Pinklight

I am really interested in hearing in this debate that will take place on the 9th of Oct.

http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/ware-grudem-vs-mccall-yandell-on-the-trinity-teds-debate/

‘Yes, I believe it means to intimately know but even more than that.  It is something that isn’t even connected to his nature at all.
Remember Jesus said that “in him” (satan) there is no truth?
On the other hand, what is said about God is that “in him” there is no darkness at all.  1 John 1:5.
One has no light and no truth, the other is light and has no darkness and is truth and cannot lie.  God then is good and in him is no evil or experience of evil.’

I don’t understand this all with my mind, but all I know is that what I’m hearing and reading makes be full of joy. These are ‘concepts’ I knew as a child, but ‘my idea’ of God has become distorted over time for various and multiple reasons.

Well the shock of the opposed translation did not feel very good. Ofcourse I have feelings of disappointment over translations but I’m am lifted up by coming to know the original meaning.

But that was not as it were in the garden.

The law is written on our hearts so we ‘know’ the difference between good and evil.

I have been reading your last post 1 sentence at a time and then responding.

‘But when he speaks of God not as a quote but of his own words is it possible for this to be truth since Jesus said there is no truth in him?’

Not possible. The only time the truth can leave his mouth is when he is quoting scripture. Whoa!

What Satan does in twisting God’s word is “helicopter” the verse out of its context and in that way he twists God’s word.

Yes, what I fogot to also say in my first post was that he put some of the truth in a context that is not the truth.

And we cannot say that he quoted scripture there in Gen 3!

Telling the truth and speaking it as in a quote are 2 different things.

‘I think we can agree that quoting scripture is not Satan’s words so that wouldn’t qualify. ‘

Whoa! Uh, I’m floored! Excellent!

‘What does it mean when it says that there is “no truth in him”?  Does this mean that Satan is incapable of telling the truth?’

No, it does not mean that he is incapable of speaking the truth. He spoke quoted scripture to Jesus.

‘If Satan is incapable of telling the truth is Genesis 3:5 a lie?’

Genesis 3:5  “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”’

Their eyes did open. 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked.’

‘We have God telling us in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”

Is there any difference between what Satan said and what God said?’

Um, I’m not sure. Does the Holy Spirit know good and evil? That doesn’t sound right. Now you’ve got me thinking. It appears that there is a difference between ‘you will be like God’ from ‘has become like one of Us.’ Was Jesus born knowing good and evil because he put on the flesh? Yes, I think so. The sin nature from what I understand (which Jesus did not have) is different from knowing good and evil because they both sinned but the sin nature is passed on through the man, Adam. At the time God spoke here in Genesis Jesus had not put on the flesh yet. Did the man become like the Word? Did the man become like God (Trinity, One), or did the man become like the Holy Spirit? ‘Like one of Us’. What does that mean?

I wish I had all the answers! I am uncomfortable not knowing the answers or being unable to understand.

‘Before I tell you what I think, I would like to know what you think.  How do you reconcile Jesus’ words that say that there is no truth in Satan and the words in Genesis 3:5 compared to Genesis 3:22?’
John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

The devil’s desires are linked to being a murderer, not standing in the truth because there is no truth in him. Therefore he desires NOT to speak the truth when it leaves his lips like when he quoted scripture to Jesus, so if truth leaves his mouth it’s because of his desire to murder, not stand in the truth. So when he speaks it is not out of desire for telling the truth.

Can’t wait to get a better understanding!

‘dont bother to ever respond on that blog. they ban others from their forum. who cares what they think? she is obsessed.’
I agree. And what is this person(s) obsessed with? They are obssessed with accusing, and showing anger and hatred, beyond strange or weird. To me, they are definately ‘out there’ and no, not just because they are an accusser or full of anger to tear down or apart. I would just sum up their ‘blog’ being full of accusations and hate. Woah, that’s christian? What’s christian that is over there ( I read a bit of it)? Nothing at all. It’s directionas on how to repel that which is holy.

{Note Cheryl edited out the calling of a name just to keep this blog on a higher level than the one we are talking about}

‘Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity Between you and the woman…
God said that he is the one who would initiate a fight between the serpent and the woman. ‘

I agree.

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all the livestock
       and all the wild animals!
       You will crawl on your belly
       and you will eat dust
       all the days of your life.
 15 And I will put enmity
       between you and the woman,
       and between your offspring  and hers;
       he will crush  your head,
       and you will strike his heel.”

Because the serpent did what? What’s ‘this’? What did the serpent do? The serpent did not deceive Adam into eating, he ate willfully. But he deceived the woman and she ate. She went from having the truth to being deceived by the serpent, and being deceived is why she ate and for that God puts enmity between them.

I’ve heard it claimed by comps, Bruce Ware for example that the woman was taught the command by the man. That is what Bruce Ware claims. While this unwarranted claim is made, it is also claimed by comps that she ‘got it wrong’, not the man in his teaching her, but she did, in her response to the serpent. So in conclusion not only does God not speak to the woman about his prohibition, but she also could not get it right even when taught (by man).

But if the man did not teach the woman in the garden, then why is it claimed that women can not teach men but only men can teach womenwhile what is not found in Genesis is that the man taught the woman in the first place? If it’s not a foundational teaching of Genesis, (and it’s not) that man is to teach woman then where does the teaching that only men should teach doctrine come from? Does it come from Adam’s silence? This is more reason why her testimony is important in contrast to the man’s silence.

If the woman can testify to what God HAS said in Genesis then she is not the woman that tradition has made her out to be.

Without the text offering an evidence that she was mistaken (or anything else) I have to question why would any think she were wrong? In other words, where does such an idea come from? It has to come from some where. There has to be a reason why one would doubt her testimony to begin with. And if the scriptures are not the source of the doubt and not the source which gives us any idea of such a thing, then what is the source? If the text itself does not give us this idea in any shape or form, then why is it even considered at all? What we can take from the text of scripture is only what it gives us but if we leave the text ‘with more’ then what it gives us, then what have we received and from where?

Here’s the re-write for what was post #28:

Without evidence to begin with there is nothing to consider to begin with. Therefore, we cannot consider that the woman added to God’s word because there is no evidence that she did. Just as we cannot consider that the husband is the leader of the wife because there is no evidence that he is. (There is evidence however that God added to his word.)

If we begin with the idea that she added to God’s word we will end up with a conclusion that she added to God’s word. I claim that this is what comps do. It is with what they begin and with what they end. They begin with nothing and end with nothing. Those who accept the woman’s testimony on the other hand begin with her testimony (evidence) and end with her testimony (scripture).

If a comp responds with ‘the bible does not say that she did not add to God’s word’ to an egal that has said, ‘the bible does not say she added to God’s word’ all the comp is doing is continuing their argument/belief from silence while what the egal says refutes the original argument from silence, ‘she added to God’s word’.

Let’s look at a different example. If a comp responds with ‘the bible does not say that the husband is not the leader of the wife’ to an egal that has said, ‘the bible does not say that the husband is the leader of the wife’ again, the comp is continuing their argument/belief from silence while what the egal says refutes the original argument from silence, ‘the husband is the leader of the wife’. On both accounts, the comps position begins with silence, nothing, a blank from scripture and that is where it stays, and where it ends.

Beginning with a belief/argument with no evidence, is nothing to consider, because there’s no evidence to consider to begin with. In other words, we don’t consider what the bible does not say FIRST. First we consider what it does say and then we weight what it does not say to what it does.

So when someone says, ’the bible does not say that she did not add to God’s word’ they are continuing to offer ‘no evidence’. This is so because no one would say, ‘well ghee, the bible does not say that she did not add to God’s word’ without first considering what is not even in the bible, ’she added to God’s word’.

Is the husband the leader of the wife? The bible does not say so.

Did the woman add to God’s word? The bible does not say so.

Yes, Don. The end was very confusing! lol! I don’t know what happened. I think I was too tired and then fell alseep. Does, #30 help some, clear up the end at least?

I would say that we do know what God said to them (what she said) but that we don’t know when he said it. And because others say that we do not know what God said to them, I said, we know what she knew and what we make of what she knew, is the question. This is the question because we cannot say that what she said, God said, is NOT what she knew. How could we? How can we claim, to know more about what she knew? So it’s about what she knew and NOT what we don’t know. Does that make sense? That being the case, there is no gap to begin with. If we accept what she knew then we know what God said.

I’m going to get some more coffee!

Scratch my last paragraph, in my comment #28. It did NOT come out right. Forgive me!

Comp: she added to God’s word (the command given to the man)
Egal: the bible does not say she added to God’s word
Comp: the bible does not say that she did not add to God’s word

When the comp responds with that, their argument from silence is only continuing. This is because no comp would say it without considering first that she did add to God’s word. And the egal’s response is not from silence since it is in the defense position.

Now this is different from ‘what she said, God said is more than what God said to the man’ or ‘what God said to the man is less than what she said, God said.’ The reason is because here in this case no one is saying that she added to God’s word.

Sorry for all the corrections I have had to make! (I need to slow down when I type it out, I think.)

Without evidence to begin with there is nothing to consider to begin with.

We have to take the evidence that we do have first which is what we have to consider, then we can take what we don’t have, and weigh what we don’t have against what we do have, and them come to conclusions.

Going backwards:

1. We have what she said, God said.
2. We have God saying ‘you (pl)’ to the both of them.
3. We have what God said to the man and when he said it, and what he said to the man is less than what she said, God said, ‘you (pl).’
4. We don’t have when God said what she said he did.

Conclusion: We have what she knew God said, and we also have why God says ‘you’ (pl).

When I underline words, it does not go through when I submit my comments. Not too big of a deal I guess but I like to emphasis or highlight my words in different ways. (And I wish I could edit sometimes!)

Oops, that should have been, ‘There is only evidence in the accounts of Genesisthat when God says ‘you (pl)’… ‘

So what God said (also), is determined by what she knew (said) and where she got it from is also determined by evidence we have. The evidence we have is where ‘you (pl) is used’ by God, in Gen 1, which shows how God uses it that is, he uses plural ‘you’ when he speaks to the both of them

We know about what she knew. She knew something that God said, and the evidence that she knew something that God said IS her own words. This is what we know. We can be sure about what she said because what she said is recorded. We know what she said. We can only say that what she said was what she knew. We cannot say that what she said, God said is not what she knew.

But where did she get what she knew from? There is only evidence in the bible that when God says ‘you (pl)’ that he is speaking to the both of them. Gen 1. From scripture alone, from the evidence we do have, we can only say that she got it from God when God spoke to them both, like he did do in Gen 1.

Cheryl, can I just fill up all your posts on and related to this subject with 100 comments each? 😉

I think I just may explode eventualy. 🙂  Whonos?

‘FWIIW, the serpent is asking a question.  We know the serpent is being tricky, but it is not a wrong thing to ask a question.  A question is not a statement.  It is a way to start to rope the woman in, but the question itself is not unfair. 
We are to ask questions about what God said.  We are not to do so to try to trick someone.’
I have to comment here. What you said above, I agree. But we also know that the serpent asked a question trying to trick the woman because we can see from his words that he knew what God said to the alone man.

Hi, Anonymous

I’m glad you’ve joined and asked such thought provoking questions! I like it! I try to ask many questions myself, but you’ve helped me see more! For now, I have more questions!
Can one fail to protect the garden, by listening to their wife’s voice (talk about the garden), one of the thing’s God said the man did do after he ate? Does it have anything to do with the serpent specificaly asking about ‘the garden’ with the woman responding about ‘what was in the middle of the garden’? I mean here’s the serpent asking specificaly about the garden, the garden that Adam was suppose to protect.

(I’ve not been able to determine for myself yet, whether or not when the woman spoke of the tree’s location in the garden, that the words were her own, or God’s, though in a comment of mine, from what I said, in ‘Was the man given authority to rule the woman’ it seems as though they are the woman’s words but before I use to think they were words of God’s that the woman was quoting and now, presently I’m trying to determine who’s they were.)

‘My analysis is that we are unsure about the woman, but sure about the man. And this is enough. We would like to know more perhaps, but we need to be grateful for what we have.’

But what do we know about what she knew? There’s no evidence she knew what God told the alone man, but there is evidence that she knew something that God said, and the evidence IS her own words. That is what we know. We cannot be unsure about what she said because that’s recorded. We know what she said. But what many are unsure about is what she said, God said but that is being unsure about what she knew (said). We cannot say that what she said, God said is NOT what she knew. We can only say that it WAS what she knew.

The question then is what do we make or what have we made of what she knew (said).

Make sense?

I am in agreement with you on your post #11. About him, yes, the man did know the truth, directly from God and failed to guard the garden.

I see, Don. You weren’t implying that she somehow knew, either, right?

What I understand though is that when hierarchists say ‘add to’ they imply that she knew what God said explicitly to the alone man therefore she added to that command, and therefore God did not but rather she did.

After my studying the serpent’s words, I see that he was asking the woman about the command that God gave the alone, though he omitted and twisted what God said in his question, and then after the woman responds he then straight out lies, saying the opposite of what God said, though using the same words God commanded the alone man, continues to lie some more and swap words around, and then tops it all off with a truth at the end.

In light of what God said to the alone man, what the serpent asked the woman on what God said to the both of them, and what she responds with, she looks entirely oblivous to what the serpent is doing to the command God explicitly gave the man while he was alone. And as I said elsewhere, what the serpent did would have been easy for the man, to untwist. We can see what the serpent did when we look.

Was it cunning enough for the serpent to manuver in and out of words, while twisting, omitting, and swapping, that the woman had no idea were spoken from God’s mouth to the alone man, while her husband was with her?

‘This is why I prefer to just point out that we do not know what we do not know.’

Yup. We do not know  what we do not know (that she even knew explicitly what God commanded the alone man).