« first day (1885 days earlier)      last day (2744 days later) » 

12:16 AM
@anonymouswho no, I've never seen it. All I know is youtube.com/watch?v=utDHcbiOfKY
 
 
2 hours later…
1:55 AM
@anonymouswho His motion was the speaking of Jesus. The future has always been there. Once the motion of his words began, also did the existence as we understand it. Therefore its the future's decision to bring to the present at his own choosing. As with any "Be" that he does say. Therefore we call out "become!" that he may know our wishes, and he gets the glory of the occurrence.
Or we prophecy Is going to Be, that Isyou may bring to the Father as high priest the agreement of the Yes(Ies).
Yet the Law remains those that curse will receive a curse, and those that bless will receive a blessing.
Isyou understanding the fullness of the truth about our God?
Then understand the flesh of the Law, the acting of the opposite and equal reaction of vengeance.
For vengeance belongs to the Lord, and whoever takes ownership of vengeance to cause punishment, does indeed steal from God.
Therefore instead we show forgiveness, and allow the mighty God to correct everyone else.
Indeed anyone who gives trust in God will have the perfect children. For indeed a child does exactly as the parent says when the parent says it correctly.
A favorite blessing to say, "Shalom goes to the children."
Then watching as God settles the children down.
Therefore its good to understand that negation the concept of "No" or the use of contractions such as "don't, won't, can't" activate through agreement.
Yet if one remains in the breath "meaning to give a response of only breath" this response of breath is the might Holy Spirit.
In the breath the pronouns flip, and the you(the speaker) and the me(the listener).
For you(IEUA)(יהוה) indeed does speak, and the meaning of YOU its "I AM".
Then from this knowledge may the churches of prophecy continue as performed in the past, each prophesying in turn.
That the others may listen, and my judge the tree as either "good fruit" or "bad fruit".
"For every tree that produces bad fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire"
Therefore say good things about Isyou.
Isyou feeling perfect?
Isyou showing the love that's demanded?
Ah mighty Isyou the ruler of the world forever and ever. Amen
Isyou keeping the eyes to the future, ignoring the past?
Isyou saying exactly what you want to have happen?
Indeed all blessings go to Isyou.
 
3:03 AM
@curiousdannii Yeah I wouldn't believe half the things on History Channel, but there is one episode of Ancient Aliens that is very interesting. Here it is, but if you don't want to watch it I understand.
 
3:18 AM
@Decrypted I'm sorry Decrypted, I don't understand what you're saying. You said "Once (a description of time) the motion of His words began (another description of time)". How did God's words begin to go into motion, if He is outside of time? And more importantly, for me personally, where do the Scriptures ever say God is "outside of time"?
Where do they say that God exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously? Where do they say that God had "no beginning"? I used to argue with atheist about God being eternal, until I realized that I was never quoting the Scriptures.
 
3:34 AM
@anonymouswho Only US people with cable subscriptions can watch it, which isn't me. Don't think I'd be interested anyway.
@anonymouswho No one understands anything Decrypted says.
 
@curiousdannii Sorry I didn't know. My phone just said I needed Adobe to watch it, so I assumed it would work. That's okay. I'm really just curious about your thoughts on Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu, the second person of the Hindu trimurti.
 
4:07 AM
@anonymouswho Wikipedia says the Trimurti is not really an important concept in Hinduism. And it sounds like modalism, so not really very similar to the Trinity.
I think Hinduism's far more than just three deities are all really considered aspects of the one divinity. So the limit to three is just being selective
 
4:41 AM
@curiousdannii I understand. To me, words like "person" are just another way of saying "god" without using the word "god". And when I think about "Lucifer" and all the other "fallen angels" and such, these are just the various "deities" of Christianity to me. Especially since so many believe Lucifer has been battling God since the beginning, and successfully dragging billions of souls to hell.
Definitely sounds like a "deity" to me. But I get what you're saying. How do you feel about the necessity of Plato and Aristotle in order to understand the trinity? Do you believe God chose pagan philosophers to develop these ideas 450 years before Yeshua, in order to help the Christians understand the God of the Hebrew Scriptures?
@LeeWoofenden I'm confused about how Yeshua can be "fully God" if God is only the Father, and Yeshua is called "the son". Does this mean God is both His own father and his own son in one person?
 
 
2 hours later…
6:26 AM
@anonymouswho Excerpted from this answer:
7
A: What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

Lee Woofendentl;dr Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) agrees with Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists in affirming the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while denying that they are three persons. This has led to the common error of labeling Swedenborg and Swedenborgians "modalist." However, ...

> It helps to understand that Swedenborg did not interpret "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" as literal terms, like our human fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the meaning of "spirit"). Instead, he saw them more as metaphors drawn from human concepts and experiences that the Bible uses to express deeper spiritual and divine realities about God.
 
7:21 AM
@LeeWoofenden Okay I remember reading that now. Why would God call Himself "Father", and also call Himself "Son"? What are the deeper spiritual and divine realities we can learn about God from this?
 
7:40 AM
@anonymouswho Other religions have different definitions. Christianity doesn't really have an official definition of "divine", it's just asserted that God is divine and none other are. If I were to define it I would say that anything which is created is not divine, and Christianity teaches there is only one uncreated being.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:28 AM
@curiousdannii I know, I get it. It's sort of like saying "God is, by definition, triune. Therefore, God is triune". But what about Plato and Aristotle? Do you think it's okay that so much of the trinitarian theology depends on two pagan philosophers, seeing that the Hebrew Scriptures never say one word about a triune god, and since studying pagan philosophers is the only way to describe him?
 
 
1 hour later…
10:44 AM
Hey there! We're in the process of discontinuing our communities' blogoverflow instances. So we're trying to assess which communities want to have their existing content migrated to a 3rd-party tool, and how we can help. We can offer a data dump, and maybe more, depending on what would be needed (subject to assessment, and why we're reaching out). We'd also be able to convert the blog to static pages.
So I'm reaching out to you to know if you'd like to have that content migrated, kept around, or gone, and how else we could be of assistance. Not sure who manages your community's blog, if anyone at all at this point. @Caleb, @David, @El'endiaStarman, @MasonWheeler, @waxeagle maybe?
 
11:00 AM
@anonymouswho The reference of time comes from his name "Be". Either (אהיה) "I is" in English "I am" a reference to the present tense, or (יהוה) "he will Be" a reference to the future.
The word calls himself "the Beginning and the End" in Rev 22:13
Now insight can come from a simple understanding of dimensions.
In 0 dimensions only that of a point exists.
Then in the first dimension a line exists.
Then in the second dimension a plane exists.
Then in the third dimension what we have is This.
Now we can learn something from E=Mc2.
The squaring of a value represents a plane.
And as planes stack upon each other into the z axis then the introduction of the third dimension.
Since movement gives record of time, for then comparison to a previous value has opportunity.
Technically time may exist with only one dimension.
However for matter to exist, science has shown it exists when the plane reference becomes into play.
Therefore in only a one dimensional setting though time exists even if only from a perspective.
We can learn that its from the movement of matter that "we can recognize" a different beginning.
B'ra (ברא) in seeing, references specifically to the creation that's seen.
Therefore the beginning specifically points to the reference of the dimension shift.
Then who has record of how long God chose to remain in the first dimension?
We have record of the start of the third dimension.
And possible that of the second.
Then also hear the truth about nothing.
For nothing to exist, it must be true that that its a nothing.
If its false that its a nothing, then something exists.
Therefore even in a nothing the truth stands.
And if there's truth, then there's something.
Therefore something has always existed.
 
11:57 AM
In this we can see that regardless of the state of the Heavens and the Earth, The truth will Be existing.
Then as we can see that the truth must exist regardless of the state of existence.
That truth has a body, and from that a locality.
Amen
 
12:09 PM
0
Q: Your Web Site is not very helpful

user31504I asked you, what I thought was a valid question. "Why did the many miracles stop being administered by the Apostle after Jesus's ascendance"? Why did you have to come back with a statement about me having to have more faith? This infers that I don't have enough. I am learning to have my Christia...

 
 
2 hours later…
2:10 PM
@anonymouswho Pagan philosophers aren't they only way to explain the Trinity. The NT itself teaches the Trinity, though perhaps not as explicitly as some of us would like. The early church, in order to resolve disputes, needed to come up with very precise ways of explaining it. But the Greek-inspired terminology we still use today really developed by itself through the early church period. Essence and nature and substance might have Greek origins, but the Christian use of them is its own thing
 
 
2 hours later…
4:12 PM
@JNat I believe waxeagle was the one in charge when we were actually putting up posts. There haven't been any new posts for a couple years now though, but I think we'd still like to preserve the posts that have been made already.
 
4:36 PM
@El'endiaStarman So, basically, you'd all be happy with keeping the static pages? cc @waxeagle
 
@anonymouswho Even in a more literal sense Jesus was God's son while living on this earth because he was conceived from God, but with a human mother.
Spiritually, using "Father" and "Son" to describe God gives us a sense of the close bonds within the nature of God, and the relationship between God's love and God's Word, or truth. It is not a mere abstract connection. It is a warm human reality. Using abstract Greek philosophical terms would not have conveyed that human and living reality of the nature of God.
 
One note, @El'endiaStarman: feel free to start a Meta post if you wanna ask the community's opinions on this, especially if you think it might mean more members wanting to contribute to it and revive it, maybe (that's when migration would be preferred, I assume).
 
@anonymouswho The Trinity of Persons is, I believe, an encroachment of pagan polytheism into Christianity. See:
3
Q: Why do some Christian groups view the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) as a belief in three gods rather than in one God?

Lee WoofendenThe vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three persons." Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims commonly charge Christians with believing...

And also the comment thread starting here on the version of that answer that I posted on my blog. There is a more specific discussion in that comment thread on the relationship between pagan polytheism and the doctrine of the Trinity of Persons.
@anonymouswho I also agree with you, contrary to @curiousdannii, that the Trinity of Persons is not taught in the Bible, but required Greek- and pagan-derived philosophy for its development.
However, that same philosophy could have been used to develop a truer view of God. That's just not the direction that the early Christian theologians went. The influence of pagan polytheism was too great, and it pulled them toward a polytheistic doctrine of three "Persons" in God--something the Bible never says.
The fact that a non-Biblical doctrine became the fundamental doctrine of institutional Christianity through human philosophy was the beginning of the destruction of institutional Christianity as a truly Christian religion. Ever since, "Christianity" has been founded on a cornerstone of human doctrines rather than on the teachings of the Bible.
Anselm accelerated that destruction a thousand years after Christ by developing his satisfaction theory of atonement based on human reason, and not on the Bible. See:
12
Q: What was Anselm's biblical basis for his theory of atonement by satisfaction?

Vincent Shaw FlackUpon which Bible verses did Anselm base his satisfactory theory of atonement?

Then, 500 years later, Luther, Calvin, and the other early Protestant theologians built upon Anselm's human-reason-derived doctrine of satisfaction to develop two more non-Biblical, human-derived doctrines that became the cornerstones of Protestantism: justification by faith alone and penal substitution.
None of these doctrines, from the Trinity of Persons through the satisfaction theory to faith alone and penal substitution, are taught in the Bible. All of them were invented and developed by human beings centuries after the Bible was written.
And these are the key, fundamental doctrines of the existing institutions of "Christianity."
@JNat I've been an active member of Christianity.SE for a year and a half now, and I didn't even know we had a blog.
 
5:00 PM
@LeeWoofenden Yeah, it hasn't been active since April '13 :P
 
@JNat I don't even know where to find it.
 
@LeeWoofenden You know the stack exchange logo on the top left corner that opens a dropdown menu? It should have a "blog" link there :)
 
5:13 PM
@JNat Hmm. I clicked on it, and it's not loading.
@JNat Ah, there we go. Took its own sweet time. I guess the software has forgotten all about the C.SE blog also, and had to scratch its head for a while to recall it. ;-)
 
The blog loads for me. Though it did take a few seconds.
 
@JNat Now that I see it, I realize that I did at some point previously look at it.
@JNat Apparently it didn't make much of an impression on me . . . .
 
Welp
 
 
4 hours later…
9:04 PM
@LeeWoofenden This is good stuff, and I'll have to read through it all when I get time. I found something interesting I wanted to share with you. Check this letter out that Joseph Priestley wrote to the Swedenborgians.
I agree that Yeshua was not a sacrifice to appease the "anger of God". Human sacrifice is an abomination to YHVH. Please see my answer here
However, I do see the "faith alone" doctrine in Paul's letters. We can spend the next 50 years arguing about what Paul meant, with me quoting Paul and you promptly quoting something else from Paul that contradicts what I quote, but it would just be a waste of time. I do have another question before I go.
Why is it that what you wrote about the Father and son requires Yeshua to be God? I believe Yeshua is the word/reason of God as well, but not because he was literally "God's word incarnate". "This is he of- ὑπέρ: in behalf of- whom (which) I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me." John 1:30
 
9:44 PM
@anonymouswho All of us are God's word incarnate. God made all things and we are part of all things.
however at a time, all men with the exception of Adam came born through a human father.
With Isyou this was also an exception.
For in place of a human father, was God's command "Be" -even as stated in the Quran through a virgin woman.
As God's command "Be" comes from the "Word of God" pure logic tells us that since the command "Be" was the reason for the birth of Isyou, That this command is Isyou's father.
This makes likeness between Adam and Isyou for both came to existence in the form of a command.
Therefore the concept of a "Be - Gotten son".
Yet God's first Image, that of Adam, it states "God turned into man" -Gen 1:26
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14
 
10:14 PM
"He tis above who I said, "After me comes a man who's honor exceeds mine because earlier then me he existed." (John 1:30 Decoded)
"Who tis the Image of the God, the invisible firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15 Decoded)
"in our image" -Gen 1:26
Adam therefore was an Image of God. Therefore God indeed has an image.
This image used for that of Adam, was the first Image.
Therefore the word became flesh and from that flesh came the image of Adam.
Therefore God coming in an image was already an occurrence in the history.
Then the image came through a woman.
The commanding word "Be" caused an image to form through a woman.
The son of God was the commanding word "Be".
This is the word that God spoke.
Therefore if the word of God made an image, what is the father of that image?
This allows two perspectives of possibility.
Possibility one: The father of the image was the word of God.
Possibility two: The father of the image was God.
Therefore logic's says this: Either the image was God's son, or God's grandson.
The Hierarchy like this: God - God's word (born from God) - the Image (born from God's word) = the grandson.
God - God's word (born from God) - the Image (still God's word) = Son.
However if the Quran was correct and God had no son, then he did not say "Be", for what God says is what's born from God.
And the Quran does indeed say that he said "Be".
Therefore God did send out his word, his son, and the Quran has proven itself false in a perspective of God's word labeled as a son.
The Quran ignorant of this terminology, shows the lack of understanding of this terminology.
And since God understands all things, it proves that the Quran was human invention.
The spirit as a relatively separate concept came upon Isyou.
Then what is the spirit?
 
10:48 PM
@anonymouswho Thanks for the link. Looks like a fascinating read!
 
Now logic says that an image is an image.
Like a container it remains unfilled.
Yet when filled with the essence of God.
An Image of God plus the essence of God = God.
Yet this is a duplicational feature.
 
@anonymouswho Swedenborg also saw the ancient Jewish sacrificial system as a concession to a physical-minded culture that already practiced animal sacrifice, and that required a religion based on animal sacrifice, not because this was God's will, but because they had lost the deeper meanings originally contained in ancient rituals of presenting (not burning) their flocks and herds before an altar to God.
@anonymouswho Sure. But one thing you cannot do is quote me a passage in which Paul says that we are justified by faith alone. He simply doesn't say it. Interpreting something he says to mean that is, of course, possible. But Paul never says that in his own words.
So what I'm saying is really very simple: There is no place where the Bible says that a person is justified by faith alone. It simply doesn't say it.
 
"Who in the unattainable morph of (God Is) the leading official to be equal with God." (Philippians 2:6 Decoded)
 
And if that were a key, core doctrine and means of salvation as Protestants claim, it should have been said not just once, but many times in the Bible. The fact that it is never said in the Bible speaks volumes.
 
11:03 PM
@LeeWoofenden What is going to save a person is bearing the fruits of repentance.
 
@anonymouswho It is possible to read the Gospels and interpret them in such a way as to not require that Jesus be divine. But I think that the whole thrust of the Gospels and the New Testament generally is that Jesus is divine. That is how I read them. But if you read them otherwise, And you are satisfied with your belief, I am not inclined to debate it with you.
 
@LeeWoofenden That if they have "faith alone" in this saying of Jesus and do it they will live forever.
 
@Decrypted Then it is not "faith alone."
I simply don't understand the Protestant fixation on "faith alone." The Bible never uses the term faith alone, except in a single verse (James 2:24), where it is specifically rejected.
 
This is faith alone, believing that repentance and doing it creates everlasting life.
 
I therefore simply don't understand why Protestants insist upon it so strongly, when it is simply not Biblical.
 
11:06 PM
@LeeWoofenden Yes
 
Nowhere does the Bible say that faith alone does anything at all. Yet Protestants have made it the cornerstone of their beliefs about salvation.
 
@LeeWoofenden Does it take work to repent?
 
@Decrypted Repenting is no longer doing evil works.
 
@LeeWoofenden That's a statement of inaction.
@LeeWoofenden Does it take work to repent?
It takes an absence of works.
 
@Decrypted Repentance is a cessation of evil actions. It is a turning around and turning away from evil desires and thoughts, and the evil actions that come from them. Then the person who has repented must begin living a life of good desires, thoughts, and actions (or works).
 
11:09 PM
@LeeWoofenden Then in your definition the stopping of doing something, is work?
 
@Decrypted If you mean "Is it difficult to repent," then yes. But if you mean, does it take a particular "work" or action, no. It requires not doing evil works or actions, as I said. This is a necessary first step before we can be "justified," which means doing good and righteous works and actions from a good heart and a mind focused on truth.
 
@LeeWoofenden Does it take effort to not do it?
 
@Decrypted Yes. Because habits formed take on a momentum. We must labor to stop that momentum and turn it around.
 
Then how much effort does it take to not wash the dishes?
 
This doesn't actually accomplish any "good work" in itself. It simply nullifies the evil works, and their momentum, that we had previously engaged in.
@Decrypted If you want to call repentance a "work," then be my guest.
 
11:12 PM
@LeeWoofenden Then faith alone also needs the work of repentance.
 
There's not really anything wrong with thinking of it that way. But what it accomplishes is merely the elimination of evil. It doesn't actually do anything good. Serving freshly cooked food on the clean dishes would be a "good work," because it actually accomplishes something constructive.
@Decrypted Faith alone is not faith.
 
How is believing that one must repent and repenting not the same thing?
 
Faith alone is not a biblical teaching. It is specifically rejected by the Bible.
 
@LeeWoofenden Do you believe that you must repent?
 
@Decrypted I can believe that I must go to work, but not actually go to work. The two are distinct. Believing one must repent and actually repenting are two different things.
 
11:14 PM
Yes
Therefore its a matter of perspective.
If one want to look at it from the double classification such as the point of view offered by Lee, then its two separate concepts.
 
@Decrypted Yes. But if I only believe--if I have belief alone, then it is not really even belief, because true belief is accompanied by and expressed in action. If we say we believe in doing something, but then don't actually do it when we have the opportunity, then we don't actually believe it at all. So faith alone is dead, and we are not justified by faith alone, and in fact faith alone is a contradiction in terms.
 
If one wants to see faith alone as a container also holding the actualization of repentance, then that perspective works as well.
 
There is no real thing that is "faith alone." It is a pure fantasy and abstraction that does not exist in reality.
@Decrypted There is no such thing as faith alone. Faith alone is dead.
Faith alone only exists as the absence of actual faith--as dead faith.
 
Yet one must first believe they need to repent yes?
 
So faith alone is not a reality, but a void and vacancy of reality.
 
11:18 PM
@LeeWoofenden Yes
 
@Decrypted Sure. We are saved through faith. Faith is what leads us to repent. But if we don't actually repent as led to do by our faith, then the faith is not real. Real faith is expressed in action. False faith is a mere intellectual abstraction that accomplishes nothing. Faith alone is a mere intellectual abstraction, which is why it is dead, and does not justify us, as James explained very clearly.
 
Now more importantly does Lee realize how to repent?
 
@Decrypted Repentance means no longer saying and doing evil and false things because they are contrary to God's commandments.
Real repentance is no longer doing what is evil simply because it is evil, and is a sin against God.
 
@LeeWoofenden Then define "evil".
 
If we "repent" because we realize it looks bad, or it will hurt our reputation, or will cost us financially, that is not repentance. If these are our reasons for no longer lying, cheating, stealing, and so on, then as soon as we believe that it will be advantageous for us to do these things, we will lie, cheat, and steal as much as we want to.
Repenting means that we will no longer lie, cheat, and steal because these things are wrong, evil, and sins against God. So we won't do them even if we think we can get away with it, and think that we will benefit from it. We will not do them because they are wrong.
@Decrypted Evil is everything that opposes, destroys, and damages what is good. Lying, cheating, stealing, and committing adultery are evil because they all oppose, destroy, and damage the good of other people's livelihoods, relationships, and so on.
 
11:24 PM
@LeeWoofenden You have done well at dividing the concept of faith and repentance.
And that its a two step process.
First faith, then repentance.
 
@Decrypted Faith leads to repentance. If we don't repent from our evils, then our faith is meaningless.
 
Yes
I'm agreeing with you.
 
@Decrypted Yes. Because if we weren't taught that we must repent, we would never know to repent. So there is an order to our salvation. But nothing in that order operates "alone." It all progresses step-by-step. Faith alone accomplishes nothing. Faith that leads to repentance is real faith. Faith that leads us then to do good works is real faith. Without these things, it is faith alone, and it simply is not faith.
 
@LeeWoofenden Do you believe that I believe you?
 
Once again the Bible never says that anything is accomplished by faith alone.
@Decrypted I don't know. Earlier you seemed to be defending faith alone.
 
11:27 PM
@LeeWoofenden Many perspectives show the same thing.
 
@Decrypted But some perspectives are wrong and false. Not every perspective is equally valid. There is truth. And there is falsity. Some perspectives are false.
 
@LeeWoofenden For example is a wrist watch a watch?
 
There is a reason that the Bible never says that we're justified or saved by faith alone. It is false.
 
@LeeWoofenden But is a wrist watch a watch?
 
@Decrypted That's just playing with words.
 
11:29 PM
@LeeWoofenden indeed therefore its good that we have the same perspective.
@LeeWoofenden I believe that Faith also needs repentance.
@LeeWoofenden Is this agreeable to you?
 
@Decrypted Yes.
 
@LeeWoofenden Now that I have faith in what you said, I got forgiven.
 
@Decrypted You don't need my forgiveness.
 
@LeeWoofenden Yes
@LeeWoofenden Hopefully you saw how faith just saved me.
 
@Decrypted Saved you from what?
 
11:36 PM
@LeeWoofenden God will reveal it when the times ready for Lee.
@LeeWoofenden Now I have interest in how you divide sin from evil.
@LeeWoofenden Lets see the comparative definitions.
 
@Decrypted In a nutshell, evil is anything that opposes and destroys what is good. Sin is knowingly and intentionally doing what is evil. (There are, however, other definitions of evil and sin as those terms are used in the Bible.)
 
@LeeWoofenden Yeah I like those descriptions.
@LeeWoofenden Now whats the definition of error?
 
@Decrypted Error, if it is not also sin, is either unknowingly or unintentionally doing something that is evil and wrong.
 
Yes
 
Error still causes harm, but it doesn't cause damnation to our soul. Sin does cause damnation to our soul if we persist in it.
 
11:42 PM
Yes
Is you have a Catholic background?
 
@Decrypted No. I am a cradle Swedenborgian, from a long line of Swedenborgians.
 
Yes
Did sin enter through the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?
 
@Decrypted Sin entered through eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil contrary to God's commandment.
 
Was God happy with creation earlier the the eating of the knowledge of good and evil?
Did he call it "Good"?
 
@Decrypted In Genesis 1:31, after God had finished all of the creating in the six days of creation, it says:
> God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
 
11:46 PM
Perfect.
 
But by Genesis 2:18, which was before the eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it says:
> Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone . . . ." (italics added)
So God saw a "not good" in Creation before the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
At that point, humankind was already beginning to fall away from the "very good" state in which God had created us.
 
I like where this is going.
What happens to be mentioned in verse Genesis 2:17?
 
@Decrypted Yes, the tree was already planted, and the prohibition on eating from it was already made by the time the "not good" of 2:18 occurs.
 
What's interesting for the God who never changes.
 
@Decrypted Explain.
 
11:51 PM
He said it was good, it mentions this tree, and now it's saying somethings "not good".
Therefore was it God who said it was not good or the tree?
 
@Decrypted But it isn't the tree that's said to be "not good." It is Adam's aloneness that is said to be "not good."
 
Yet that's still a realization of error.
 
@Decrypted The tree of knowledge of good and evil itself is never said to be evil, or not good. Only eating from it is prohibited, so that eating of it is not good, because it is contrary to God's commandment and to the proper function of that tree. Not all trees are meant to be eaten from.
 
But what proof do we have that it was God's command to not eat from the tree?
 
@Decrypted It is not the realization of error, but the introduction of the possibility of error.
 
11:54 PM
Yet did God command it?
 
@Decrypted Genesis says so explicitly:
> And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)
 
"16 and he will command˙the Lord God˙on˙the man˙to say˙from all˙tree˙the garden˙consume˙you will consume˙"
Therefore who said the command?
 
@Decrypted This is a fractured and inaccurate reading of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew is crystal clear that the Lord God commanded.
 
The Lord God commanded the man to say
 
@Decrypted That's simply not what the Hebrew says.
It's a common Hebrew idiom of the form (in English), "God commanded, saying."
 
11:59 PM
Is it better to believe that a snake spoke, or a tree that knew good and evil?
 

« first day (1885 days earlier)      last day (2744 days later) »