Religion 4. Adam and Eve

Originally posted by Terral
Hi Sparky:

No sir. Your quote says “He made out of one man every nation of men.” There is no mention of Eve, except in your commentary.

An Adam without Eve = no children last time I checked.

Please allow me to try and add a single drop of water to a glass that is ‘obviously’ far too full.

Please eliminate the sarcasm. It is childish and does not add anythng of substance to your arguments. Thank you.

Look out into the cosmos and try to envision every particle of this universe as ‘one thing.’ If you could gather every spec of essence from all the visible and invisible realms of this universe into a single ball, the name of that sphere would be “Adam.” You and I are living inside his broken body right now as we speak.

This is an interesting concept, yet the Bible does not specifically state that Adam was anything else other than a man.
In fact Jesus commented on this at Mat 19:4&5 (Since Jesus believed the Genesis account to be factual, should we not believe it too?)

The sixth day men of Genesis 1:26-28 are the evolutionary children of Adam, because they were called into being over millions of years from the essence of Adam’s broken body.

Nowhere in the Bible is the phrase "sixth day men" used.

However, the Lord God formed His ‘man’ from the dust of the ground (also the broken essence of Adam) and breathed into him the breath of life; so he became a living soul.

I agree with that, except for the part about the broken essence of Adam.
Does this concept spring from the Sumerian Mythology you referenced in one of your previous posts?

Adam traversed the earthy realm, the heaven realm and the heavens realm with great ease in the beginning, because the very nature of his immortal soul allowed him access to every corner of this universe. Adam was “god” to the sixth day men and even the travelers from space who are also his children. Adam reigned supreme through dynasties of kings like Alulim (28,000 years) and Alalmar (36,000 years) at Eridu and Emenluanna at Badgurgurru (43,000 years); all the way through Zinsuddu’s (Utnapishtim) reign that lasted 64,000 years (Halley’s Bible Handbook,1965, Page 71), until he had named everything to be named, sat down and became bored.

This is according to Babylonian/ Sumerian mythology if I am not mistaken. Please tell me why you believe it should be elevated to the level as the Bible. Do you sincerely believe the Babylonian account should supercede the clear and straightforword account of creation in the Bible?

Only then did the Lord God take Eve and Seed from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:20-22),

The verses you referenced do in fact state that Eve was taken from Adams side, but it does not state that the Seed came from Adams side. Would you agree with this point?

You have a huge amount of material in your posts to consider so please be patient. You made a good point when you stated, " Please do not confuse activity with accomplishment". You certainly have a lot of activity.....I hope your purpose is not to try overwhelm your fellow ATS'ers with sheer volumes of information.

PLease consider the points I have made in the post. Tell me if you can agree with any of them or disgard them all out of hand. Perhaps we can establish some common ground and have a constructive discussion.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Terral
Hi again Sparky:

Sparky >> Obviously he did not wait until the 7th day to create the heavens and the earth.

Please remove the references to what appears ‘obvious’ to Sparky in your next reply. The common interpretation of Scripture rarely the right one . . . Matthew 7:13+14.

Since my posts reflect what I believe I will continue to use the word "Obvious" when I feel it is appropriate to do so. PLease dont take it personally. The plain and simple facts of creation as outlined in the Bible are Obvious to me & to other reasonable people.

If you would like to disagree with my understanding of the Bible you are certainly free to do so, but I think it is Obvious to most people that the heavens and the earth were created before the 7 day began . After all, even your proposed 6th day people needed terra firma to walk on. Can we not agree on this simple point?

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Terral

Lord . . . Have . . . Mercy . . . First off, never make these kinds of bold statements without Scriptural support from God’s Word, as if your opinion means anything. Secondly, Jesus Christ was “conceived of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20) and was “found in appearance AS A MAN.” Philippians 2:8. What does Christ teach on this topic?

Here

Seed of a Woman in Genesis 3:15 www.hopeofisrael.net...
Many claim that this verse is not truly a Messianic prophecy but is a text taken out of context by Christians. However, Rabbi David Kimchi obviously interpreted it as Messianic because he wrote, "As thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people by the hand of Messiah the son of David, who shall wound the head of Satan, the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked." Also Midrash Rabbah 23 states, "Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Samuel, Eve had respect to that Seed which is coming from another place. And who is this? This is the Messiah, the King."

As soon as Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, we hear the Shepherd's voice calling out for His lost sheep," where art thou?" (Genesis 3:8–13). It is the Father searching for the prodigal. The salvation of every soul begins with God calling. It is in the context of judgment after the Fall that the LORD God curses the serpent. He says to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15). There will be an undying opposition between Satan and the generations to follow.

No doubt Adam and Even were so impressed with the message of hope that they reinforced it in the minds of their children and their children passed it on from generation to generation. Then came the day centuries later when Moses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit penned this great promise against the darkest day in human history. The promise of salvation was given before anyone died physically. At the time of the giving of this promise no child had been born to Adam and Eve. Probably with the birth of every male child there was the hope that he would be the one who would overthrow the evil that had been unleashed on the new world. The promised one will "bruise thy head." There will be a head wound. The idea is there will be a deathblow. Satan would have this eternal dread hanging over him that with the birth of every male child this could be the very one who would be his end. In the battle, Satan would "bruise his heel." The promised seed would suffer, but he would not suffer a destructive blow.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - removed 'Big Quote'

3 paragraphs of cut/paste is sufficient.
Interested readers are able to click the link for more



[edit on 24-9-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Terral
Adam was “god” to the sixth day men and even the travelers from space who are also his children.

Perhaps I missed this in my Bible reading. Who were the travelers in Space that considered Adam "god"?

Originally posted by Terral

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! . . .”. Matthew 11:11.

Please explain for everyone here how “Jesus the Messiah” is “born of the seed of a woman” AND how John the Baptist is greater than He?! Good luck . . .

No problem.

Jesus was born of the seed of a woman and John the Baptist was born of the seed of a man Zacharias.

John the Baptist was born of a woman just like everyone else, but not of the seed of a woman. Only Jesus was born of the seed of a woman.

Jesus was the Word made flesh.

That would be Luke 1: 1-37 for your scriptural backup.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Originally posted by Terral
I quoted Sparky in the two posts above and presented a solid case for ‘my’ interpretation using Scripture without any name calling, stone chucking or bellyaching. His reply is to quote “Christ with Belial” nonsense, as if his explanations occupy the sacred ground of the Mountain of God itself.

I dont think anyone one is stone throwing & bellyaching. I'm surprised that you catagorize disagreement with you as such.
I do not consider any quote or reference from the Bible as nonsense. I asked you about your thought on merging Babylonian teachings with the Bible and gave you a scripture that I feel makes it clear that the two cannot be compatable. Instead of reasoning on this together, you shrug it off as nonsense. Perhaps you can reconsider the point of the scripture I previously quoted and explain why you dont think this applies to your ideas regarding the Sumerian Mythology you expressed belief in.

Originally posted by Terral


Sun >> This seed of a woman Jesus the Christ crushed the head of the serpent.

Really? What does Scripture say?

It's says that those that are born again are born of incorruptible seed. And that greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.

When Christ rose from the dead Satan was defeated. When a man is born he has the power within him to overcome sin.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by Terral
Adam was “god” to the sixth day men and even the travelers from space who are also his children.

Perhaps I missed this in my Bible reading. Who were the travelers in Space that considered Adam "god"?

I would like to see that scriputal backup for this also. I don't recall running across this either.

Sun Matrix:

I did not know the Mods here allowed chit chat in the threads . . .

Sun >> Open the door and check the fruit and you'll understand where these false teaching come from.

Good idea. Your post to me atop Page 4 on this thread says,

Sun Matrix Original >> “PLEASE, no need to make crap up is there?”

Your advice appears to come in handy in this situation. I have read enough of your posts to know they are high on opinion and very low on Scripture supported arguments. You and your sidekick Sparky make a nice pair. Let’s try to stick to the topic and respect the Thread Starter – shall we? Thank you.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Sparky:

Sparky >> An Adam without Eve = no children last time I checked.

I am sorry you missed the point.

Sparky >> Please eliminate the sarcasm. It is childish and does not add anythng of substance to your arguments. Thank you.

Part of any debate is informing the third party judges of the obvious limitations of his debating opponent. The reoccurring “what is obvious” lingo of your highly opinionated testimony was worth mentioning.

Sparky >> This is an interesting concept, yet the Bible does not specifically state that Adam was anything else other than a man.

Heh . . . ‘specifically’? So in your opinion, anything God teaches His children through types (Romans 5:14, Hebrews 11:19) and shadows (Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5, 10:1), copies and patterns (Hebrews 8:5, Jeremiah 33:25) must be figments of our imaginations. Scripture teaches ‘some’ things are ‘for the mature’ (1Corinthians 2:6+7) and beyond the reach of “men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.” 1Corinthians 3:1. And that pertains to the vast differences between those who are truly “IN” Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6); not to mention the ‘natural man’ who sees these things as foolishness (1Cor. 2:14). What does Scripture teach about Adam?

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” Romans 5:14.

What does Scripture mean by saying that Adam is a ‘type of Him’ who was to come”? Adam walked around with Eve (water) and Seed (blood) “IN” him, as the first ‘three are into the one’ (1John 5:8) ‘man.’ The Lord God put Adam into a deep sleep and removed Eve (water) and Seed (her seed = blood) from his side. God also put Christ in a deep sleep and two things came from His side.

“But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” John 19:34.

Scripture also records that Christ came in water and in blood (1John 5:6), as these things mark the provision for His Kingdom ‘bride’ (John 3:29) and His “body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12) as two totally separate dispensations. Of Christ it is written,

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:15-17.

Adam is the image of the “Son of God” and is the “son of God” (Luke 3:38) He (Jesus Christ = Lord God of Genesis 2) formed from the dust of the ground, as the ‘firstborn of all creation.’ Everything in the ‘earth and heaven’ of the Garden was created ‘for Adam,’ as he is before all and “IN” him everything in this universe also is held together. For every thing Jesus Christ is in Heaven (Prophet, Priest, King), Adam is on the earth (prophet, priest, king) from the Garden. I do not care if Sparky and his Sun Matrix want to continue peering at these things through the keyhole of a half-baked theology all their days, but my explanations are for those yet to be blinded by their brand of Denominationalism (2Thes. 2:11 = deluding influence).

Sparky >> In fact Jesus commented on this at Mat 9:4&5 (Since Jesus believed the Genesis account to be factual, should we not believe it too?)

No sir. He quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5, after quoting from Genesis 5:2 in Matthew 19:4. That is from “the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1) the ‘seventh day’ man from whom Israel ‘is’ descended. The sixth day people of Genesis 1 have been on earth for millions of years, as evidenced by the geological record.

Sparky >> Nowhere in the Bible is the phrase "sixth day men" used. (snip nonsense)

The ‘male and female’ of Genesis 1:26-28 were created on the ‘sixth day’ (Genesis 1:31). The term “Bible” does not appear there either and yet most everyone here has one . . .

Sparky >> This is according to Babylonian/ Sumerian mythology if I am not mistaken. Please tell me why you believe it should be elevated to the level as the Bible. Do you sincerely believe the Babylonian account should supercede the clear and straightforword account of creation in the Bible?

This is coming from a guy who invented Cain’s cousins and nieces for his wife . . . If told “how” I know you would never believe. Halley’s Bible Handbook is a great reference and 1000 times more credible than you.

Sparky >> The verses you referenced do in fact state that Eve was taken from Adams side, but it does not state that the Seed came from Adams side. Would you agree with this point? (snip)

Of course not. Scripture identifies the ‘seed’ as ‘her seed’ (Genesis 3:15). Her name is “Eve,” because she is “the mother of all living.” Genesis 3:20. The three witnesses of the Garden are Adam (spirit), Eve (water) and Seed (blood), as the seed is the ‘only begotten’ aspect. The Son (blood witness) is said to be "conceived of the Holy Spirit (water witness) in the very same way. The Holy Spirit is the "Helper" (John 16:7) in the same way that Eve (also a water witness) is Adam's "helpmeet" (Genesis 2:18+20). The simple truth is that I can see the teachings in the types and patterns and you cannot. Do you fret over the ramblings of unbelievers questioning your faith? Heh . . . Me neither . . .

Sparky >> Please consider the points I have made in the post. Tell me if you can agree with any of them or disgard them all out of hand. Perhaps we can establish some common ground and have a constructive discussion.

Just “quote me >>” and point out any problems you see using Scripture. 2Tim. 2:15. If you and Sun Matrix want to place the tag of ‘crap’ on my work, then be prepared to take a bath in it. The interpretations of others are just as important to them as yours are to you. Scripture says,

“A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a citadel.” Proverbs 18:19.

You present yours and I will present mine and the readers (1Cor. 11:19) can judge if anyone among us is approved before God (2Tim. 2:15).

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Sun Matrix:

Sun Matrix >> I would like to see that scriputal backup for this also. I don't recall running across this either.

There are ten thousand things you will not recall, even if described in great detail (Acts 13:41).

“Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” Genesis 3:20.

Adam is typical of the ‘heavens’ (spirit) “existing long ago” (2Pet. 3:5*) and Eve is a type of the ‘earth’ (water) “formed out of water and by water*.” The life of Genesis 1:20 is coming out of the waters (“Let the waters team . . .). Eve (Earth = Erets = Kosmos) is the mother of ‘ALL LIVING,’ as in the source of all life in this earth and in this universe. Adam and Eve of Genesis 2 are the ‘incarnations’ of the invisible (Adam) and visible (Eve) realms joining into ‘one flesh’ to become “One” again. The seed (two seeds = your seed + her seed of Gen. 3:15) are being sown to be gathered again for Judgment. Christ divides the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) with the right hand group inheriting life and a kingdom (Matt. 25:34) and the left hand group inheriting condemnation (Matt. 25:41). The end result is all things in the heavens and earth (Ephesians 1:9+10) are summed up “IN” and subjected to the Son (1Cor. 15:27), so that God can once again be “all in all.” 1Cor. 15:28. That mystery ‘process’ includes Adam (spirit/heavens) and Eve (water/earth) becoming “One” again.

If you guys ever get near enough to the space people, then perhaps you will realize they are counted among “the living” called into being from the waters of this broken universe.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Sun Matrix:

Sun >> Here (snip).

If you cannot write your own commentary, then please try writing on a topic you ‘do’ know something about. “Cut and Paste” theologians have even less credibility than stone chuckers and whiners. This side of the discussion will be watering his own boots . . .

GL in the debate,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Originally posted by Terral

Sparky >> This is according to Babylonian/ Sumerian mythology if I am not mistaken. Please tell me why you believe it should be elevated to the level as the Bible. Do you sincerely believe the Babylonian account should supercede the clear and straightforword account of creation in the Bible?

This is coming from a guy who invented Cain’s cousins and nieces for his wife . . . If told “how” I know you would never believe. Halley’s Bible Handbook is a great reference and 1000 times more credible than you.

Thats fine, I hoped to have a polite & civil discussion with you on this matter but I guess my hopes were misplaced.

I will still attempt to engage you in civil discussion though.

I did not invent cousins or nieces. If you read the post , I said, "Perhaps". I have no desire to add or take anything away from what the Bible says as many today are inclined to do. The Bible states that Adam & Eve had other childen besides Able, Cain, & Seth. That is a fact.

If this is true, then perhaps you can agree that it is possible that Cains wife could have been his niece. I personally lean toward it being his sister. But that is still just my opinion. The Bible simply does not tell us. So instead of stating as fact, something that can be be proven. I conscienteously used the word "Perhaps".

If others did the same when speculation is employed, it would benefit everyone, in my humble opinion.



[edit on 19-9-2006 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Terral



If you cannot write your own commentary, then please try writing on a topic you ‘do’ know something about. “Cut and Paste” theologians have even less credibility than stone chuckers and whiners. This side of the discussion will be watering his own boots . . .

I was just showing you that I did not make this stuff up as you seemed to indicate.

Originally posted by Terral

Adam is typical of the ‘heavens’ (spirit) “existing long ago” (2Pet. 3:5*)

There is nothing about Adam in here. I guess you can pull any scripture and throw Adam in there at your leisure. This is the kind of stuff I call made up, by you or some other Gnostic.

2 Peter 3:4 For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

and Eve is a type of the ‘earth’ (water) “formed out of water and by water*.” The life of Genesis 1:20 is coming out of the waters (“Let the waters team . . .). Eve (Earth = Erets = Kosmos) is the mother of ‘ALL LIVING,’ as in the source of all life in this earth and in this universe. Adam and Eve of Genesis 2 are the ‘incarnations’ of the invisible (Adam) and visible (Eve) realms joining into ‘one flesh’ to become “One” again. The seed (two seeds = your seed + her seed of Gen. 3:15) are being sown to be gathered again for Judgment. Christ divides the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) with the right hand group inheriting life and a kingdom (Matt. 25:34) and the left hand group inheriting condemnation (Matt. 25:41). The end result is all things in the heavens and earth (Ephesians 1:9+10) are summed up “IN” and subjected to the Son (1Cor. 15:27), so that God can once again be “all in all.” 1Cor. 15:28. That mystery ‘process’ includes Adam (spirit/heavens) and Eve (water/earth) becoming “One” again.

The word I beleive is Eretz. How about instead of misquoting the Bible, why don't you quote the Gnostic book?

Hi Sparky, Sun Matrix (mentioned):

Sparky >> Thats fine, I hoped to have a polite & civil discussion with you on this matter but I guess my hopes were misplaced.

That is not an accurate statement. Both you and Sun Matrix responded to my two post reply (bottom of Page 3) by saying,

Sun Matrix Original >> PLEASE, no need to make crap up is there?”

Sparky Original >> “Terrel; if you want to put your trust in Sumerian mythology that is your prerogative. I'll stick with what the Bible says . . . Gods people were to reject and avoid pagan teachings and philosophies of man if they were to find favor in Gods eyes.”

However, sometimes kids in the schoolyard must smack each other around a bit, before they can eventually become friends. : 0 )

Sparky >> I will still attempt to engage you in civil discussion though.

Very well. Your demeanor appears to have improved.

Sparky >> I did not invent cousins or nieces. If you read the post , I said, "Perhaps".

Please forgive, but I am well aware of your ‘could have been’ theology. Adam lived to be 930 years old. “Obviously” he had other sons and daughters during that time. However, the Genesis 4 accounts include times of duration and consecutive births with Cain (Gen. 4:1), Able (Gen. 4:2) and Seth (Gen. 4:25). Seth’s ‘conception’ must take place ‘after’ the death of Able, or his name simply makes no sense (#8352 = compensation). Scripture records that “Adam had relations with his wife again . . .” to start the verse, which indicates that all the events of Genesis 4:1-24 take place ‘before’ the conception of the third son. There is no Scriptural basis for sons and daughters to be conceived between Cain and Seth (except Able) for your “perhaps” theory to have any chance of success. However, your “perhaps” shenanigans is carried out in the atmosphere of also saying this to me:
---
Sparky >> Gods people were to reject and avoid pagan teachings and philosophies of man if they were to find favor in Gods eyes.

Sparky Quote >> (Colossians 2:8) 8 Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

Sparky Commentary >> I respect your right to believe what you want, but please dont pretend your ideas are in harmony with the Bible.
---
The fact is that your “could have been” antics represent ‘pagan teachings and philosophies of man’ NOT in harmony with the Bible. Your attempts to lead ForestLady astray (“Cain obviously took one of his sisters, pehaps even a niece, as his wife.” = 18-9-2006 at 02:42 PM) represents the pot trying to call the kettle black. All of that is fine and dandy, but do not try to fashion your perch upon the moral high ground at the very same time!

Sparky >> I have no desire to add or take anything away from what the Bible says as many today are inclined to do. The Bible states that Adam & Eve had other childen besides Able, Cain, & Seth. That is a fact.

Holy Molies . . . What does Scripture say that blows your theory to kingdom come? Your reference is to a provision of Genesis 5, which says,

“Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had sons and daughters.” Genesis 5:4.

One hundred and thirty years passed from the fall to Seth’s birth, which we can calculate from Adam’s death (930 – 800 = 130 years). Genesis 4 gives us a chronological account from Cain (vs. 1) to Able (vs. 2) to Seth (vs. 25) without interruption. Again, Seth’s conception (vs. 25) is directly connected to the death of Adam’s second son. Then, Scripture very deliberately connects these “sons and daughters” to “after he became the father of Seth” (Gen. 5:4) and the eight hundred year period that directly follows.

In other words, God has given us a sequential account of Adam’s family tree from Genesis 2 with the father and mother, their fall in Genesis 3 and the generations in Genesis 4+5.

Sparky >> If this is true, then perhaps you can agree that it is possible that Cains wife could have been his niece.

Lordy . . . You cannot give Cain a ‘niece’ from Seth for a wife in Genesis 4:17, when the third son is conceived after the death of Able; nor from the ‘daughters’ connected to the eight hundred years following Seth’s birth. The only source of humanity for Cain to select his wife and bear the son and build the city of Genesis 4:17 is from the sixth day races of Genesis 1:26-28. You cannot transform the ‘seventh day’ events of Genesis 2 into ‘sixth day’ events of Genesis 1, because God Himself has placed those boundaries within the Scriptures. The sixth day events are also not to be corrupted with the fifth and fourth day events that took place previously. Again, God is providing us with a chronological timeline that we must obey in any serious interpretation of His Living Word.

Sparky >> I personally lean toward it being his sister. But that is still just my opinion. The Bible simply does not tell us. So instead of stating as fact, something that can be be proven. I conscienteously used the word "Perhaps".

No sir. God’s Word is precise and very deliberate in providing a sequential listing of events. You are in denial of the existence of the sixth day races of Genesis 1:26-28 and your ‘niece’ and ‘sister’ opinions are the product of your ostrich theology working overtime. The difference is that I must change nothing about God’s Word to support my interpretations that also are in keeping with the geological record provided in Halley’s Bible Handbook. What does Scripture say?

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20.

How do all the fossil remains of the evolutionary timeline ( en.wikipedia.org... ) and “what has been made” fit into your theology? My interpretations predict more primitive life existing in the lower strata (Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras = www-class.unl.edu... ) with more highly evolved life present in the higher layers (Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras). Calcite skeletons appear at the end of the Precambrian and beginning of the Paleozoic Eras. The layering of the geological record very much resembles the spiraling anatomy of a tree with its rings, which can be followed backwards to trace very good (larger) and very dry (thinner) periods of growth. All of the evidence points to the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 being much longer than many men are willing to accept. God has been in the Creator business for an infinite amount of time and the age of this creation is a testament to “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature . . .”. In other words, both theories of Evolution and Creation are 100 percent accurate. God used ‘time’ and evolution as tools to call Genesis 1 life into existence, but the Lord God (Jesus Christ) used His Own hands to form Adam from the dust of the ground. Therefore, Evolution is real and valid, but ‘we’ are not descended from those ‘men of this earth.’ You and I are the sons of Adam’s Genesis 2 and seventh day “incarnation” AND subsequent “fall.” In other words, the Lord God formed Adam (Genesis 2:7) to start this seventh day, that began ‘perhaps’ (Heh) thousands and thousands of years ago.

The chronological timeline ‘begins’ with his fall in Genesis 3. You and I are NOT formed in the womb in the image of Adam in Genesis 2:7, which is our ‘immortality’ (1Corinthians 15:51-53) image to which we shall be changed at the Rapture. We are formed in our mother’s womb in the likeness of ‘fallen’ Adam of Genesis 3, which very much resembles the sixth day races; because of the ‘skin’ Adam and his wife were given in Genesis 3:21.

Sparky >> If others did the same when speculation is employed, it would benefit everyone, in my humble opinion.

According to your current line of reasoning, I am ‘perhaps’ guilty of employing these same ‘speculation’ tactics in my two posts at the bottom of Page 3. The difference is that my explanations do agree 100 percent with the chronological timeline laid down in God’s Word without the “could have been” antics. Therefore, by your own testimony here the knee-jerk reactions from Sun Matrix and yourself (atop page 4) are way out of line. The right interpretation is the one saying exactly what God is saying without creating a single contradiction. My explanations are the result of over three decades of intense study working diligently to resolve every seeming contradiction.

You guys can help me out by pointing out any contradictions you see in my testimony, which will serve to remove the splinter (or beam) from my eye. : 0 )

God bless you,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Hi Sun Matrix:

Terral Original >> Please explain for everyone here how “Jesus the Messiah” is “born of the seed of a woman” AND how John the Baptist is greater than He?! Good luck . . .

Sun Matrix >> No problem. Jesus was born of the seed of a woman and John the Baptist was born of the seed of a man Zacharias.

Heh . . . Are we blind? What did I just quote you?

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! . . .”. Matthew 11:11.

There is no New Testament verse containing the two terms “seed” and “woman.” NASB. The only verse in the entire Bible with those two terms used is Genesis 3:15, but NOT in the same phrase. Scripture teaches that John the Baptist was “born OF WOMAN.” The phrase “seed of man” appears nowhere in Scripture. If Jesus was conceived of a mere woman, then He inherited the sin of Adam. What does Scripture say that blows your theory?

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned . . .”. Romans 5:12.

However, we know that Christ “knew no sin” (2Cor. 5:21) and was “found in appearance AS A MAN.” Philippians 2:8. Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20) and not of a mere woman. THAT is the difference in a nutshell . . .

Sun >> John the Baptist was born of a woman just like everyone else, but not of the seed of a woman. Only Jesus was born of the seed of a woman.

LOL . . . You will have to forgive me, but what you say is nonsense and not in Scripture anywhere. Your own words are ringing in my ears . . .
---
Sun Matrix >> “PLEASE, no need to make crap up is there?”
---
Sun Matrix >> Jesus was the Word made flesh.

No sir. Jesus Christ ‘is’ the Word (John 1:1-3) made flesh. John 1:14.

Sun Matrix >> That would be Luke 1: 1-37 for your scriptural backup.

Heh . . . You use only thirty seven verses and no commentary? I would love to “quote you >>” and offer rebuttal testimony to your ‘valid’ points, but as yet you have failed to offer any. Jesus Christ is the “Son OF GOD” and not the product of any seed of man, woman or beast. What does one of your verses say?

“The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35.

Does your testimony above call Jesus Christ the “Son OF GOD?” No. If Christ was ‘born of women’ (Matt. 11:11), then He has just as much need of a Savior as John the Baptist. Scripture appears to create a contradict by saying,

“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, born under the Law . . .”. Galatians 4:4.

The difference is that God used two different words for “born” and "made." John was ‘born’ (gennetos #1084) of women, while Christ was ‘made’ (ginomai #1096) of woman. This is the same Greek term used in John 1:1-3 to say,

“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 came into being* through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being* that has come into being*.” John 1:1-3.

“And the Word became* flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14.

John the Baptist was born in the likeness of every other man by the union of male and female reproductive cells in the womb of Elizabeth. Jesus Christ was “conceived of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20) by the overshadowing of the “power of the Most High,” which is the “Father” (“as of the Only Begotten from the Father”). John 1:14.