Bible Study Romans 8 and Genesis

[stovebolts]

This is a little something I put together, I'd like to hear your responses.

What did YHWH tell Adam to do? He told him to do work (Genesis 2:15). He also told him to name all of the animals (Genesis 2:19). You see, God didn’t name the animals, mankind did. Interesting enough, the Hebrew language is based on verbs, not nouns like our western culture. Let us consider a door as an example. A door is a noun as it’s an object. There is no such thing as a ‘door’ in the ancient Hebrew language or ideology, for it would have been named after it’s characteristic, in other words, it would have been based on the objects verb. Thus, a door would have been called a ‘swinger’. If the ‘swinger’ swung out, it would have been masculine while if it swung in, well.. you get the idea.

So we see that the animals were given names based on mankind’s experience and relation to him self and it was through this experience that mankind realizes his superiority from the rest of creation and our uniqueness in relation to YHWH. When we study scripture, we are told, “That’s subjective, we must be objectiveâ€Â, hence, Sola Scripture becomes an intellectual parsing of the text which takes priority over the idea behind the text. You see, if God did not want mankind to experience life, he would have never placed him within reach of the tree of knowledge. (Genesis 2:9)

Going further into the story, God said, “Fill the earth and subdue it.†(Genesis 1:28). Have you ever stopped to think about this statement? If the tree of life sustained life (Genesis 3:22), then one would always have to be in the vicinity of the tree, which means one would have to stay in the garden. Now, how could humanity “fill the earthâ€Â, when they were tied to the garden where the tree of life was planted (Genesis 2:9)? One could even ask why they would want to leave the garden. Thus, when humanity is driven from the garden (Genesis 3:24), humanity starts to fulfill God’s command to fill the earth.

Later on, we run across a man named Abram whom we could write much about, and Abram is given a promise and that promise is basically he will be a great nation (Gen 12:2) . However, he is told that his people will suffer in captivity for 400 years (Genesis 15:13). Thus, through Jacob (Genesis 25:22-26), Israel (Genesis 32:28 , Genesis 35:10) is brought forth and thereafter, around 70 people enter into Egypt (Genesis 45) Through the course of 400 years, a nation is born securing the promise given to Abraham. These 400 years are considered as birthing pains where Israel “Groans and waits†as a woman in labor and upon her Exodus of bondage, she has become corrupt and is held in her own bonds as seen in the 40 years of wandering and in the story of Korah.

Romans 8 addresses the topic I have been writing about, specifically Romans 8:19-25, but 8 in general is laden heavily in Genesis and the Exodus accounts with all of her innuendoes and connotations. So it goes without saying that since the Advent of Christ as the firstfruit (Lev 23), we are a nation in the season of the harvest and the whole earth groans in labor, prepared to give birth. (Isaiah 26:15-18) What a wonderful and exciting time to be alive as our hope is assured!

 

[Bick]

"What did YHWH tell Adam to do? He told him to do work (Genesis 2:15). He also told him to name all of the animals (Genesis 2:19). You see, God didn’t name the animals, mankind did. Interesting enough, the Hebrew language is based on verbs, not nouns like our western culture. Let us consider a door as an example. A door is a noun as it’s an object. There is no such thing as a ‘door’ in the ancient Hebrew language or ideology, for it would have been named after it’s characteristic, in other words, it would have been based on the objects verb. Thus, a door would have been called a ‘swinger’. If the ‘swinger’ swung out, it would have been masculine while if it swung in, well.. you get the idea." by Stovebolt

Yes, Adam learned to till the ground, prune/keep the garden allright. And after Eve came I'm sure she joined in as his help-meet.
And of course, he named the animals.

I'm not learned in Hebrew, so I must follow the definitions in my Young's Concordance.

These are Hebrew words translated as "door":
"dalah"; "deleth"; "saph"; "petlach"

Which is the word normally translated "door"?

Bick

 

[Bick]

Quote by Stovebolt:
So we see that the animals were given names based on mankind’s experience and relation to him self and it was through this experience that mankind realizes his superiority from the rest of creation and our uniqueness in relation to YHWH. When we study scripture, we are told, “That’s subjective, we must be objectiveâ€Â, hence, Sola Scripture becomes an intellectual parsing of the text which takes priority over the idea behind the text. You see, if God did not want mankind to experience life, he would have never placed him within reach of the tree of knowledge. (Genesis 2:9)

Seems to me you're reading more into the Genesis account than I would. I picture Adam naming them just from their shape, their walk, their voice and things like that. Obviously God must have had them line up for Adam.

I would think that 'intellectual parsing' would have to include the idea behind the text. As a matter of understanding, how could one know the idea behind the text without some intellectual parsing?

You imply that Adam had to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to experience life. I'm not sure what your definition of "life" is.

I see Adam and Eve excited and wonderfully happy in the paradise of Eden. There was so much to see and feel and taste and hear and learn from the Lord God himself. I think theirs was a wonderful life.

I disagree that evil had to be introduced to "experience life".

From the rest of scripture, particularly Paul's epistles, I have come to know God's plan for mankind and the universe, and understand that the forbidden tree in the midst of the garden, the subtle serpent controlled by Satan, the fall of Adam and Eve, are part of that plan.
Bick

 

[cyberjosh]

StoveBolts,

I think you may be reading into the whole Tree of Life thing too much. Nowhere does it say Adam or Eve partook of it or that they must for that matter, in addition God would not create a dependancy on the Garden. Moreover even though the Tree of Life is mentioned again in Revelation we who are saved and have the indwelling Holy Spirit still have eternal life in us presently - apart from the Tree. Also be careful, some elements of the Trees may be symbolic though overall I take the account as literal.

Which is the word normally translated "door"?

I believe "dalah" or "deleth" (as per your options) would be the ones commonly used, though the form I am more familiar with is "Dal" (the root) or "Daleth" (which consequently is the 4th letter of the Hebrew alphabet - and when Hebrew was still pictographic the letter depicted a curtain-door which swished from side to side on a rod).

~Josh

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Bick and Josh.

I think you may be reading into the whole Tree of Life thing too much. Nowhere does it say Adam or Eve partook of it or that they must for that matter, in addition God would not create a dependancy on the Garden.

Not a problem Josh, that's why this is bible study
:D

But while were at it, what do you make of these verses?
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

And what happened?

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,

Lets stop and ponder this for a moment. What was is that made the fruit good to eat? If we go back a couple chapters (Genesis 1:29), we find out that only fruit with seeds could be eaten. Just something to ponder.

and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

As far as dependancy, the relationship was based on faith and obedience. Personally, I believe that the Tree is a typology and looks forward, just like the proto-gospel (Genesis 3:15). It's in a round about way similar to the Mana that YHWH provided, and as Jesus claimed in John 6... Regardless, we know that the garden was in a particular area and that the tree of life was central. Why else would YHWH say, "and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:" (partial post of Genesis 3:22).

BTW, thanks for you post on the "door". I was more or less trying to convey that the ancient hebrew thoughts and ideologies were based on verbs, not nouns. In other words, one thought more of what a curtain did, not what it "was", for what is was, was normally named after what it did.

Bick,
Nothing wrong with a little intellectual parsing, as long as it doesn't smother the rest of the tidbits. As far as humanity naming all of the animals, I believe that humanity found their place in relation to their surroundings as their place with YHWH was confirmed (Genesis 1:28). God placed us on earth to experience this life, so what we experience does hold value. Josh can confirm, but animals were named by their characteristics, agian, verb based, not nouns. If we look at YHWH's name, we find it surrounded by many other characteristics and ideas as well as names that describe God's Character).

As far as what I believe "Life" is, what we experience is certainly a part of it.

As far as "Evil" being introduced into the garden, the serpant was certainly present before the fall. Regardless, humanity was given a commandment, and they broke it. Yes, the garden must have been a wonderful place, but outside the garden... well, do you believe that when the fall occurred, that the rest of the world just dried up and became a desert? Or, do you believe that humanity was ousted from the garden into an area not as pleasing as the garden? I have a tendency for the later.

Furthermore, YHWH said, "You shall Die" (genesis 2:17). When the fall occurred, was this promise a blessing or a curse? I believe it was a blessing as along with the proto-gospel, it gave hope of a new day when reconciliation would occur.

 

[Bick]

Hi StoveBolts and Josh.

Interesting question: since the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and Adam and Eve were told they could eat any seed-bearing plants and fruit with seed in it, it seems possible that they would have eaten from the tree of life.

For instance, in 2:16 we read, "And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..."

SO, The tree of life was one of the trees they could eat from.

StoveBolts, you quoted only part of 3:2.3. Here it is from the NIV, "The woman said to the serpent. We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

NOTICE: how the woman misquoted what God had told Adam (and I assume Adam instructed Eve).

First, She failed to name the tree (knowledge of good and evil), since the tree of life was also in the middle of the garden (Gen. 2:9).

Second, She ommitted " for in the day of thine eating of it---dying thou dost die." (literal rendering--see Young's Translation).

Third, She added, "and you must not touch it".

An early lesson of the importance of correctly knowing and believing the word of God.

I'm sure there are possibly a number of types in this Genesis account: we know that Adam is a type of Christ, as Paul sets forth in Romans;

When Adam saw that Eve ate of the fruit before she gave it to him, in some way I can see that he knew in his heart that she would begin dying, and he loved her too much to be apart. It's true, he disobeyed the Lord God and
must suffer the consequences.

As for the serpent (Satan, the devil) being in the garden before the fall, well of course he was because he was talking with Eve.

But, as to how far before the fall he existed, is, IMO, speculation.
Obviously, he wanted them to die, and in some way was responsible. In his "heart" he was a murderer, just as John 8:44 tells us,
"You belong to your father, the devil,...He was a murderer fom the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him."

And in 1 John 3:8 "..the devil has been sinning from the beginning."

SO, the idea that Satan was created a perfect being in the beginning, until he fell, doesn't hold water.

Obviously, the rest of the world, after the fall, was not a dried up desert. After being driven out of the garden, the pair must have had some edible fruits and vegetables near by, for how far could they walk? Adam has been trained in planting and caring for crops, but that takes time to grow.
We can only speculate, for the Bible doesn't tell us.

When YHWH said, literally (check it out), "dying thou dost die", I see it as a curse. Actually, death is called "an enemy" which at the end, being the "last enemy", will be destroyed, or done away with (1 Cor. 15:26).
But, though they began dying, Adam didn't die for 930 years.

Bick

 

[cyberjosh]

But while were at it, what do you make of these verses?
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

And what happened?

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,

Lets stop and ponder this for a moment. What was is that made the fruit good to eat? If we go back a couple chapters (Genesis 1:29), we find out that only fruit with seeds could be eaten. Just something to ponder.

and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Right, but that's talking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I was refering to the Tree of Life.

As far as dependancy, the relationship was based on faith and obedience. Personally, I believe that the Tree is a typology and looks forward, just like the proto-gospel (Genesis 3:15). It's in a round about way similar to the Mana that YHWH provided, and as Jesus claimed in John 6... Regardless, we know that the garden was in a particular area and that the tree of life was central. Why else would YHWH say, "and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:" (partial post of Genesis 3:22).

Well notice it says "he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever". This tells me atleast that they didn't have to eat of it to live, it seems though that they could extend their life by eating it. Either way I do not think it is necessary to say that they could not fulfill God's command of filling & subduing the earth just because the Tree of Life was in the Garden. Do you see where I am coming from?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Heidi]

This is a little something I put together, I'd like to hear your responses.

What did YHWH tell Adam to do? He told him to do work (Genesis 2:15). He also told him to name all of the animals (Genesis 2:19). You see, God didn’t name the animals, mankind did. Interesting enough, the Hebrew language is based on verbs, not nouns like our western culture. Let us consider a door as an example. A door is a noun as it’s an object. There is no such thing as a ‘door’ in the ancient Hebrew language or ideology, for it would have been named after it’s characteristic, in other words, it would have been based on the objects verb. Thus, a door would have been called a ‘swinger’. If the ‘swinger’ swung out, it would have been masculine while if it swung in, well.. you get the idea.

So we see that the animals were given names based on mankind’s experience and relation to him self and it was through this experience that mankind realizes his superiority from the rest of creation and our uniqueness in relation to YHWH. When we study scripture, we are told, “That’s subjective, we must be objectiveâ€Â, hence, Sola Scripture becomes an intellectual parsing of the text which takes priority over the idea behind the text. You see, if God did not want mankind to experience life, he would have never placed him within reach of the tree of knowledge. (Genesis 2:9)

Going further into the story, God said, “Fill the earth and subdue it.†(Genesis 1:28). Have you ever stopped to think about this statement? If the tree of life sustained life (Genesis 3:22), then one would always have to be in the vicinity of the tree, which means one would have to stay in the garden. Now, how could humanity “fill the earthâ€Â, when they were tied to the garden where the tree of life was planted (Genesis 2:9)? One could even ask why they would want to leave the garden. Thus, when humanity is driven from the garden (Genesis 3:24), humanity starts to fulfill God’s command to fill the earth.

Later on, we run across a man named Abram whom we could write much about, and Abram is given a promise and that promise is basically he will be a great nation (Gen 12:2) . However, he is told that his people will suffer in captivity for 400 years (Genesis 15:13). Thus, through Jacob (Genesis 25:22-26), Israel (Genesis 32:28 , Genesis 35:10) is brought forth and thereafter, around 70 people enter into Egypt (Genesis 45) Through the course of 400 years, a nation is born securing the promise given to Abraham. These 400 years are considered as birthing pains where Israel “Groans and waits†as a woman in labor and upon her Exodus of bondage, she has become corrupt and is held in her own bonds as seen in the 40 years of wandering and in the story of Korah.

Romans 8 addresses the topic I have been writing about, specifically Romans 8:19-25, but 8 in general is laden heavily in Genesis and the Exodus accounts with all of her innuendoes and connotations. So it goes without saying that since the Advent of Christ as the firstfruit (Lev 23), we are a nation in the season of the harvest and the whole earth groans in labor, prepared to give birth. (Isaiah 26:15-18) What a wonderful and exciting time to be alive as our hope is assured!

And Jesus tells us that the work of God is this; to believe in the one he sent."

So sorry, but Christianity takes about as much work as thanking someone for rescuing you from a burning fire. But to those who don't know what Jesus did for them or don't care, it takes a lot of work to thank someone whom they aren't sure saved them. :

 

[stovebolts]

StoveBolts, you quoted only part of 3:2.3. Here it is from the NIV, "The woman said to the serpent. We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

NOTICE: how the woman misquoted what God had told Adam (and I assume Adam instructed Eve).

First, She failed to name the tree (knowledge of good and evil), since the tree of life was also in the middle of the garden (Gen. 2:9).

Second, She ommitted " for in the day of thine eating of it---dying thou dost die." (literal rendering--see Young's Translation).

Third, She added, "and you must not touch it".

An early lesson of the importance of correctly knowing and believing the word of God.

Hello again Bick.
My apologies for not getting back to this thread earlier. I hope my delay is acceptable as I just don’t have the time to devote to this board. However, I will always attempt to get back to a good discussion time permitting.

Those are some good observations and from first glance, I can really see why you come to the conclusions that you do, though I do wish you would have left out the “An early lesson†comment as I don’t fully understand what that had to do with the verse at hand.

Let me say this if permissible.

First: She was speaking to the serpent. I am sure that it was assumed between the two of them which tree was in question since the topic and context of the verse is seated around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I really think it’s a woman thing as women seem to not really focus on the details like men seem to. Follow me?

Regardless, you stated earlier,

For instance, in 2:16 we read, "And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..."

SO, The tree of life was one of the trees they could eat from.

Correct, but just because they could, doesn't mean they did. Now, just because humanity could sin (eat from the forbidden tree), doesn't mean that they did... that is, up until a certain act by Eve. So it's really not a question of "if they could", but rather "When they would".

Second: Thus far, we know that humanity realized their relationship with YHWH by what they had experienced. Take naming the animals for instance, by naming the animals, they would have realized that God had given them dominion instead of just knowing. Since they had not experienced death, how would it have been a reality? I’m sure without the experience of death or the reality that they could actually be separated from YHWH, God’s words could not have been fully realized. I could use a simple example of a person who has not lost their parents. Sure, we all know that we will loose our parents at some point in our lives (in most cases), but how much of a reality is that to a small child? How about a teen? A young adult? Why is it then that as we grow older and we begin to realize the realities that we face, we become more cautious in what we do and we appreciate the little things in life, like time spent with our aging parents. Why is it that we try to get our children to spend time with their grandparents and why do the grandparents enjoy the joyfulness of their grandchild? To a child, death is not a reality as they are fascinated by their surroundings as they too grow to find their place. Eve was a child, still in her innocence and thus, had no reality… no concept of death. Without knowing what death was, how could one realize God’s word? Seems to me that she was focused on what God told her to do, rather than the consequences of what would occur if she disobeyed.

Third: Did she add to God’s word? Certainly God was among them daily and not all of what was said is written. Who knows, perhaps God was telling them about temptation and gave them some wise advice… After all, wisdom does come from God and God alone. Would you agree that often, it’s better to just stay away from something when we can’t resist the temptation? God basically said, “Don’t eat from that tree or you’ll dieâ€Â. Heck, don’t touch that tree sounds like good advice to me because if you know if you touch it, you'll eat it, then just plain staying away from it might be the best thing.

Here’s a problem that I have though, and perhaps you could straighten me out if I am indeed in error. (I don’t mind being set straight as long as it’s done with humility and the purpose of mutual edification) Is adding to God’s word a sin? I mean, it seems to me that if Eve purposefully told the serpent something that God did not say, then that would make her a liar right? Isn’t lying without a good reason a sin? I mean, Eve had no reason to lie, so if God didn’t say it, then that’s a lie and that lie would be a sin. Now, the way I understand scripture, it is sin that separates us from God. Since this conversation occurred before Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit, then I have a hard time thinking that she was lying and come to the conclusion that she’s telling the truth and God did indeed tell her not to even touch it. Now, this conclusion came about by asking the question, “Did humany sin before Eve ate the forbidden fruit?†My answer, “Noâ€Â.

Anyway, I did like the rest of what you wrote. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Josh,
Sorry buddy, I ran out of time.

jeff

 

[stovebolts]

Those are some good observations and from first glance, I can really see why you come to the conclusions that you do, though I do wish you would have left out the “An early lesson†comment as I don’t fully understand what that had to do with the verse at hand.

Hey Bick. I'm just now getting off work again (it's 11:30 am) and I was just reading this thread when it hit me what you meant by an early lesson :D

I'm sitting here chuckling to my self as I can relate and reflect on the school I continually find myself enrolled in. You know, the school of hard knocks : Gosh, can't wait for graduation day!

When YHWH said, literally (check it out), "dying thou dost die", I see it as a curse. Actually, death is called "an enemy" which at the end, being the "last enemy", will be destroyed, or done away with (1 Cor. 15:26).
But, though they began dying, Adam didn't die for 930 years.

What do you make of this? Yes, death was a curse, but isn't it also a blessing? I was reading a theologian awhile back (I'd have to get my book at home to remember who he was) that was speaking on God's grace in his absence where he brought out the fact that we do not always get what we deserve (God's wrath) and he used a couple OT characters (including Job) to make his point. Anyway, I was thinking about God and asked myself, "If God is Love", then why do we see God as this wrathful God in the OT and this caring, kind God in the NT. Well, if God never changes, then he certainly showed his grace as much in the OT as he did in the NT and I went on a search to find it.

When I came to the account of humanity getting the boot from the garden as they had just sentenced themselves to death by their disobedience, I realized that it was their sin that had separated them from God and that God's love for them did not waver. God never wanted or willed humanity to sin and we can see God from page 2 of our bibles to the last chapter of Revelation showing us grace where grace is undeserved time and time again. With that thought, it occurred to me that God wants to be with us and as long as there is sin, there is separation from God and as long as there is separation from God, death is not far behind.

So it seems to me that though death was a curse, it was also a blessing because without death, man would live eternally separated from God without any hope of reconciliation.

What do you make of that?

 

[Bick]

Quote from Stovebolts:
"So it seems to me that though death was a curse, it was also a blessing because without death, man would live eternally separated from God without any hope of reconciliation."

"What do you make of that?"

Well, what I make of it is this: It makes no sense, for it is unscriptural.

And furthermore, so much of this is speculation with nothing to back it up.

If nothing is said in the Bible about some subject, then, my friend, it is just conjecture in our mind, nothing else, and takes a lot of time and energy.

Bick

 

[stovebolts]

If nothing is said in the Bible about some subject, then, my friend, it is just conjecture in our mind, nothing else, and takes a lot of time and energy.

Bick

Fair enough. Funny, Campbell said, "Where the bible is silent, we should be silent".

That being said, you said,

"When YHWH said, literally (check it out), "dying thou dost die", I see it as a curse."

Then that too is just conjecture. Does that mean it's off limits or bad to speak about it? Personally, I don't think so. I think, however, where we can get into trouble is when we start to impose our conjecture on others.

Take care and I enjoyed reading what you had to say.

jeff

 

[Vic C.]

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

There are two types of Biblical silence we must deal with when understanding scripture:

Permissive silence and restrictive silence.

The Bible doesn't specifically take a stand for or against abortion. Should we just dismiss the issue solely on the basis Biblical silence? Was Thomas Campbell pro-choice?

Going further into the story, God said, “Fill the earth and subdue it.†(Genesis 1:28)

Be careful here Jeff. We have to deal with the subject of chronology between the events of Genesis 1 and 2.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Here we have the existence of man and woman before their actual creation account.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Now we have an account of their creation!

Lets be careful not to put the cart before the horse; or the command to be fruitful before they got "booted" from the Garden. 8-)

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Vic!

As far as Alexander Campbell (I wrote his name wrong the first time : ) I'd take a hunch that he and his father Thomas were against abortion.

Be careful here Jeff. We have to deal with the subject of chronology between the events of Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 and 2 have always boggled me when it came to their chronological time frames until I ran across a paper that John Paul put out. (yes, I know I'll hear it now, shame on me for reading something from John Paul). but it struck me when he made this statement;

2. From the point of view of biblical criticism, it is necessary to mention immediately that the first account of man's creation is chronologically later than the second, whose origin is much more remote. This more ancient text is defined as "Yahwist" because the term "Yahweh" is used to name God. It is difficult not to be struck by the fact that the image of God presented there has quite considerable anthropomorphic traits. Among others, we read that "...the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gn 2:7).
In comparison with this description, the first account, that is, the one held to be chronologically later, is much more mature both as regards the image of God, and as regards the formulation of the essential truths about man. This account derives from the priestly and "Elohist" tradition, from "Elohim," the term used in that account for God.

You wrote:

Lets be careful not to put the cart before the horse; or the command to be fruitful before they got "booted" from the Garden.

I'm trying to be careful Vic, I'm trying. When I took into account that we have two different narratives of creation (Priestly account and the Yahwist account as mentioned above and from Wiki plus an OT theology class I audited) along with what Paul R. House (Baptist theologian) wrote on humanity "Getting the boot", thus, "Fulfilling God's command" I thought I was on some pretty stable ground. (But I've had the wind knocked out of me a few times, so in these area's, I'm not that concerned of proving a point), but rather, I enjoy the conversation :D

Do you think that they were told to be fruitful and multiply after they got the boot? I'm curious how you came to that conclusion and you know that I do respect your take on scripture.

Thanks,
jeff

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Jeff...

I believe the Fall brought on two things; one is a spiritual death which would be an immediate judgment; the other would be a physical death, with God of course, choosing the appropriate time. With that belief in mind, it would be hard to fathom procreation prior to the Fall. That would have to be one very big Garden! ;-)

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Jeff...

I believe the Fall brought on two things; one is a spiritual death which would be an immediate judgment; the other would be a physical death, with God of course, choosing the appropriate time. With that belief in mind, it would be hard to fathom procreation prior to the Fall. That would have to be one very big Garden! ;-)

Hey Vic.

Let me see if I understand you here. (BTW, I started to reply last Thursday but didn’t have a chance to finish. Been busy lately… seems to be my life story).

So let’s see. Are you saying that God told humanity in chapter one to be fruitful and multiply after the fall or are you saying that humanity didn’t procreate until after the fall? I can’t think where else you would get this and that’s why I’m asking. If that’s what you’re saying (and I'm not saying you are), then I’d counter with Genesis 1:28 noting which day this occurred on (noting Genesis 1:31). I’d also say that if your statment was based off Genesis 1, then it also becomes extremely problematic by God’s statement; it was “Very Good†at the end of verse 31.

One thing I try to keep in mind when I read the early accounts of creation is this. The stories passed down of the events of creation derived from two sources as I’ve mentioned in an earlier post and when Moses wrote them down, he was simply writing what had been passed down to him. Now before anyone blows a cork, yes, what Moses wrote is the inspired word of God, but the account of creation was no revelation given to Moses at Mt. Sinai, wandering in the desert or any other miraculous event, but rather, it was oral tradition that had been passed down from generation to generation until Moses could record it, being approved by God of course :wink:

Another thing we need to keep in mind, and it’s hard for us to comprehend in our modern world, is that every ancient near eastern religion had its own accounts of creation and each religion was comprised of a pantheon (look at Ur as an example) whereas YHWH was monotheistic (which Israel seemed to forget time and time again). The account of creation was intended to show the known world at that time (which also applies today) that there was ONE true God that created all and ruled as a sovereign monarchy.

Paul wrote:
Romans 5:1-4 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation works patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

We know that all things were created through Christ (Colossians 1:16), and from the vantage of experience, humanity was learning patience as they worked through their tribulations with the hope given them in Genesis 3:15… If they would have only had enough faith to obey…