ over his wife. 🙂
With that being said consider these…
Gen 3:16 …and he (Adam) shall rule over thee (Eve).
1 Cor 15:2 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak…
See, we all are part of a hierarchy. God > (Father >Christ/Holy Spirit) > Angels > Man (Adam > Eve {post fall}) & (Jesus > Body/bride {post resurrection}) > Creation.
Before the fall, after the fall it makes no difference. We human kind are all ‘crowned with glory and honor’.
How…
Steven, thank you, I appreciate your thoughts. I hold back from full agreement based on a couple of things. First my study of “curses” have brought me to the conclusion of Leslie Harding, that God’s curses are always statements of the natural results of sin, not arbitrary spankings. God didn’t damage the soil, when he cursed it, he just explained the results of disobedience in natural world as in the spiritual world. God’s “hatred” of Esau was not an arbitrary curse, it was the natural result of Esau’s rejection of the birthright.
And Finally the hierarchy of GOD over CHRIST is only the result of the incarnation. As SON OF GOD, Father and Son are equal, but because of the Incarnation Christ as the Son of Man is under the Father. As all women and men are under the Father. So GOD/JESUS/CHURCH/MEN/WOMEN may be an AD 67 outline, but it never started till a birth in Bethlehem in BC 4, and tells us nothing about the lack of hierarchy at the creation of woman as the Queen of creation, with Adam as her prince consort and equal in authority and rank, just as before the incarnation the Son was Equal with the Father.
Wonderful insight, Jack. “Rightly dividing the word of truth” carries double meaning here! And Bill, I have two thoughts for you: First, you must not be the Bill Sorenson I knew in Texas, because he was in love with Jesus more than his own ideas; Second, the “headship” heresy is the “Strange Fire” recently concocted within American evangelicalism for America’s Culture War. It is not biblical in origin nor is it in harmony with Gods biblically revealed, clearly progressive work to free us from both sins and self-importance, which is the original sin.
I wasn’t even thinking of the “male headship” theory as I read the article, but thanks, Glenn, for your insight.
Excellent!!!!
Excelente. Se entiende así que las mujeres también fuimos creadas a imagen y semejanza de Dios. En El subyacen los atributos femeninos, mal que les pese a los jerárquicos
Apreciada hermana, jamas se ha dudado de eso. Aun cuando algunos no estén de acuerdo con WO, nunca se ha dudado del valor femenino.
Really a profound insight – beautifully framed. As Always, I treasure your faith-affirming, dogma-busting analysis, Jack. Thank you! Thank you!
Most Stimulating! For they that seek after the most high and sole Creator have we His word. Pastors tend to the flock with their studied and confessed understanding. I feel no hesitation to contemplate idea and meaning as the biblical testimony has survived translation. Why would I care to defend or covet any specific and rigid analysis or viewpoint of scriptural meaning? The Adventist Conference has allowed publication of this ideological presentation. I feel strongly that the ideas here expressed by Jack are faithfully rendered and in the inclusive ‘line by line’ manner familiar to Adventist approach. I like to focus upon the brotherhood I feel with Adam: recognition of ‘a help meet of companionship’ and the completing quality that ‘union’ scripturally sustains. O to rejoice in this union once extant, that the vertical promise of God commences in dynamic transformations of character. Appreciate any response, and find stimulating the responses given.
No doubt, Jack, you will receive massive affirmation for you comments, if for no other reason, people can build a false doctrine for WO. Some believe the whole liberal agenda is a Korah rebellion against properly ordained authority. And other think it is a Martin Luther reformation akin to the Protestant revolt against Rome.
So people won’t change their mind once they make a final decision and one side or the other is in the process of committing the unpardonable sin. I still predict those who embrace and advocate WO will eventually give up the seventh day Sabbath for the same reasons they advocate WO.
And we can be sure the Holy Spirit working on the human mind will “force” both sides, right and wrong, to become immovable in their decision as well. Just as Pharoah, King Saul, Judas, Cain, and a host of others reached a point where repentance was impossible.
True believers always “fear” like Paul, that they can be deluded. But not those who embrace a false spiritually who Paul says, “They have no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom. 3:18
I am not suggesting anyone has at this time committed the unpardonable sin. I am saying that this sin is committed by degrees of resistance to truth, until no amount of influence of the bible and Holy Spirit can or will change their mind.
So, some may yet consider the issue and ask, “What if I am wrong?” And those who treasure the word of God are always asking “What must I do to be saved?” And the rebellious spirit will always reply, “Nothing”. In which case, as Paul says, “God will give them up to strong delusion to believe a lie,……..” And the final results are clearly stated.
The spirituality of your arguments are a true parallel to the arguments of Sunday keepers. Who also “butcher the bible” to their own destruction. The false gospel always destroys the intensity for bible truth and creates an easy believeism that genders the final error of universal salvation for all of mankind.
So, we wait and see. But history always repeats itself and the only lesson we can learn is this, “No one ever learns from history.” And finally, “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.”
Male headship is God ordained, and all your fancy footwork and wresting of scripture won’t change that either.
And Bill,
You remember the answer Jesus gave to the question, What must I do to be saved?
… “Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” From the American Standard Version, Ellen White’s preferred translation in her later years.
And remember, the disciples had just heard Jesus declare that the best of people, as measured by their wealth, are less likely to be worthy of heaven than the likelihood of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.
There you have it, in Jesus own (translated) words. It is all Jesus and in Jesus all are saved.
One doesn’t have to know Greek to understand plain English, does one, Bill?
Bill how can you be sure you aren’t “deluded” about your God? And what if your “Holy Spirit” guide is steering you from the dark side? The “Holy Spirit” seems to guiding others in another direction. And using your view of Scripture as authority, where does it say by God “I hereby ordain male headship?”
You may want to consider joining the Catholic Church if this is a pinnacle issue for you, since it unlike in Adventism, is not in jeopardy there, at least in the short term.
Where in the Bible we have “Male headship is God ordained” It is not there. Before the fall Adam and Eve were “ordained” with the same authority. They were both put in charge of the garden not each other. The Bible was written in a male-dominated era. Jesus came to make his church different than the world. We are to be one in Him. There is not “male headship” Certainly not in the Bible
Well, according to EGW there was.
“. Adam Crowned King in Eden—Adam was crowned king in Eden. To him was given dominion over every living thing that God had created. The Lord blessed Adam and Eve with intelligence such as He had not given to any other creature. He made Adam the rightful sovereign over all the works of His hands. Man, made in the divine image, could contemplate and appreciate the glorious works of God in nature (Redemption; or the Temptation of Christ, 7). 1BC 1082.2
And this is your “Bible”.
Ellen would turn-over in her grave if she could know that you were using her writings as your primary source, rather than the Bible.
“Man, made in the divine image, could contemplate and appreciate the glorious works of God in nature”
So this only refers to Adam being made in the divine image?
But then how do you explain the previous sentence?
“The Lord blessed Adam and Eve with intelligence such as He had not given to any other creature.”
If you insist that Adam literally had dominion over “every living thing that God had created” then she would not exclude the Angels from that since they were “living things that God had created” also.
Where and how DO you draw this line, Bill?
And I would still like to see one verse from the Bible that says Adam had sole dominion over the earth before the Fall. And by this I mean from the Bible itself, not from some later commentary by Ellen or others.
What do you think God meant when God said “Let THEM have dominion”?
The quotation from EGW most certainly does NOT suggest any kind of male headship. This has been shown again and again and again on these threads, as this quote has been misused constantly to support an unscriptural hobbyhorse.
Note again what it actually says:
“Adam was crowned as king in Eden. To him was given dominion over every living thing that God had created. The Lord blessed ADAM AND EVE with intelligence such as he had not given to THE ANIMAL CREATION. He made Adam the rightful sovereign over all the works of his hands. MAN [mankind, not a male] made in the divine image could contemplate and appreciate the glorious works of God in nature.{RH February 24, 1874, par. 6}
In the real quote (which we have posted repeatedly) from 1874, we find that the dominion was given to ADAM AND EVE, and that dominion was over THE ANIMAL CREATION.
We can create any doctrine by tearing a sentence out of context and stubbornly repeating it week after week knowing we are in fact lying by misrepresenting what is actually being said.
It was MANKIND that was made in the image of God and could appreciate the works of God in nature. When EGE here uses “MAN” she is using it in the same sense that “adam” is used in Genesis: the word means “a man/mankind” not a male as opposed to a female.
One the second issue, the meaning of tsela’ in Hebrew, we don’t decide based on French versus German translations, which are utterly irrelevant. We can look at every use of the word in the Hebrew Bible, and wherever it is found in extra-biblical contexts in epigrqphs from the Bibllical period.
If we do that, we discover that the use in Genesis is an anomaly outside the meaning of the word, which is “one side of two parallel or equal sides.” Of course, Biblicists don’t stop there. Biblical Hebrew, or old Northwest Semitic, is part of a group of languages.
So we look at Ugaritic, Akkadian, peripheral Akkadian, Aramaic, and even old Arabic to see how the parallel word is used in contexts quite apart from the Hebrew Bible. And again, we find “rib” is an anomaly based on a late religious tradition, having no linguistic foundation.
But then some despise “experts” for reasons that have nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with pride.
Regarding “tsela” I previously wrote that it is only in one place (Genesis 2) translated as a human rib.
The reason for looking at other translations and other languages was to examine the claim that the common English translation “rib(s)” in Genesis 2 is the only correct one, and that “side(s)” is erroneous.
I certainly agree that primacy must be given to what is the meaning in the “original” language.
I wondered if this might lure Dr Wood into the conversation 8-)?
“In the real quote (which we have posted repeatedly) from 1874, we find that the dominion was given to ADAM AND EVE, and that dominion was over THE ANIMAL CREATION.”
Really? Then Jesus didn’t die to save humanity, He died to rescue “The animal creation”.
Oh well, what else is new in perversion of clear bible truth?
Mr Sorensen, you continue to evade the plain meaning of Ellen White’s statement here:
“Adam was crowned as king in Eden. To him was given dominion over every living thing that God had created. The Lord blessed ADAM AND EVE with intelligence such as he had not given to THE ANIMAL CREATION. He made Adam the rightful sovereign over all the works of his hands. MAN [mankind, not a male] made in the divine image could contemplate and appreciate the glorious works of God in nature.{RH February 24, 1874, par. 6}
The statement clearly says ADAM AND EVE had dominion over the NATURAL WORLD. It says nothing whatever about Adam having some kind of dominion over Eve. Nor does the correct reading imply any kind of blasphemy against our Savior. Shame.
Mr Sorensen, your response is deceitful on this point: You write “Really? Then Jesus didn’t die to save humanity, He died to rescue “The animal creation”.
Where on earth did you come up with that nonsense? No one would imply that Jesus did not die to save humanity. Shame on you for stating such a thing. Nor is there anything in the correct reading of the statement that begins to imply such deliberate mis-statement.
Dearest brother Hamstra: I was lured not by the obvious fact that we not only look at the Hebrew but the cognate languages to see how this word is used. It is never a “rib” and always “one side of two equal halves” and one can certainly see how the mistranslation “rib” arose from that!
But in the interest of sound exegesis, my point was that the stubborn stubborn stubborn fact is that the word means “side” ever and always.
And, of course, I was even more “lured” by the continuing mis-statement of what Ellen White’s simple 1874 comment actually says. Seems reading it correctly means I am blaspheming our Savior too. Very interesting the lengths one may go to for one’s fave hobbyhorse.
(Fun seeing how new doctrines appeared in the first four centuries though ‘-) )
Well when there is a dispute about translation then I like to ask “when and how did the translations begin to diverge”?
The LXX says “pleuron” which means “rib or rib cage or side (ie of the chest)” whereas the Latin says “costis” which means “rib”. So it appears we have the progression from Hebrew to LXX to Latin translations to thank for this evolution from “side of the chest” to “rib”.
So Wycliffe who worked from the Latin rendered it as “rib” as later did Luther. On the other hand whoever did the early French translation must have been working with the Hebrew which says “side”.
Yes. The 70 inspired scribes who were encased in 70 booths for 70 days and who at the end of the 70 days compared their various translations and found them to be identical (;-)) were certainly on solid ground in using “pleuron” which means “side” as much as “rib”.
One wonders why the shift to “costis” when “pleuron” also existed in Latin and could have been used. Perhaps s Catholic saint did not have as much inspiration as 70 Jewish scribes. Elaine would think so. Evidently Mr. Sorensen does also, since it seems to matter a great deal to him that we stick by the mistranslation “rib” lest we commit the unpardonable sin.
I have no idea who or what inspired the French translation but the French were more inclined to lose their souls than the Germans anyway, right?
Well said, Bill. The same twisting of scripture is done by those who promote Spiritual Formation, Centering Prayer, and learning from Eastern cults. It’s all part of the devils plan seeking whom he may devour.
Wow- really? We who believe women should receive the Blessing of ordination will one day give up The Sabbath? Oh Ye Stiff Necked Generation. Wow.
Who are men to withhold the Blessing of the laying on of hands to those called by The Holy Spirit and already doing the work. Who are you?
Recognizing that I am in jeopardy of committing the Unpardonable Sin, and thereby imperiling my Conditionally Immortal Soul, I hesitantly venture to ask of all readers that you ponder for a brief moment another question.
Although I have not determined its veracity, there seems to be a persistent belief in the cultures of Western Europe, that the French are better lovers than are the Germans or the English. If this is indeed the case, one wonders whether it might have something to do with the French believing Eve came from Adam’s side, rather than merely from Adam’s rib as do the Germans and the English?
Bill,
Any wonder that when Christ was concerned about ministry, His disciples were fighting over headship?
Things have not changed much and we don’t learn from history.
Jesus spoke to the young rich man regarding the difficulty a rich man has entering the Kingdom of God. He compared it with a “camel” passing through the “eye of a needle”. I have heard some refer to this “eye of a needle” as a small opening in the wall of Jerusalem. The Aramaic New Testament proponents say neither of these are correct, as the Aramaic NT word “camel” is mistranslated by those who “translated from the Aramaic to the Greek”. They say the word “camel” is meant to be “rope”, because both “camel” and “rope” are similar in Aramaic. They also explain that because Jesus said “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt.19:23-26), is that the “rope” can be dismantled and feed through the eye of a needle strand by strand. Is this a possibility with God only, or also with men? What they are implying, according to the Aramaic Gospels, is that a rich man can still enter the kingdom of God by carrying his riches through bit by bit. This understanding, by human minds, is contrary to the true Spiritual implications which Jesus was describing. A rich man will not carry anything through to the Kingdom of God; the Kingdom of God is Spiritual, and not of this world, that is, material/physical. The impossibility emphasized by Jesus is real, therefore He uses “camel” and not a “rope”.
The point I am making here is, at times we think we understand Spiritual matters, and start looking for alterative meanings in Scripture, according to our own understanding. Dismantling the Scriptures and re-assembling them according to our own understanding is not “rightly dividing the word of truth”.
Is it possible, Daniel, that the Holy Spirit was promised to help us do exactly that? How else can we make sense of scripture inspired for people thousands of years ago? You describe what early Seventh-day Adventists called ‘present truth’ and seem to advise against it. Or perhaps I misunderstand.
Bill,
Yes, the Holy Spirit does give us understanding of the Scriptures, which should always reveal Jesus Christ and the work He is doing in our hearts; to prepare us and that place, to be with Him, and to do His will.
The Holy Spirit always brings to our hearts those things which are from Jesus; and He always Glorifies Him. So, to answer your question: Whatever we are seeking to understand through the Holy Scriptures must also reveal Jesus Christ and glorify Him.
In regards to “what early Seventh-day Adventists called ‘present truth’”, is this “truth” you speak of relevant to our Spiritual edification and understanding in what God wants from each and every one of us today? I understand that the Holy Scriptures are Spiritual and they deal with the heart of man. We see many evils on this earth, which all come from the heart of man. The Holy Scriptures prepare us for the work which the Holy Spirit will do in our hearts. No other writings can do this, nor take the place of the Holy Scriptures.
I love these discussions here, and they motivate me to search the Scriptures to know what the truth of the matter is. But I know that without the help of the Holy Spirit I am nothing, and cannot expect to know the truth.
There are many things in the Bible which none of us understand. Would you rather receive Spiritual understand first hand from God, or secondhand from man?
So, without offending you, Bill, all of us are participants in this Christian fellowship which we have here; seeking and sharing the truth in Spiritual matters. I strongly believe this is only edifying for each of us because we all live. But, I cannot do this with those who are dead.
Bill Sorensen –
Would you feel comfortable with Jack’s analysis and reflection if you didn’t see it being used to advance an agenda that you oppose? What part of scripture, including the teachings of Jesus, has not been conscripted to advance controversial agendas and theological conclusions that you and/or I would oppose? Does the nefarious purpose to which the interpretation of a Biblical passage, story, text or collection of texts might be put thereby invalidate an otherwise reasonable interpretation?
I haven’t heard anyone who opposes W.O. clinging to the “rib” as a basis for being aginst W.O. While I favor W.O., I don’t see how Jack’s interpretation of Genesis 2 is particularly helpful to my position. The notion of side-by-side moral and spiritual equality is not an argument for sameness, interchangeability or functional equality. It is, I believe, an argument against claims of divinely ordained male privilege or superiority.
I happen to be enough of a traditionalist to believe that proportionately few women are inclined toward pastoral leadership, just as relatively few women are inclined to watch Sunday football, debate theology, or compete with for skins on the golf course. But if they are, I see no Biblical, biological, or sociological reason why they should be denied the opportunity. The same arguments used against W.O. have historically been used to deny women education and access to male dominated professions. They may have been valid in other cultures and times, but I don’t think they carry weight today.
I’m not condemning your position on W.O., Bill. I just disagree with it. What I find more troubling is your reluctance to see scripture in a different light because of your fear that the devil can use it to his advantage. I’ve got news for you. The devil is very protean and insidious. It doesn’t matter how one views any part of scripture. The devil is always there to turn it to his advantage.
Nathan asked…
“Bill Sorensen –
Would you feel comfortable with Jack’s analysis and reflection if you didn’t see it being used to advance an agenda that you oppose?”
Certainly some things he shared would not necessarily negate male headship. But you and I know, Nathan, on this forum, the overwhelming emphasis is to support WO and equality in position of authority. It was not written in a vacuum. I am always leery of presentations that tell me the bible needs to be altered for a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of truth. And so I mentioned words like “fear” and “wrath” and other words the bible writers use that some think need a whole new meaning applied.
Yes, I am aware that the bible has been translated from other languages into English. None the less, I think God knows how to preserve basic word meanings that fit the main ideas He has communicated to the human family by way of the prophets and other bible writers.
Now we have people who claim Jesus did not “appease” the wrath of God and would have us believe the idea is heathen. I think EGW knows well enough what the word “appease” means and she uses it several times in reference to the atonement.
So, my point is this, Nathan. We live in an age of so-called “enlightenment” that transcends the bible and people claim a “spirit ethic” where by the Holy Spirit leads in determining what is truth and what is not, and the bible is set aside as unreliable because it is not discernable as to what it really means. So, all church members should trust the “experts” who will inform us of what is truth, and what is not.
Thus, I view with considerable doubt anything I read where I am told there is real misunderstanding of the bible because of various glitches in word usage and meanings. Yes, I am aware we believe the punctuation in the words of Jesus to the thief on the cross do not convey the true meaning intended. We have a vast array of evidence in all the bible to support our contention.
Ninety nine percent of the defense for WO is pure speculation, or scripture wrested so far out of context, I would be embarrassed to admit I used them as the liberals do to support my view. Gal. 3:27-29 is classic. Where Paul simply affirms we all have free access to God by way of Jesus’ ministry in heaven vs. the ceremonial law. Having nothing what so ever to do with church government or orders of authority in this world.
Novices in biblical theology have formulated church doctrine on many levels, and now we see the fruit of it as the church self destructs because of it. Sad to say, the Review on many levels is a joke and many know it. It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
“I am aware that the bible has been translated from other languages into English.”
Are you also aware that the Bible has been translated TO other languages besides English? Does your argument about Adam’s rib even make sense to someone who can only read the Bible in French where the word is translated “side”? Or must they learn English to understand the true intent of the author?
“Novices in biblical theology have formulated church doctrine on many levels, and now we see the fruit of it as the church self destructs because of it.”
Aha! For over six decades I have witnessed many SDA pastors, unwitting “novices in biblical theology” that they were, refer to their wives as their “better half”. Any truly Biblical pastor would know better. From henceforth and forever more, devout SDA men shall refer to their wives as their “better rib” or their “missing rib” or their “former rib”.
“It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.”
I am wondering from what language the writings of Ellen were translated into the Bible?
I am not aware that she ever claimed that anything she wrote was to be regarded as part of the Bible. To the contrary, she clearly described her own writings as a “lesser light”.
Yet still as in my childhood, I seem to encounter people who insist that their “Biblical” doctrines can best be defended by Ellen’s particular choice of words in a single passage.
Why must the stories of creation in the Bible be understood as literal when the writer(s) lived several THOUSAND years later? How can we possibly know what was in their mind at that time? It was a story passed down for so long that to be identical to the first telling is astronomical.
The reason appears to be that man was created by God (both male and female) in His image not all the “how” and “when.” We cannot know why Eve was said to be taken from Adam’s side, or much of the intent of the writers. Their knowledge of anatomy and physiology was very primitive, even the first philosophers in Greece had limited information of human physiology so to accept all that was written about humans much earlier than A.D. is presumption.
At least you affirm what I stated, Elaine. According to the liberal agenda, no one can understand the bible and it could well mean anything. So we must abandon the bible for science and/or human speculation, or what ever we determine is truth.
But I affirm that God Himself knows how to preserve His truth through His word. And the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers is present and able to give us the meaning in a consistent way that leaves no doubt as to what it says, means, and how it is applied. And this is the Protestant confession of faith in opposition to the Catholic view that no one can know what it means, so the church must tell us and we simply say “amen” to any and all interpretations the church gives us.
Before Jesus comes, the Holy Spirit will create a Christian community by way of the bible where every member agrees as to what it means and how it is applied. This was God’s intent for the SDA church. But the church has opted for Pluralism where everyone believes anything they want as long as they acknowledge church authority. And if that isn’t Roman Catholic, what is it?
How many times have you heard or read where some major influences in the church have stated, “Whatever the church decides, we will support for the sake of unity?” Hello? Anybody home? If this isn’t basic Catholicism, what is it? It is certainly not Protestant where every individual must decide for themselves what is bible truth and stand on the word of God, no matter what the majority decides.
Elaine,
“How can we possibly know what was in their mind at that time? It was a story passed down for so long that to be identical to the first telling is astronomical.” That is a good question.
Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures were inspired by God or just a story passed down?
“Oh, that my words were written! Oh, that they were inscribed in a book!” Job 19:23. It is evident that there was no one sitting with these men writing everything down, every word each one spoke. And yet we have the book of Job. As with the Gospels, the writers would not have been following Jesus and recording every word which Jesus and others had said. They would have been written latter. The memory of man is only superior when God inspires.
There is no doubt, if one believes the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, that God was involved and the writers were inspired to write what God showed them. The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John was give through the Spirit of God and John wrote down everything he heard and saw. This is my understanding.
Not either/or. Both. Our bible is full of stories passed down to us by inspiration. We need sufficient humility to realize that even our best attempts to understand bring only a faded, though often inspiring, picture. Of course, I could be wrong.
Inspirataion does not mean “copying”, literal, or accurate. Many artists have been inspired in composing music, painting, and other forms of artistic and talented endeavors. Men may be inspired, but what exactly does that mean?
To quote Scripture to prove Scripture is a tautological fallacy and is the refuge of those who accept all the Bible as literal and true, without regard to its compilation and historical oral
stories that were told and retold, each time interpreted and then copied and later copied again. There are no original manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and more than 5,000 of the NT.
Studies on oral tradition in West Africa noted that the official “storytellers” of a tribe were able to tell the same story, word for word, two centuries after westerners first heard it and wrote it down.
In other words, youre ASSUMPTION that oral tradition is not accurate is just that, an assumption without any basis in fact.
As to the pre-existing manuscripts from Qumran, the great Isaiah scroll two centuries before Christ, reads so close to the Masoretic Text that in the English translation no changes would appear.
Your breezy view of copying leaves out the work of the Masoretes from the fourth to the tenth centuries AD. We have their latest and final productions virtually complete.
They totaled the total number of columns in a book, say Isaiah. They counted the total number of words. They counted the total number of letters (consonants all). They compared these stats with the newly-copied scroll. It had to match with absolute precision (the counting was done backward so as to avoid the impediment of “reading” something that might make sense but was not what the precursor scroll said.
All scripture was inspred BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, not in the general non-theological sense of “an inspired painting” etc. To create theology based on these breezy vague concepts is to reduce Scripture to a merely human production. Without faith (which is based on sound evidence, as the author of Hebrews so correctly observes) it is impossible to please God.
JM,
I couldn’t have written it better. Excellent!
The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God and that is exactly why some disbelieve them! They cannot see or understand God, so they discredit everything He has done and will do in the world!
What am I missing here?
I totally fail to see that whether Eve was created from Adam’s rib (German or English translations) or from Eve’s side (French translations) changes any doctrine, real or imagined. Using either the rib or the side to argue either for or against “male headship” is at the very most an argument from weak analogies.
Are we really debating about how much of Eve literally came from Adam as opposed to from other sources (1% or 2%, 20% or 40% or pick your fraction)? How much of Adam’s DNA was cloned in Eve? Is this really the point of the Bible narrative?
What does it mean to “cleave” to one another? It seems clear to me that the purpose of this Genesis narrative is that when a man and a woman join together, they are reuniting the two sides of the Image of God. And that in either a man or a woman you have only Half of the Image of God.
And yes this is the original Bible theology of sexual relationships, and yes it does pretty clearly exclude homosexual relationships from representing the complete Image of God.
If you insist on reducing this to the most literal absurdity, then you could conclude that 100% of Adam came from dirt, whereas at most half of Eve came from Adam. Therefore is a man closer to dirt than to his own wife? And did the other half or more of Eve also come from dirt or from stardust?
Really, Jim …
God is sexual? Not according to Jesus (Matthew 22). In fact in the moment in the twinkling of our eye when we put on immortality we may well lose our gender … or maybe we’ll become androgynous … or maybe we’ll become polyamorus … but we will not be one man and one woman cleaving together … according to Jesus … and in more than one place in scripture just to be clear, (Luke 20, Mark 12).
Of course it feels strangely crazy to imagine that the LGBT community may actually be pathfindering eternity rather than hell.
Indeed, none of God’s creation is pathfindering hell.
God sent Jesus to save the Creation, the World. There is no other way. As the disciples asked Jesus, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” Mark 10.
We are all people, created people, and saved by Jesus people.
It seems that we have doubts about this saved by Jesus part when we get to trying to understand how we are saved. Even though Jesus is clear, our salvation is not of ourselves, in trying to figure out salvation we always end up playing a key role in our own salvation … it must be the figuring out part where this mistake arises.
Where did I ever write that God is sexual? Many times on this web site I have written that God is asexual.
Nevertheless, God created humans (Male and Female) in God’s image. The physical union between a man and a woman that gives rise to new life, was intended by God to model the spiritual intimacy among the Godhead that gives rise to all life.
Humans exist in the physical realm whereas the Godhead exist in the spiritual realm. Nevertheless the physical union between man and woman is also intended to be a spiritual union. And the spiritual union that exists within the Godhead produces everything else that now exists, or ever has existed, or ever will exist.
The two Divinely ordained institutions for humans, that consummate the two creation narratives, are the Sabbath and Marriage.
What God has joined together let no human separate.
Are single people incomplete?
Maybe instead of saying that “both are God’s image” and thereby leaving huge numbers out, we should say that “each is a partial representation of part of God’s being, complete unto itself and magnified when united to another created being that also reflects God’s image, complete unto itself and magnified when united with the other half.”
NO. But one single person does not in and of his or her self represent the entire Image of God.
Jesus did so without a wife in my humble opinion.
So in your humble opinion, only Males can fully reflect the Image of God?
This really drives to the heart of the matter.
Right. Not what I said. Each is a complete manifestation of one aspect (male/female and all that entails) of God, who incorporates all of those good qualities.
Why aren’t the stories that Jesus told subject to the microscopic analysis demonstrated here? Simply put, because their value as conveyance of wisdom would be compromised. Myth and allegory transmit meanings, “truth,” if you please, that is unencumbered by vulgar data. The result is a much deeper exposure to things for which there are no adequate words. The Bible stories, such as Creation, Adam and Eve, are far more powerful as myth and allegory than as historical accounts. Minds consumed by reverse engineering the mythical nature via the therefore defective data in hopes of constructing a historical narrative are on a fool’s errand during which the big picture is lost in static noise. The result is nothing but endless blah blah blah, jots and tittles, over mindless minutiae, collected in encyclopedias of opinions that don’t amount in the aggregate to a hill of beans.
Christ’s agenda was to reveal what God is through myth, allegory, metaphor and even hyperbole. The agenda of the current cadre of “Truth” defenders is to reveal that the Bible is God through arguments. Yes, they call it the Word of God, but it amounts to the same thing. Where Christ succeeded magnificently, they flail around with their auto mechanics approach, terrified of myth, metaphor and allegory, and intently twist away with ratchet wrenches on nuts, and bolts. They have shrouded the beautiful stories of the Bible in endless, hopeless, grease covered, analytical details. Christ and the God he revealed is lost. They have no success and their numbers are appropriately dwindling.
In simple terms Christ revealed what God is. Bible defenders reveal what they are in their attempt to make the Bible into what it isn’t.
Jack’s optimistic effort is a perfect example of how an improved item of data has no value in assisting the theory of the Bible as the Word of God. It’s a poor grain on a sand dune of “evidence” but not nearly enough by a million dunes to make the case. Even worse, his attempt to demythologize a rib myth reveals, evidently by the resistance recorded herein, that there is mini-myth acceptance by true believers that ought not to be tampered with!
The Bible is ink on paper. Some of it was words in mind passed through the air to ears. To arrive to us as it now is involved unknown amounts of filtering of its developing contents that has left us with brief views of what others valued. It was all the work of humans. The criteria each used to assimilate from plethora of sources probably available, is mostly unknown to us. So to claim God steered it into our hands with perfect preservation is unsupportable. And that is why the mapping of its details has never and will never succeed.
Micro-scoping details weakens the Bible. But seeing it as myth, allegory and metaphor, it moves us past puny details to a large view without the limitation of words.
I think you have posited a false dichotomy.
Dissecting a thing into its smallest constituent components, does indeed destroy the thing dissected. But on the other hand so does denial that the thing ever existed at all, and is only a figment of the human imagination.
In the first instance you have nothing left. In the second instance you never had anything to begin with.
Of course, Jim, it is a “false dichotomy.” Fuzzy logic rules the religious realm.
You say: “In the first instance you have nothing left. In the second instance you never had anything to begin with.” I say, baloney on both counts.
The Bible as the Word of God is a myth. That is what I began with and that is still left.
Your remark: “Dissecting a thing into its smallest constituent components, does indeed destroy the thing dissected,” perfectly underscores my overall point. The rabbis of old achieved it, Christ avoided it, and the current theoligcrats in pursuit of authorizing the Scriptures are dissectors par excellence, who in their zeal, may not realize they are performing an autopsy!
And exercise of false dichotomy: purposeful limiting to two alternatives, ignoring all others, black or white, a form of fuzzy logic, as a device, is not identical to a “figment of the human imagination.” If it were, it wouldn’t be the favorite currency of preachers!
Bug,
Christ avoided what? The ‘living Word of God’ lived by ‘every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ He knew His heavenly Father through the scripture. Jesus was no mystic. Just read the apocalyptic portions of the gospels, Jesus is not treating scriptural prophecy as myth.
Jesus Christ worked all sorts of ‘mythical’ miracles to confirm, by scripture, he was the Son of God.
William,
I know you are testifying to Jesus and that is what everyone should do, to His Glory and Praise. But to say: “He knew His heavenly Father through the scripture,” is not correct. He is the One of Whom the Scriptures Testify. He is the Word of God Who spoke through the Angels and through the Prophets. The Two Witnesses, the Law and the Prophets, Moses and Elijah, are the ones who Testify of Him. Jesus came to do the will of His Father and to make Him known. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, came from the Father and returned to the Father.
But I think you know all that.
Daniel,
If I qualify, “Jesus knew His Heavenly Father through the Scripture, just as a Man might” Can we agree? Jesus had a unique knowledge of God the Father, but He comprehended His Father through ordinary, human, means. Messiah is – ‘wholly man.’
His knowledge of the Father was not sui generis
I wanted to refute Bug’s comment – Christ’s agenda was to reveal what God is through myth, allegory, metaphor and even hyperbole.
Willian Abbott,
You Wrote: “Jesus knew His Heavenly Father through the Scripture, just as a Man might”
“42 And when He was twelve years old,…….46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” 49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.” Luke 2:41-50.
“38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” John 6:38.
“46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.” John 6:46
“57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” John 6:57
“30 I and My Father are one.” John 10:30
“Messiah is – ‘wholly man.” Messiah was, God in the flesh. But is now the “the Life Giving Spirit”. 1 Cor. 15:45.
“5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.” 6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.” Rev. 21:5-7
“Can we agree?”
William, how did you get your avatar to show up on these threads????
Jack, I see three parts to your critique. The last could well be correct : “. . .tell us more about you, than it tells us about the Bible.”
The other two don’t accurately reflect my position.
Larry,
I see you must have much understanding in spiritual matters, its just that your not revealing it.
So, is it possible for you to make your point using Scripture, rather than using “riddles”? And I’m not attacking you, as you though in another post.
I think my view of Scripture as the record of man’s search for God isn’t useful. Key texting has no value or interest for me. So I can’t meet you in that ring.
As to riddles, (this is where my understanding of spiritual matters rests) I am indebted to the ones Jesus told. You know them probably better than me. I include all his sayings, parables and stories under the term “riddles.” What I like about them is that he usually didn’t flesh them out with details (as best as we can tell). He seemed to be aware that words spoken are received by hearers with internal filters providing appropriate adjustments for that person. He was content with that. His message seemed to be that God is Love, not Jehovah of the Jewish tradition. That identity of God resonates the heart strings. Once awakened, words aren’t necessary for a relationship.
Your understanding of spiritual matters is structured to fit you. That is fine with me. I don’t expect, nor do I have an interest, in swaying you to my point of view.
Actually, I have been surprised at how little I have been “attacked” in the couple of years I have been one of the skunks on the garden party of this forum! My expressed views usually swim against the current, openly so. Either the readers and contributors are very kind and forgiving, or I’m seen as a nut case, not worthy of notice, or just too radical to bother with! Maybe I’m just so often correct there is no rejoinder possible! Yeah right! Why can’t I have my pipe dream? At any rate, I thoroughly enjoy my conversations with you and all the others that have engaged me. I have nothing but respect for everyone across the spectrum of belief on this forum.
So, should you, or anyone, ever wish to toss some stones at me, have at it, my skin could use a few more dings. I’m part German where the attitude about scars is conveyed in this ditty: “Dis vil hurt, but you vil lik it.”
The Bible itself and the writer’s of it would say otherwise. True, parts of the Bible are poetic, narrative, story, allegorical, metaphorical, but also historical, didactic, record, instruction, prophetic, promises/covenantal, etc. The Bible itself through writers of it state it is “God breathed” and instructive for godliness, correction, and so forth. We are “born again” through that word. The Bible isn’t myth or simply outlines and shadows of communication for each individual to simply mold to their understanding. The bible isn’t that simplistic and cannot be redacted to that common of a denominator.
Granted, the discussions on syntax, grammar, genitives, root words, tenses of verbs and quality of nouns as well as etymology can become tedious, dry, and seem to lose the point trying to be made. But it is all very important if we are trying to figure out the meaning of what the Bible says. We can’t be satisfied with a “plain reading” that in reality is a superficial reading of a text.
Thankfully God has given each the ability to think critically and be educated in that ability to learn meaning in the midst of a grand message. Diligent pursuit of finding meaning in what the Bible says for the purpose of self admonition and development has to carry with it a healthy dose of humility and constant realization of the filters one’s personality, culture and upbringing, along with life experiences, bring to the reading of God’s Word. Then just as diligent effort has to be made to not inject meaning through our biases by that bias awareness. It’s a work of a lifetime, but along that lifetime truth anchors are revealed.
A careful work of study will render apparent truth for which God calls His Word. There is truth and it first starts with the TRUTH incarnate and from Him all other truths come and point back to.
While it is true men can make a mess of God’s Word by argument and counter argument we individually are called to read, study and rightly divide it to the saving of our souls through attachment to God which His Word is to lead us into.
Jack, wonderful article! Thanks again for another hit!! God bless
I am so very tired of this battle about who is right and who is wrong. I can not believe that an accident of birth determines the worth and authority of a person. Didn’t Jesus come to save all of humanity, and what was his purpose in doing so? God created human beings in the image of God because God was lonely and wants to demonstrate to the universe that love combined with free choice result in a beautiful relationship. God wants US, all of humanity, God’s children to choose a relationship with God because WE are in love with our Creator and want nothing more than to demonstrate our love for our parent by spending eternity with them.
If you look at genetics then men are 1/2 female being XY. When men marry and become “one” they become even more female because they join with an XX making the man 3/4 female. Something to ponder………..
In my studies of the “rib” issue it is apparent that the Genesis usage in the creation narrative of the first female human is not accurate. It should be “side” and would make more sense in God taking a mirroring half of Adam to construct Eve. Of course, the mirroring half was restored in Adam and a full being was created in Eve. The point being in the narrative as a whole is God went “all out” for Adam’s complimentary partner. God didn’t dredge her up from earth, but He drew her out of Adam himself. It was then that the sixth day ends on the note of “very good.” Eve was a sort of crowning act in the human creation drama. Something closer to Adam than any mate in the animal world Adam had been observing while naming them. She was flesh of his flesh, bone of his bones, not another clay figurine given life qualities. They were mirrors of the other, so to speak.
As incredible as this passage is about the human male/female relation it has to be admitted that it really doesn’t say anything about authority positions (if indeed there are any) between the human couple, directly or indirectly. In fact, there is nothing previous to this passage that would suggest some special authoritative position of the male in relation to the female. In the first chapter the two are seen as equal in co-regency of the world. Chapter two does nothing in anyway to suggest that it wasn’t so. BOTH man and woman were partners in governance under God of the creation God had made. Neither governed the other. The fact of the male being made before the female doesn’t make the male spiritually authoritative over the female. It’s just a fact of his being taken from the ground and she from himself.
God made the male first to demonstrate something in humanity that was lacking: it wasn’t good for the male to be alone. Recall in chapter one that God made humanity “male AND female” as representing God’s likeness and image. The order doesn’t confer nor imply some spiritual heading of the male. The story is to bring out the fact of humanity not being complete without male and female and then God makes the female out of the male showing unqualified oneness, sameness, unity and wholeness. It mitigates against any headship idea. That is read into the text, not derived from it.
It would be humorous if it wasn’t real that educated adults are discussing the creation story as if it was the absolute literal eyewitness report. Does belief in inspiration demand that everything written by ancient, fallible humans is exactly how the beginning of our earth and man began?
Does accepting that there is a god who created us and our world cause us to believe that humans long ago could have told this story any differently, given their limited view of their world which encompassed a very small portion of the globe on which we live?
Were they far more advanced in their knowledge of human anatomy or were they writing as they envisioned how it might have happened?
And did the writers of the second story in Genesis 2, tell a quite different story because there were two separate stories separated by hundreds of years?
Yes Elaine. Of course you wrote into your rhetorical question the problem: The First Creation Story does not say it refers to the creation of the earth, which it flatly states (no, not in traditional English translations, I know) the earth pre-existed. And the Second Story (not really a creation story at all) does not discuss that issue.
And yes, of course, the second “creation story” — actually the opening chapter of The History of the Fall — is very ancient, far preceding Moses, and the Priestly Writer, as all academics (real ones) from liberal to conservative, agree, was quite quite late.
I hasten to add that the idea that Moses “wrote every word” of the Pentateuch is baseless. The Bible does not say any such thing.
And “The Fall” is a concept from the NT. The Torah never even hints of a “Fall.
Jack Hoehn,
“In Genesis 4:1 Eve did not get pregnant and give birth by Adam studying her personality!”
“Spiritually “to know Christ” means to get as close and intimate with Jesus as we possibly can get, it means to deeply love him, not just to understand him or think about him.”
“To know Christ and be known by Him is not a casual encounter, it is the most important work of our lifetime, one that only long practice can make perfect.”
Your remarks clearly indicate you did not understand anything I wrote.
I did not say “knowing” had anything to do with getting pregnant, but rather the close personal relationship man and woman should experience even before coming together for the purpose of child bearing.
And, yes, to Love Jesus is the most important Spiritual experience we can every have. But don’t think you or anyone can achieve that without being “One with Him in Spirit”. And without the Holy Spirit, no “practice can make perfect”.
Also, very interesting how you inject your “EDITED” remarks, all in “bold print”, as though you are the ultimate authority on the subject. Correct me if I’m wrong?
Part 1 of 2
Whoo – well, William Abbott, I am opening myself up to attack on many fronts, but here goes…
First, please note that there are TWO accounts of creation in Genesis. The first account in Genesis 1 gives us an overview of all that God PLANNED to create, and then created, in the span of six days. We get an understanding from Genesis 1 of how everything was created. But in the second account in Genesis 2, we get the specific story of the creation of just Adam’s home, Eden, and the efforts God made to make Adam comfortable and content there. We must merge the two accounts together to get a full understanding of the creation events.
If we take Scripture at face value (which I do, although I understand that some here prefer to believe that Scripture is “oral tradition” and therefore inherently flawed and relatively useless for understanding the Divine), no, Adam was not “whole” at the creation. Scripture tells us this: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26-27 (Note to those who believe the God of the Old Testament is not the same God of the New: Notice that God said “Let US make man…” Does God have multiple personality disorder? No; rather, the Godhead – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – were all complicit in the creation events. They were co-creators. Reference John 1:1-5: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” Jesus didn’t just waltz into the New Testament as a new character in the story. He has always been, He will always be. He is the God of both the Torah [Old Testament] and the New Testament.)
AFTER having created Adam, God planted a garden in a land called Eden, and placed Adam within it. God then caused to spring from the ground pretty and edible trees and plants for Adam to admire and from which to eat. “…then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Genesis 2: 7-9
Part 2 of 2
At this point, God created MORE animals from Eden’s dust – every animal and bird that He had already created elsewhere on earth – and brought them before Adam for him to name them. “‘Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.” Genesis 2:18-20
WAIT, now! Hold the show! God first created the beasts and the birds to keep Adam company, and assist him with the maintenance of Eden?! It’s true. But even though God was there with Adam, as were the beasts and the birds, God knew that Adam was missing something – a helpmate, a partner. Isn’t “missing some part” the very definition of “incomplete”? Just as we, as created beings, feel incomplete without the indwelling of our Creator, so did God know that Adam felt incomplete. God had made this gorgeous garden, with plants and fruits that were pleasing to both Adam’s eye and palate, through which bountiful and nourishing rivers flowed (Genesis 2:10-14), and in which every species of beast and bird frolicked and flew, and in which the Lord kept Adam company…and yet, despite all of God’s efforts to create a literal paradise for Adam, something was lacking.
What’s a loving, concerned, compassionate and empathetic Creator to do? How does God, Who had thus far made every effort to bring pleasure and comfort to Adam, respond to this dilemma? “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” Genesis 2:21-22 (Note: I’m using the RSV, so I’m writing what appears in it and at this point am not debating the “rib vs. side” issue.) God is yet striving to please and fulfill Adam, and thus presents Eve to him as the solution to his feeling of incompleteness. And how does Adam respond? His feelings for Eve are immediate, passionate, intimate and joyful! Adam recognized Eve as the “something” that had heretofore been missing, the piece of his identity that had made him heretofore incomplete. He exclaims, ““This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:23 It is here where we get a full understanding that Adam had been searching for, longing for and deeply desiring an equal counterpart. He had seen that for the ram there was the ewe, and for the lion the lioness, but for himself there was no female counterpart. But now, there is! And Adam declares, “This AT LAST is bone of my…
Whoops – my bad! Part 3 of 3
In all of Eden Adam has looked for, and failed to find, his counterpart among God’s created beings, but the moment he laid eyes on Eve he rejoiced, “AT LAST!”
The remainder of Genesis 2 explains the magical union of male and female through their beautiful, spiritual and Creator-ordained sexual coupling. The man “cleaves”, or literally, attaches himself, to his wife, at which point the couple is so enjoined, so indistinguishable and inseparable from the other, that they become “one flesh” (reference Genesis 2:24). It is during this coupling with Eve that Adam becomes complete. I have the blessing of being married to the man God chose for me, and when we make love, even after almost eighteen years of marriage, we experience this uniting – this commingling of body, mind and spirit – during which we are truly “one flesh”, and whereby our partnership is edified, reaffirmed and rejuvenated.
Now, do I choose to split hairs and imagine that Adam was “incomplete” in the sense that he was a unilateral creature with half a head, half a torso, and with one arm and one leg? Of course not! That’s just silly! But do I believe that Adam was incomplete in the sense that he innately sensed that there was something missing even amid the glory of Eden? Yes, because as I’ve demonstrated above, it’s what my Bible tells me. And personally, it’s how I felt (incomplete) when I was single. Was I capable of navigating life without my husband? Of course. But I’ll tell you what – life is SO much better with someone to share it with, and with whom to rejoice when it’s smooth sailing and whom to lean on in times of trouble. We are multiple times more fulfilled and functional together than we were as unmarried individuals.
I know the question will be raised, so I’ll head it off at the pass: Does everyone feel this need for an “other”? Well, there are confirmed bachelors and bachelorettes – those who never marry in the societal sense – but other than nuns and priests (and even they are not always excluded!), I haven’t yet known someone who hasn’t sought the occasional “creature comfort”, so to speak. They may not marry, but they certainly aren’t celibate! Which leads me to believe that, yes, even they feel the pull of aloneness and seek to assuage it. And what of homosexuals? you may ask. Obviously, they, too, feel the pull to be joined with another, but their type of union isn’t what God created. I’m not debating here whether I support or don’t support LGBT rights, or whether homosexual unions are right or wrong – I’m simply saying that their union is not what God created. And of course there are those who innately “know”, as Paul discusses, that they should not marry (for any variety of reasons. Paul doesn’t expound on the reasons – he simply says that there are some individuals who should not marry, i.e., remain celibate).
Please understand that I’m not jumping on the WO bandwagon, whether for or…
My bad again… Part 4 of 4…Oh, gosh! Don’t holler at me for my “excessive” post, as has happened to me in the past!
Please understand that I’m not jumping on the WO bandwagon, whether for or against. I’m only responding to Mr. Abbott’s question regarding Adam’s completeness during creation.
One last note: yes, Christ is fully and wholly complete…but not on His own! He is, after all, one part of the Godhead – He is not fully “God” without the presence of the Father, nor is the Father fully “God” without the presence of the Son, nor is the Spirit fully “God” without the presence of the Father and the Son. Christ Himself acknowledges this countless times in the NT, and in fact commanded His disciples to baptize believers in the name (note, not names as in plural, separate individuals) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. My husband postulates, even, that the result of the sexual coupling of husband and wife – the experience of being “one flesh” – is God’s physical metaphor for how the Godhead exists as three-in-one. NOT that God is sexual – let’s not jump on that one! – but rather a way for us mere humans to get the tiniest grasp on how God is three Persons, with each Person serving His Own function while simultaneously operating as a Whole and in the interest of the Whole.
Anyway, that’s my contribution to the discussion, for what you may or may not glean from it. 🙂
Some rather creative and speculative comments on this subject, to say the least.
LOL Bill Sorensen! So I used actual Scripture, in context and as written, in my response above and you pronounce it “creative and speculative”…. There is just NO pleasing you! Methinks you do not “fear” “doing” or “not doing” something to earn or cost you your salvation, but rather you live with the perpetual fear that you are not saved yet at all. Today, on this holy day, I will rejoice that I am saved, while you worry about what you must “do” to be saved, and the truth is yet the Truth – God loves you and me equally. I praise Him that He is the ONLY truth and the ONLY One who is right. That way, I don’t have to be! 😉 Sabot shalom!
Apparently, Heather, you weren’t in “twubble” by disobeying the important rules of the Offical Site of Adventist Today, even the rules that are hidden away rather than clearly stated or followed, and even a “rule” that was pronounced on another thread but is nowhere published on this site.
Oh well, maybe you are being given the courtesy of being a fine lady (as I presume).
I note my other comments disappeared without a trace or a response, which is certainly unprofessional to put it mildly. Anyway Heather, go extensive any time you like! But be careful about proof-texting your way through the bible.
It is not a safe way to answer the question “What did tnis mean to the author and original intended audience?” and ends up usually meaning “What do I think the Bible means on this topic?” which becomes little more than personal opinion.
…Let me add that in the second narrative (which begins in Gen 2:4 BTW) Adam and Eve are fully grown children. They only perceive their nakedness (a Hebrew metaphor for sexuality; you don’t want to “uncover the nakedness” of anyone unless it is your legit spouse — or spouses if you’re talking the rules about polygamy.
Once they “knew that they were naked” the nature of experience has kicked in. You might say that they left the garden as learning teenagers. Only after that event do we have children being born, for the probationary period they were under was over. Obviously you don’t want kiddies until the parents have passed or failed the test.
The INITIAL “ADAM” of the second story is androgynous, being within that person both male and female. A short time later that person becomes two equal persons, the two “sides” of mankind having been separated out.
Heather,
Thank you for your extensive response to my assertion that Adam was complete at the creation and Eve is created not complete him, but to compliment him. She is created to be Adam’s helpmate and she ‘helps’ him reflect the creator’s image through procreation.
The Genesis account, as you say, taken at face value, makes plain that Eve was created for Adam. Adam was not created for Eve. The text leaves no doubt “who’ is ‘whom’s’ help mate. There is nothing in the text that speaks to equality between man and woman. That is why we have to listen endlessly to ‘rib’ stories. “not from the head, not from the foot, blah, blah..”
We logically reason men and women must be equal when the text explicitly teaches us they are not. One of the reasons your response is so long is you have to explain what the scripture is saying – if you would just ‘take it at face value’ you would know what it is saying.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but wouldn’t ‘fulfilled’ better describe the changes you experienced at marriage? You used the word ‘incomplete’ to describe your condition before matrimony. Purpose is what is missing. That is why it is not good for man to be alone. Our purpose is to love. And we show our love through service.
It is in doing unto others others we fulfill the commandments. The headship of Christ is a headship of service. I would posit there is no concept of service between equals. I never serve my wife and my child, my parent or my LORD, as my equal.
We are surely equal in one thing. We have an equal portion in death. We are equally sinners. Everything else is differentiated. Equality is not a thing to be grasped.
Jesus did not grasp equality with the Father: He humbled Himself as a servant, even unto death. And that is the main thrust of my argument. Jesus is the second Adam and He is utterly complete in Himself. He is a man. He is wholly man. There is no second Eve by His side. There would be no Jesus without Mary. God chose Mary for the most exalted role. But Mary does not ‘complete’ Jesus Christ. He is complete in Himself. He is the chosen suffering servant of God. Serving His heavenly Father by reigning over chosen Israel as her King.
Whether or not a man takes a wife, it is not good for him to be alone. We are not autonomous souls. God loves and chooses Israel ‘for the sake of the fathers.’ We live and move and have our being in God and our parents and our children. You are complete, but unfulfilled and without purpose, apart from family.
That is why God reveals Himself to us as our Father and Messiah is revealed as God’s only begotten Son.
The WO thing is why I asserted inequality comes from the beginning. Heather, do you think women should be ordained as elders and pastors in the Adventist church? Do you think women are equal with men?
Be reminded that modern studies on oral tradition show how remarkably stable oral tradition was. In fact, though non-scholars would not assume this because it is counter-intuitive, oral tradition avoided many corruptions that written tradition was by its nature open to.
This is the 90th comment of this subject, with some controversy. The following from the KJV & NIV,
GEN.1:27
So God created man in His own image. In the image of God He created him, MALE & FEMALE He created them.
GEN.2:7
the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground(ADAM, in Hebrew adamah means ground) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.
Gen.3:19
“you will return to the ground, for dust you are, and to dust you will return. man, adam, (ADAM, male & female.
Gen.5:1
When God created man, He made him in the “likeness” of God. verse 2: He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, He called them “man”.
The Bible is fairly explicit. You are privileged to see it as you will.
Now to a question i have:
Gen.6:2
“the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose”.
Who were these sons of God??
Gen,6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the “heroes of old”, men of renown.
Any feedback of these verses?? Space aliens??
It is always interesting to see how the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis is cited EXCEPT in creating woman: then it jumps from the “God created man in his image, male and female” to the story in Gen. 2 where Adam is God’s first creation and he is alone, observing all his world being created; names the animals, and FINALLY, at the close of Creation, Eve is created, hence the rib story!
There is absolutely no method that can combine to harmonize these two entirely different stories. Man and woman were either created at the same time, or the day-by-day events are inconsistent with Adam being created first. Why should either one be believed and how disingenuous to attempt to combine two entirely different stories!
Elaine,
These two stories are entirely different if they are about physical creation. If they are about God, then they are describing different aspects of God’s establishing relationship as God with the cosmos, including humanity. This is how John Walton views Genesis in his wonderfully readable book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve. Highly recommended and readable book by a deservedly respected scholar and writer … who believe that the bible is verbally inspired and inerrant, that Adam and Even were real people, and that Genesis is not about ex nihilo creation. Walton makes wonderful sense and eliminates the the supposed forced choice between special revelation and natural revelation.
The First Creation Story is about the creation of the Race of Adam (mankind, which is what “adam” means) and associated animals. The “earth/ground” (NOT A PLANET!) pre-exists.
The second narrative — not a “creation” story at all, but the opening chapter of “The History of the Fall” — is NOT about that topic. Rather, it is about the setting up of Yahweh God’s garden in the East, in the eden, Sumerian for “upland plateu” and according the rivers cited was in the Armenian Knot in the farthest northwest of Iraq.
The time for the animals the Hebrews recognized as part of the world of man to be named would be very brief indeed. When the narratives are read carefully, noting their very different topics, the the statement “There is absolutely no method that can combine to harmonize these two entirely different stories” is simply wrong.
I know you prefer that it be true, but it is not.
Hi, JM. This is truly a question – not a challenge! – so that I can continue to develop a greater understanding of the Word. You said (I think – I’m paraphrasing a bit, so please correct me if I’m wrong) that the animals named were only those that the Hebrews “recognized”. Are you saying that God only created in Eden the animals that were “relevant” to the Hebrews? The idea makes sense, because there were literal thousands of species of creatures made, and not all would have been compatible (at least not in their present state) with life in Eden. A penguin, for example, seems like it would be out of place in Eden, and I doubt a Hebrew ever ran across an Emperor penguin!
But then, this notion leads me to wonder about the flood, because the flood covered the whole earth and therefore every animal needed to be preserved. So were there Emperor penguins on the ark, being an animal that Noah would not have encountered, and likely didn’t exist in his area of the planet? Or did animals hyper-evolve post-flood?
I’m sincerely, genuinely interested in your “take” on these things. I’m interested in open discussions and an ever-clearer understanding of God and Scripture, not based necessarily on something someone says, but based on new ideas I can think about and investigate Scripturally and prayerfully and either keep or discard. No attacks here, I promise! 🙂
When ancient writers wrote of the “whole world” it could not have included the entire earth as we today know, as their world was very small and bounded by what they knew. Just as those who drew maps thousands of years later had vague ideas of lands where “beyond their be dragons” the perceptions were obviously limited. God did not give them 21st century information.
So, when writers said “the world” was covered with water, it’s no different than a small child seeing the ocean for the first time: there’s nothing but water out there! Their perception was their reality, but it cannot be ours today. There are absolutely no confirmations possible showing of a world wide flood covering all the tops of mountains.
Even more precisely than Elaine’s answer, let me tell you what the cosmos — the universe — looked like to all the peoples of the Ancient Near East (ANE) includint the Hebrews.
The earth was a flat pancake or waffle (sometimes its corners are mentioned, though in other places the circle of the earth is mentioned.) The cosmos was shaped like an egg, and each half was biseted by the floating earth.
The upper world was bounded by a crystal dome that rotated. The ancients knew this because they could SEE it happening. The north star was the pinnacle of the dome, and thus Jerusalem is set “on the slopes of the North” in the Psalm. That is, there was an equivalence between the Temple on Zion and the Temple on the Heavenly Zion.
There is a whole wonderful book on this, “The Cosmic Mountain in the Ancient Near East” by R. J. Clifford.
The earth floated on water. The folks of ANE knew this too, because they could “prove” is. Everywhere you dug down, even in ehe midst of the Great Arabian Desert, you came to the water under the earth.
The bottom half of the egg was this “sweet” (not salt) water, and was the realm of death of Mot (death) and the seven-headed dragon Leviathan. Just as Leviathan had come up on the earth in times of chaos (Rahab) in the past, it would again in the future.
This is why the Psalmist says that the earth (NOT A PLANET) is Yahweh’s to the fullest extent: because He founded it upon Seas and established it upn River (the river that runs beneath the earth from which springs are fed.
Hence we are warned not to make “an image of anything that is in the heavens above, the earth beneath, or the wsters that are under the earth.” Most modern readers don’t have a clue what this is really saying.
As to Leviathan, Isaiah assures us that on the Day of the Lord the seven-headed serpent will meet its final cycle and be slain by the great sword of Yahweh. See Is 27:1.
The “mountains” known to the ANE mind were “hills” compared to say, the Himalayas, of which they knew nothing. (They talked voraciously about everything they knew or thought they knew, and their silence speaks!)
In fact, “hills” is a meaning of “harim” and in preparing a highway for Yahweh’s chariot to return from Babylon, the prophet calls for every “hillock” to be leveled and every pocket to be filled in to make a smooth ride. See Is 40. That is a TINY hill and a TINY hole, one that New Yorkers wouldn’t even notice.
The tripartite cosmos is well known to scholars and its references are numerous in extra-biblical material as well as the biblical materials.
I have a way to show you the ancient cosmos. Click on the link provided here:
https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/293663_222585497793354_7893796_n.jpg?oh=f28d6f2088511b477430173bbabd8acf&oe=55C6E67E
Painting by Gary Hunt, 1974, c. Melek Ministries Not for reproduction.
Earthquakes are described as the result of the earth thrashing around on the waters when Leviathan stirred them up. This was a sign of impending chaos.
The upper world and heavenly cosmic mountain was the realm of light and life. The lower half was the realm of darkness and death. Isaiah, however, says that Yahweh creates light and darkness, both.
In other words, the cosmos is not divided into gods of life and gods of death. The second “creation” story (not a creation story at all, but the opening chapter of “The History of the Fall”) calls “God” Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh God.
AND note please that the First Creation Story uses ONLY the term “Elohim” for God the creator. Now, what is interesting here is that it is the PLURAL and means literally “gods” and thus raises the important point the Hebrews were claiming during periods when they were faithful.
Yahweh is in Himself what ALL THE GODS OF THE PAGAN WORLD WERE COMBINED. You see, the “gods” were only the forces of nature PERSONIFIED. What we call “myths” look like simple stories about the gods and their interaction. And yet when you understand what each of these gods personified, what forces of nature are being discussed, you realize that you are reading not merely a “religious” text but also a “SCIENTIFIC” text that describes how and why the forces of nature interact, as the peoples of ANE understood it.
When you discard “earth” as a PLANET (it was centuries after the OT before the Greek astronomers noticed that some “stars” did not follow the geometrical patter that would be required to be a star, and a new category, “wanderers” was created. Eventually the wanderers were designated as planets, the earth — it was realized — was one of them, and thus the earth became a PLANET.
Long long long after the First Creation Story. Which suddenly becomes much more sensible once you know what it is about. The Bible was written for COMMUNICATION between God and man. Can you imagine the chaos that would have resulted if God began by saying the earth is not floating solidly upon the primeval sea?
Rather, it is a huge ball that floats on nothing, hangs on nothing, is ITSELF rotating, etc. The hullaballoo that would have arisen would have been worse than the nonsense so often seen on these threads!
So the message of salvation was carried in the thought processes of the ancient world. Why argue that the earth did not sit on water when it so “OBVIOUSLY” DID? This is where fundamentalist concepts like the Bible is a perfect scientific text are completely bogus.
The “earth” probably should not be mentioned in reference to creation or the flood, because moderns when they hear “earth” immediately supply “PLANET EARTH” as the meaning.
NOPE!
So when the First Creation story says “eretz” it means “ground” every time. God made the cattle, the birds, the fish, the things that creep along the ground and things that swarm. All of these were part of the daily life and the words in constant use in terms of what the Hebrews regularly experience.
The First Creation Story details the creation of mankind (“adam” means mankind) and hence we should properly say “The Race of Adam” AND “associated animals” to be precise.
Despite long-winded misinformed arguments on another thread, the events of the sixth day would not have taken more than a few hours, even if we read backward and stick the whole story of Eden into the First Creation Story.
(Since it pre-existed the seven-day creation story, the author and editors certainly saw the differences and had no concern whatever. For, as you correctly said, one story is about “earth/eretz” the whole flat pancake, and the other is about the garden in the east in the “eden” (a Sumerian word for the upland plateau in the far northeast of modern Iraq).
One is a “the whole eretz” and the other is “a garden in the eden” and both fit together ever so nicely!
No, no penguins. Certainly no crocodiles. No orangutans, and even though I have proof (lots of paintings of the ark) that Noah knew about giraffes, they were not discussed as part of the creation narrative.
Which begins in Gen 1:1 with a reading that is completely, totally, utterly different than what we find in our English Bibles!
JM – sign up for WordPress. It’s the engine behind many blogs, including today.org
Its free. You can use html script then to edit text in WordPress comments. You can do your own blog. That’s why my gorilla shows up.
Oh, Elaine….I was so hoping you’d lay your war against the Old Testament aside, understand that Christ is your CREATOR and cease your attacks on Him, but alas… I guess He survived worse, huh? After all, it was His Own people who demanded His death. It’s so sad that some people choose to crucify him again, and again, and again… It hurts my heart that He feels the pain of every expressed denial here of Who He is – the Truth, the Word! – but I know there have been times in my life (and will be again) when I have hurt Him, so I’m not judging. I only feel sad, for Him and for those who deny Him.
Having said that, it has never been “disingenuous” for those who study the Bible to cross-reference verses and passages to gain a better understanding of it. For example, it’s virtually impossible to understand Revelation without cross-referencing it with Daniel and other Biblical texts, be they prophetic or literal. In fact, the first Bible my dad gave me is called the “Thompson Chain Reference Bible”, which assists the reader to build text upon text upon text to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of Scripture. We have concordances that allow us to choose a word – say, goat – and find every occurrence of that word in the Bible. My husband and I did just such a study using a concordance (and the assistance of the Spirit!) to understand “what” hell is, having looked up every occurrence of “hell”, “hades”, Sheol”, et. al. It was through reading multiple texts, and understanding the comprehensive “picture” painted by all of the texts, used together, that we arrived at the answer.
You know, when I was younger I loved to draw and paint. I also wrote lots of poetry (and still do) and short stories. Even today I love to do little crafts with my son. God created me, in other words, with an artistic streak. Early on, the artist in me recognized the Artist in my Creator, and I also became infatuated with collecting animal skulls. From the time my dad found and gave me the opossum skull he found in the woods when I was ten or so, I was hooked and have collected skulls. Morbid? Maybe. But I am simply fascinated by them, because in each one I see an intelligent design. And just like one can readily identify a Dali painting by its characteristics and qualities, one can see the Artist Who created each skull in my collection. Each differs in its way, from duck to alligator to raven to mink, but you can clearly see that they have been made by the same Artist.
My point? When an artist creates, he or she first has an inspiration and plans how to physically execute that inspiration – will it be executed in oils or watercolor, in plaster or clay, as poetry or prose? The artist first PLANS, and then creates! To me, I see this planning in Genesis 1 when God says, “Let us create…” A plan was first made, and then it was executed. “What shall birds look like?” And then a species of parrot is imagined, and a species of hummingbird is…
imagined, and a species of owl is imagined, and as quickly as they are imagined they are created, complete with their colors and behaviors and sounds! I have no trouble, then, reconciling Genesis 1and 2 with each other. In Genesis 1, the creation plans were made and executed, and we are told which things were created on which day. Genesis 1 says that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. But is the “story” different in Genesis 2, just because we learn that God created Adam before Eve/earlier on the sixth day, and created Eve after Adam/later on the sixth day? Man and woman, He created them on the sixth day. The two accounts are completely compatible and can be understood as the same story because they ARE the same story! The Godhead planned the various creations and then…created! I honestly don’t see how the two accounts are inharmonious.
Heather,
So what was your finding on hell, or, rather, Sheol? Were is it? Or is it too controversial to mention here? I understand. Some would be frightened out of their minds, if they knew.
I truly hesitate to answer this, because I’m big on providing proof texts to support my beliefs. But it’s impossible to share it all here, as our study of “hell” was SO exhaustive, to the point where we loaded up on lexicons and looked at the original languages things were written in (primarily Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. My husband has his theology degree from Andrews, so I’m lucky to have such a learned study partner with a full array of reference tools!), fully mapped out other words critical to our study (like “forever” and “ever” and “eternal”), investigated ancient vernacular relative to such words, studied the Biblical writers’ rhetoric and Christ’s usage of parables, looked at other influential religious and cultural writings (such as those of Dante) to pinpoint where in history the idea of a literal, eternal place of torture germinated, looked at other Biblical accounts of “how” God dealt with wicked people and places, etc.
BUT…our ultimate understanding is that “hell” is simply the grave. However, there is a lake of fire into which sin, Satan, the antichrist and the unrighteous will be tossed at the end of earth’s history and be completely, utterly, forever destroyed. In the lake of fire, they are burned up “until it is finished”, or until they are completely consumed. It won’t be a pleasant final experience for the unrighteous, but it will be a relatively brief experience rather than an eternal, torturous punishment.
It was interesting to us to learn that Jews have no equivalent to the “eternal hell” taught in Christian theology. It is SO critical to study Judaism as Christians, because it is the very root of our religion, and our Savior is a Jew! So if we understand what the non-Pharisaical Jews believed, and therefore what Christ knew/believed, we know what WE should believe. And the truth is that Christ did not believe in a literal, eternal, burning hell in the sense that Christendom does, and is horrified that many of His churches teach such an ungodly theology (especially ungodly in the sense that the notion of hell is so utterly contradictory to the nature of God and how He “dealt with” the wicked in Scripture – that is, he blotted them right out of history. He didn’t torture them forever!). The teaching of hell brings many people into church out of fear, but we all know that attending church doesn’t get one saved! Rather, entering into a loving, intimate relationship with Christ leads us to redemption.
As humans with agendas, vendettas and dreams of “getting even” with those who have wronged us, the traditional hell concept can be appealing. Why wouldn’t I want the man who raped me tortured for eternity! In my human mind, that’s a fine punishment! But praise God that He is kinder, wiser and FAR more just than I am! Praise God that His nature (God is Love!) is such that my unsaved loved ones will not be roasted over hot, blistering flames for eternity! And praise God that His is a…
platform of justice and an agenda of LOVE!
P.S. The counter said, after that last exclamation point above, that I had one character left! So why did it cut off half of my last sentence?
If someone choose to believe God, or Christ, or ? created this world it doesn’t affect me understanding. Everyone is free to believe what they will. Thankfully, here in the U.S. the freedom to believe and have a religion, or no religion is fine.
Christianity adopted many earlier beliefs while eliminating some and adding more. Adventists followed Protestants who followed the one Christian church before the Reformation, bringing some cultural practices and beliefs as well.
From the church in the fourth century, Adventists adopted the statements of the Nicene Creed, not a doctrinal belief of Christians prior to that time. Fundamentalism began in the early 20th century with Protestants developing beliefs that have largely influenced Adventism, while the SdA church developed their own Fundamental Beliefs, which are ongoing and periodically revised.
How should someone baptized before most of those Fundamental Beliefs were formulated be expected to keep adjusting; and is such an individual’s membership always questioned when those are changed? Who determines their necessity?
Daniel,
Are you looking down, up, or over at Jack? It doesn’t matter where Jack is looking, now, does it?
I listened to Dick Tibbits, author of Forgive to Live, today in church. He noted that “How you frame something determines what you see.” This sure seems to describe more of what we see than is in front of our eyes.
Perhaps you see it differently.
And if so this is inevitable. There are many expressions of truth, just not a complete one. Or maybe I am just seeing rather than understanding.
Bill,
Your Godliness surpasses many on this web site. Thank you for your inspiring words. You brought tears to my eyes.
“How you frame something determines what you see.”
There is more spiritual truth in this statement than many could even imagine seeing or understanding. Because the “frame”, or “foundation”, which we build on, is only One, the very Word of God, spoken into our hearts, the Life and beginning of our soul, while still in our mother’s womb.
“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible”. Heb. 11:3.
“That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world”. John 1:9.
This is the “Foundation”, the “Cornerstone” of our souls. But the lies which Satan spreads through his children are destroying that very Godly Foundation and Cornerstone.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you, Bill.
…And may God bless each and EVERY one of us here, according to His omniscience and will, and according to each of our individual needs. Remember, God causes the rain to fall on the righteous and the wicked alike, not just on those who agree with Him!
The blessing of God will only rain for so long; until the Righteous are taken out of the way.
Heather,
The blessing of God will only rain for so long; until the Righteous are taken out of the way.
Heather,
“And may God bless each and EVERY one of us here, according to His omniscience and will, and according to each of our individual needs.” Unfortunately the “needs” of some, on this web site, are not according to the will of God, but their own. Glorifying man and their agenda.
But I’m sure you understand that? God bless you with His Love and peace, through Jesus Christ His Son.
Hi, Daniel. In the interest of transparency, yes, I do see that there are individual “agendas” in play here. Some strive to discredit Scripture by calling OT accounts “myths” or “oral traditions”, some want to see women “kept in their place”, some desire to make truth relative, and some push to defend the holiness of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.
Have you read the second book or seen the second film in “The Hunger Games” trilogy? The character Haymitch urges the heroine, Katniss, to “remember who the enemy is” prior to going into an arena designed to pit “randomly” selected contestants against each other, wherein there is a supposed to be a fight to the death with only a sole survivor emerging. Haymitch’s words to Katniss are meant to remind her that her enemies are not those she is pitted against in the arena, but rather the “powers that be” that made a game out of watching people fight for their very lives. The contestants didn’t choose to be there, and therefore were not each others’ enemies. The person who put the contestants into the arena – President Snow, the leader of their collective districts – is their enemy, for it is only by his refusal to abolish the dreadful games that they are played at all.
You see, while each of us may have an “agenda”, the point is that we are NOT each others’ enemies. Even those in this forum who blatantly deny Christ are not the enemies of those who staunchly defend Him and the Book about Him. If we are Christians, we need to remeber that the non-Christians here are NOT the enemy, nor are the Christians who have views that differ from our own. The very Truth the Christian subscribes to tells us that our fight is not with “flesh and blood” (each other, whether slave or freeman, whether servant or master, whether a believer in the Word or a non-believer), but against Satan and his agents. See Ephesians 6, specifically verse 12.
And so I remind my brethren here – NOBODY HERE IS AN ENEMY! Satan is indeed working some strings here, in the righteous and unrighteous alike (just as he is everywhere), but it is he – the prince of this world – that is our enemy! The enemy is not Bill, or Daniel, or Jack, or Heather. Oh, sure, the devil may use us sometimes, but we must not allow him to make things personal among us!
To my brethren here, remeber also what we should do as followers of Christ IF we love our Savior! “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15 What does Jesus command? “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John 13:34 Why is it so important to keep His commandments, including this “new” one? “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:35
Remember who the enemy really is! And if you love Jesus, DO what makes you identifiable as a lover of Christ! Show love for each other! “Attack” untruth, not the…
Heather,
Firstly, thank you for your explanation on my question about “hell”. Have you considered the Bible verses which mention: the heart of man; eternity; the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty; consumed by the horrors of the pit; the bottomless pit? And, no, the “Lake of fire” mentioned in Revelation is not what Jesus is talking about in the Gospels. But where in all this is Jesus Christ? His Spirit works in all those who are being called, transforming them into His Likeness. He is the One Who “fills all in all.” Eph. 1:22, 23. How awesome is His Greatness? How awesome is His Love?
You say that “nobody here is an enemy”. And that we should “show love for each other”. The sad truth is, we can all have “bitter and sweet” flowing from us at different times. And it all depends how we react to others around us. But there are many things which are causing the “power of the holy people” to be “completely shattered”; it is “because of lawlessness the Love of many shall grow cold”. That Love is the Love of God, it not the love of man, for man’s love is nothing compared to God’s Love. So how devastating is that, to see that the Spirit of God will be “quenched” because of the wickedness in this world?
I don’t have a problem with most of the people on this web site, but when someone thinks they are above everyone else by commandeering all the commentator’s comments, by injecting his views, rather, his destructive remarks, criticizing everything they have written with his “holier than thou” attitude, then what do you think? We should all just put our heads down and take it? One of the biggest problems in this world is when the righteous do nothing in the face of evil. And don’t get me wrong, I am far from being righteous! None of us are righteous of ourselves. And forgiveness is not a one way act. We can forgive others in our hearts, but the process has not been completed, because the one who has caused the harm has not asked for forgiveness.
Many speak about the Love of God, but how many really know what that Love is?
Thank you for your interest in me. God bless you.
I’ll post this comment in reply to you, but I wander if it will do this, as there have been many strange things happening on the blog. Some of my comments have been deleted, and many have been placed 5 or more places above the last comment, where I originally posted them.
Daniel,
I will jump in here at the bottom of these posts. Because here you are less likely to miss my response – its a long blog. I do think we are agreed, but I want to make one more observation in support of my comment that Jesus Christ knew His heavenly Father through the scriptures.
In the desert, when He was tempted, He understood the mystical satanic visions for what they were – because he knew His heavenly Father through the Scriptures. It was through scripture He answered. He lived by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
It is why what we are doing here is more important that it appears.
As an aside; it is why we are discussing, endlessly, the state of the dead. The scripture leaves us with only a little we can know. We must be content and say, “I do not know.” We have never been content not knowing. …and that is where the trouble began.
William Abbott,
Could you please explain what you mean by “satanic visions”?
The devil tempted Jesus Christ in the wilderness. He took the LORD to the top of the temple and then up on a high place where he showed Him the kingdoms of the earth in all their glory. When the temptations ended and Satan departed angels ministers to our LORD in the wilderness.
I have no knowledge of the physical mechanics of those temptations. I used the term “satanic visions” only because Jesus is in the wilderness at the beginning and the end of the temptations. The text doesn’t call them satanic visions. I probably shouldn’t either.
William Abbott,
Excuse my use of your full name as the individual “reply” buttons aren’t working.
If you understand the events of Jesus’ temptations to have been visions, how would you explain how Jesus saw these visions?
I only know what the bible says. It doesn’t refer to Christ’s temptations as visions. Neither should I. I will offer no explanation.
William,
If Jesus, the Son of God, knows the thoughts of every living being, would not Jesus have known what was in Satan’s mind?
my response is back up a ways – don’t know why
William,
My response is also back up a ways
Well, well, something about which we can all agree with Mr. Sorensen about: “Hello? Is this whole thread weird or what? I think it is a spiritual “nut house” of loonies like myself. I wonder if God can laugh and cry at the same time and for the same reason?”
First class.
Ervin,
I’m glad you agree.
I do believe others who yield to such a temptation would call it a vision from God. They would deceive themselves
Jack Hoehn,
Firstly, this WO issue has nothing to do with God, as I said earlier, nor do I care what people do. But what I see here is not equality, but beating everyone who opposes the agenda into submission. That will only work with those who opposes if they are in “your kingdom”.
“Edit by Jack:Inspired writers like Ellen White frequently edited and revised their messages finding better words to express their thoughts.” Inspired, according to who?
“Interestingly, research has shown that regeneration of ribs can occur. So Adam may not have lost his rib permanently anyway.”
“Edited by Jack: Except it wasn’t a rib! In Adam’s Deep Sleep trance it was his whole side, his half that had to be regenerated!” According to who, EGW?
Leviticus 6:18, 29
“All the males among the children of Aaron may eat it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations concerning the offerings made by fire to the Lord. Everyone who touches them must be holy.”
“Edit by Jack: Leviticus 10:14-15 “But you and your sons and your daughters may eat the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented.”
Leviticus 6:14, 24, speaks about the “grain offering made by fire”.
Leviticus 10:12-15, speaks about the “breast of the wave offering” and the “thigh of the heave offering”, together with the “remains of the grain offering made by fire”.
So what’s your point, Jack, using a different “Offering” to support one’s theory?
Jack Hoehn,
I’ll just repost this one also, as you ‘DELETED” this one too.
“A male alone is fine, but a male alone is incomplete as far as God and His image are concerned.”
The Image of God: God the Eternal Mind, The Eternal Word and the Eternal Holy Spirit.
The image of God in man: The human mind, the inner word, the spirit of man.
Where does flesh and blood stand in your reasoning?
Speaking as someone who has no strong conviction either for or against women’s ordination, I would be willing to wager almost anything that the ‘truth’ on this matter—and almost any theological matter we discuss—falls somewhere between Hoehn’s and Sorensen’s positions. (That said; Jack’s writing is first class.)
I’m ‘betting’/thinking Bill’s interpretations are ‘warm’ but his conclusions are off; and Hoehn’s interpretations are off, but his conclusions are ‘warm.’ And while Bill seems right about the liberal theological approach and agenda, I think he is wrong about what God intended. Where/what is the scriptural evidence that, had there been no sin, there would have been a God-ordained hierarchy in the family?
Does anyone else perceive a natural, organic nexus between Jack’s approach and Bug’s question (“Why aren’t the stories that Jesus told subject to the microscopic analysis demonstrated here?”)? Bugs may mean “the stories told about Jesus;” which would have us ‘reinterpreting’ miracles.
“Where/what is the scriptural evidence that, had there been no sin, there would have been a God-ordained hierarchy in the family?”
Stephen, this issue is so obvious I find it amazing that anyone would even ask who has any concept of this issue in the bible.
Adam is king, period. What part of this reality is obscure? And he is king over all humanity, not just nature. He was to reign under Christ’s rule and authority. So, Jesus is called, “King of kings, and Lord or lords.” What’s so obscure about this? Nothing. Simply put, women are not kings. Nor does the term imply in any way that women can ever be kings. God has ordained this order of authority, just as He has ordained various orders of authority in heaven.
Anybody can understand it if they want to. Nobody will understand it if they don’t want to. We can choose to believe anything we want to, but “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.” Wolfe
Bill,
And it is so obvious that you cannot muster even a single place in the Bible where Adam is called King. And you can only fall-back on highly selective excerpts from Ellen’s commentary on these topics. What do you think the phrase “let THEM have dominion” (dominion being the closest word to king you can find in the Genesis narrative) actually says? If you believe that God created both Adam and Eve within a fairly short interval then how can you rationally claim that THEM refers only to ADAM?
“Anybody can understand it if they want to. Nobody will understand it if they don’t want to. We can choose to believe anything we want to, but “Just because you won’t accept it, won’t change it.””
On this principle ironically enough, we entirely agree 8-).
Bill Sorensen,
Generally speaking (very generally) I am sympathetic to your view and approach. But just because you happen to believe the Bible you can’t make assertions that do not have any specific scriptural basis. Believing the Bible or being theologically conservative does not give us license to assume that which personally appears reasonable to assume.
My question is ““Where/what is the scriptural evidence that, had there been no sin, there would have been a God-ordained hierarchy in the family?” must be carefully read. “Had there been no sin” where is the indication or the even the implication that there would have been a hierarchy? Where is the scriptural indication or implication that there would have been any monarchy?
You are now talking to a conservative. Just give me the Bible on this. My belief is that Genesis 3:16 is part of curse caused by human disobedience. (That’s what doesn’t seem “obscure” to me.) So if it’s part of a curse, how could it have been in effect if the curse had not been given? Why would it have been in effect? Why would God have told Eve that her husband would rule over her if in fact he was already doing so?
Well, Stephen and Jim, I think this quote by EGW is very clear, and she simply articulates the obvious for anyone who will accept it. So, if you think EGW is not scriptural on this point, you must explain how Adam is not king from the beginning. And as to the fact the Eve also “reigns”, so what? A queen reigns in harmony with the king, but she does not have equal authority.
By the way, there is no specific statement in the NT where it says, “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” None the less, the continuity between old and new testament is so clear and plain that we don’t need any statement telling us again what has already been clearly affirmed in the word of God. But EGW stated clearly about Adam in the original creation.
“The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Daniel 4:17. AG 41.1
Among the lower creatures Adam had stood as king …; but when he transgressed, this dominion was forfeited. The spirit of rebellion, to which he himself had given entrance, extended throughout the animal creation. Thus not only the life of man, but the nature of the beasts, the trees of the forest, the grass of the field, the very air he breathed, all told the sad lesson of the knowledge of evil. AG 41.2
Not only man but the earth had by sin come under the power of the wicked one…”
She assumes any rational understanding of Adam’s position was over man, but she wants to affirm that it included all of creation in this world, so she states how it affect not only man, but the animal world as well.
Paul says of himself, “Sold in sin.” And who does he obviously refer to as the one who did it? This is so obvious and plain, that “wayfaring men, though fools, need not err therein.”
And just because Adam and Eve reigned together does not mean Adam is not first in authority. I’m not the brightest bulb on the tree, but even I can comprehend something as obvious as this.
Bill Sorensen,
Without commentary on your ‘bulb,’ you’ve got to do better than this. I’m asking you about Genesis 3:16 Bill. In that verse the Bible clearly states—whether perceived as a prophecy or a curse—that women would somehow thenceforth be subordinate.
The simple question to you is, if that was already the case as you suggest, then why the prophetic curse? I believe EGW to have been given a prophetic gifting for the church’s benefit. But when anyone asks you for scripture, you must give them the Bible only. I believe what EGW writes, but you are spinning what she wrote rather weakly. If God originally considered Adam and Eve as one (Genesis 1:26-28), by what constitution or whose criteria does monarchial hierarchy form?
Mankind was created above the animal ‘kingdom;’ but that is irrelevant to Genesis 3:16.
bearer of that untruth!
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-39
And now I offer my brethren here this challenge: IF you love Jesus, PROVE IT! You know what to do! 🙂
Hello? Is this whole thread weird or what? I think it is a spiritual “nut house” of loonies like myself. I wonder if God can laugh and cry at the same time and for the same reason?
But on a serious note, I still don’t think the bible is taken as seriously as God intended for it to be. And in my evaluation, we have more “bible butchers” in Adventism than real scholars who seek truth more than self affirmation. But this has been the sinful human dilemma for 6 thousand years or so.
Those who think “being right” is not relevant and hope to find peace by way of ignorance is not my take on anything. I perceive that God has created in us a desire to “be right” that is a necessary component for us the find any value in anything we do or say. As one has said, “I would rather be right than president” (Lincoln maybe). And I agree with this statement.
And I would also ask those who claim being right is not relevant, “Do you think being right about your statement is important?” In other words, are you right that being right is not relevant? And how does this stack up to your claim that being right is not relevant?
Excuse me, I found the door. I’ll check in later.
There is none righteous, no, not one.
Little man, how is it possible you are certain you know the mind of THE ALMIGHTY GOD?? And your views and statements are totally TRUTH?? The inspired words of Almighty God were whispered down through the ages by non-first person experience, and written by man sometimes thousands of years later. They are referred to as MYTHS, ALLEGORIES, and METAPHORS. Who, with a certainty know that this method is faulty, when it is ALMIGHTY GOD SPEAKING to man through HIS HOLY BIBLE.
Why, man, do you speak harshly to each other, and judge your neighbors knowledge and integrity, and fitness for the kingdom?? We are all loaded with sin. our complacency is as filthy rags. We must have the perfect love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Grace to conduct us into His Eternal Kingdom. Like the thief on the cross, let us each shout out, SAVIOR, save me!!!!!!
They just deleted me again, while requesting respect by informing me why i was deleted. There was nothing personal in my comment?? Why should we comment on an open forum and have our effort wasted by a key click.
Its very frustrating, and time consuming.
i stand corrected. My message was printed above, several places up. My apologies to atoday.
The original post and the series of comments on it are all wonderful illustrations of how much electronic “ink” will be used in commenting on what was, in all probability, a mythopoetic narrative written by some very creative ancient Hebrew writer to make a theological point.
https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/293663_222585497793354_7893796_n.jpg?oh=f28d6f2088511b477430173bbabd8acf&oe=55C6E67E
Daniel,
My point was Jesus Christ knew His heavenly Father through the Scripture. The mysteries of the incarnation remain mysteries unless the scripture speaks to them.
Let me answer your question with a question. What does the scripture say about Jesus reading Satan’s mind? Anything I could know about it would be in the bible.
William,
“What does the scripture say about Jesus reading Satan’s mind?”
Isa. 14:12-21. Note verses 13 and 14.