# Genesis 3:15



## newnature

A figure of speech relates to the form in which the words are used. It consists in the fact that a word or words are used out of their ordinary sense, or place, or manner, for the purpose of attracting our attention to what is said. In Genesis chapter three, we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain figures of speech. When Satan is spoken of as a ‘serpent’, it is the figure Hypocatastasis or Implication. An implied resemblance or representation. 


Other figures of speech are used in Genesis 3:14-15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said. “Thou shalt bruise his heel”, it cannot mean his literal heel of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. â€¨

“He shall crush thy head”, it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan’s plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. â€¨

This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Romans 16:20). This, again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real. The bruising of Christ’s heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan’ power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed.


----------



## Huntinfool

So, then....I'm curious....


Why did Eve say to God, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

In her confession and conversation to the Creator of the Universe in a very personal conversation, what reason would she have had to not reference the being that she actually saw?  Up until that moment, snakes were not, in any way, a representation of evil to Adam and Eve.  They were part of God's perfect creation.  Eve would have literally had no frame of reference to refer to a person that she saw as a snake with the intent of demeaning him.  

In this instance, both the narrator AND the participant in the story reference the same form Satan took.  My man....he was a serpent.  There is no way around that scripturally.  If he wasn't actually a serpent, then what's with the curse to the snake?

"...cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life..."

It would make no sense for God to curse the snake if it was simply a figure of speech.  Satan was already cursed in his existence, no?  Had he simply shown up in his 'normal' (non-snake) form....why would God feel the need to curse the snake?


Had he walked up to Eve on two legs in the form of a man, she would have said to God, "That dude....he told me to eat the fruit.".


Gracious sakes.  I leave for a little while and now there's not one, but TWO of them!


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> So, then....I'm curious....
> 
> 
> Why did Eve say to God, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
> 
> In her confession and conversation to the Creator of the Universe in a very personal conversation, what reason would she have had to not reference the being that she actually saw?  Up until that moment, snakes were not, in any way, a representation of evil to Adam and Eve.  They were part of God's perfect creation.  Eve would have literally had no frame of reference to refer to a person that she saw as a snake with the intent of demeaning him.
> 
> In this instance, both the narrator AND the participant in the story reference the same form Satan took.  My man....he was a serpent.  There is no way around that scripturally.  If he wasn't actually a serpent, then what's with the curse to the snake?
> 
> "...cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life..."
> 
> It would make no sense for God to curse the snake if it was simply a figure of speech.  Satan was already cursed in his existence, no?  Had he simply shown up in his 'normal' (non-snake) form....why would God feel the need to curse the snake?
> 
> 
> Had he walked up to Eve on two legs in the form of a man, she would have said to God, "That dude....he told me to eat the fruit.".
> 
> 
> Gracious sakes.  I leave for a little while and now there's not one, but TWO of them!



The history of Genesis chapter three is intended to teach us the fact that Satan’s sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan’s activities today in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors’ chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of that old serpent?


Genesis 3:14-15 - What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive figures of speech? It is the same with the other figures used in versus 14, “On thy belly shalt thou go”. This figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan’s ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. Ps. 44:25 denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.


----------



## Huntinfool

You realize that you didn't answer any of the questions I asked, right?

Why did Eve refer to him as a serpent?  It's a direct quote...not a summary of what she said.  You are suggesting that she spoke with something other than a serpent when there is quite literally no scriptural evidence to confirm that.

In fact, there is direct scriptural evidence to confirm that, indeed, he came to her in the form of a serpent.  

Why is he cursed "above all livestock" and "above all beasts of the field"?  These are direct references to animals.  In other words...the curse is applicable to one animal and related to how much worse its curse is than other animals.

Friend, I don't know what version of Genesis you are reading from (or what website you're copying from)....but it is not any of the standard translations.

The snake was actually a snake.  There is nothing in that passage that indicates otherwise.  Conjecture and opinion don't change what's actually there on the page.


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> You realize that you didn't answer any of the questions I asked, right?
> 
> Why did Eve refer to him as a serpent?  It's a direct quote...not a summary of what she said.  You are suggesting that she spoke with something other than a serpent when there is quite literally no scriptural evidence to confirm that.
> 
> In fact, there is direct scriptural evidence to confirm that, indeed, he came to her in the form of a serpent.
> 
> Why is he cursed "above all livestock" and "above all beasts of the field"?  These are direct references to animals.  In other words...the curse is applicable to one animal and related to how much worse its curse is than other animals.
> 
> Friend, I don't know what version of Genesis you are reading from (or what website you're copying from)....but it is not any of the standard translations.
> 
> The snake was actually a snake.  There is nothing in that passage that indicates otherwise.  Conjecture and opinion don't change what's actually there on the page.



But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the “old serpent” is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word “old” with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Genesis chapter 3; and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted “the second man”, “the last Adam”, would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of “the first man, Adam”.


----------



## Huntinfool

No one is arguing whether the Satan in Genesis 3 is the same Satan that is in Revelation.  Are you suggesting that Satan is only able to take a single form?

Again....why did Eve refer to him as a serpent when she spoke with God?  That has to be explained if we are to accept a figurative serpent.

Why did God curse the serpent with a curse against animals?....also has to be explained to accept a figurative serpent.

You're offering no evidence that the language is figurative...you're simply stating that is it.  And you're not addressing the very specific language that forces any rational reading of the text to the conclusion that Satan appeared to Eve in the form of a serpent.

For certain, there are passages of scripture that are intentionally figurative to teach a lesson.  Evidence in the texts affirms that this is not one of them.


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> No one is arguing whether the Satan in Genesis 3 is the same Satan that is in Revelation.  Are you suggesting that Satan is only able to take a single form?
> 
> Again....why did Eve refer to him as a serpent when she spoke with God?
> 
> Why did God curse the serpent with a curse against animals?
> 
> You're offering no evidence that the language is figurative...you're simply stating that is it.  And you're not addressing the very specific language that forces any rational reading of the text to the conclusion that Satan appeared to Eve in the form of a serpent.
> 
> For certain, there are passages of scripture that are intentionally figurative to teach a lesson.  Evidence in the texts affirms that this is not one of them.



What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive figures of speech?


----------



## Huntinfool

What literal words?  How about these?

"The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

"...cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life..."


Answer the questions I have posed and then show us the evidence that you have which confirms these are figures of speech.  You understand what quotation marks in scripture (or any other form of written communication) indicate, right?


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> What literal words?  How about these?
> 
> "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
> 
> "...cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life..."
> 
> 
> Answer the questions I have posed and then show us the evidence that you have which confirms these are figures of speech.  You understand what quotation marks in scripture (or any other form of written communication) indicate, right?



The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2 Cor. 11:3) is spoken of as “an angel of light” in v.14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a being of glorious aspect, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?


----------



## Huntinfool

Gracious....context is so important.

Satan is referred to as a dragon in Revelation...in the same verse you're selectively quoting that refers to him as the old serpent.  So, which is it?  Did Eve see an angel, a dragon or a serpent?  

I'm going to ask one more time hoping that you've just not seen the question.  Eve is directly quoted (quotation marks indicating that these are the words she spoke to the Almighty God)...

"The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Is it your assertion that Eve saw a great angel of light....and chose use figurative language and call that angel of light a serpent when she had no context to view a serpent as an evil creature?

And, one last time on this one....why did God curse whatever she saw (and who was still there at the time) with a curse relating to animals?


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> Gracious....context is so important.
> 
> Satan is referred to as a dragon in Revelation...in the same verse you're selectively quoting that refers to him as the old serpent.  So, which is it?  Did Eve see an angel, a dragon or a serpent?
> 
> I'm going to ask one more time hoping that you've just not seen the question.  Eve is directly quoted (quotation marks indicating that these are the words she spoke to the Almighty God)...
> 
> "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
> 
> Is it your assertion that Eve saw a great angel of light....and chose use figurative language and call that angel of light a serpent when she had no context to view a serpent as an evil creature?
> 
> And, one last time on this one....why did God curse whatever she saw (and who was still there at the time) with a curse relating to animals?



The word “beast” does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a “beast”, but only that he was “more wise” than any other living being. We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently “an angel of light” possessing superior and supernatural knowledge. 

When Satan is spoken of as a “serpent”, it is the figure Hypocatastasie or Implication; it no more means a snake than it does when when Herod is called a “fox” or when Judah is called “a lion’s whelp”. It is the same figure when “doctrine” is called “leaven” (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is intended. If a figure of speech is thus employed, it is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.


----------



## newnature

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it exercised fascination over other creatures, and if it became known as “wise”, it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who “beguiled Eve” (2 Corh. 11:3-11).


----------



## Huntinfool

> We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake,



(In my best Tonto voice) Why you say "we" pale face?

I'm (and literally about 99% of all believers with me) conceiving the crud out of it in every post.


----------



## Huntinfool

So then, I have to assume that you are going to choose not to address my questions about what Eve said and the curse because you cannot come up with a plausible explanation that stays true to your assertion of figurative language?


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> So then, I have to assume that you are going to choose not to address my questions about what Eve said and the curse because you cannot come up with a plausible explanation that stays true to your assertion of figurative language?



This is Satan’s object in perpetuating the traditions of the “snake” and the “apple”, because it minsters to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God’s truth, the support of tradition. This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Genesis chapter three.


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> (In my best Tonto voice) Why you say "we" pale face?
> 
> I'm (and literally about 99% of all believers with me) conceiving the crud out of it in every post.



We who know about Ursa Minor. The Little Bear - the lesser sheep-fold. A grievous mistake, or ignorant perversion of primitive truth, as shown in the ancient names of these two constellations. No bear was ever seen with such a tail! No one who had ever seen a bear would have called attention to a tail, such as no bear ever had, by placing in its very tip the most important, wondrous, and mysterious Polar Star, the central star of the heaven, round which all others revolve. 

The brightest star, at the point of the tail, is the most important in the whole heaven. it is named Al Ruccaba, which means the turned or ridden on, and is today the Polar or central star, which does bnot revolve in a circle as does every other star, but remains, apparently, fixed in its position. But though the star does not revolve like the others, the central point in the heaven is very slowly but steadily moving. When these constellations were formed, the Dragon possessed this important point, and the star in Draco, marked this central point. But, by its gradual recession, that point is sufficiently near this star Al Reccaba, in the Lesser Sheepfold, for it to be what is called the Polar Star. The Polar Star has been removed from the Dragon, and is now in the Lesser Fold. 

But, how could this have been known five or six thousand years ago? How could it have been known when it received its name, which means the turned or ridden on? That it was known is clear; so likewise was it made known in the written Word that the original blessing included not merely the multiplication of the seed of faithful Abraham, but it was then added, “And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17).


----------



## Huntinfool

_"no bear was ever seen with such a tail! No one who had ever seen a bear would have called attention to a tail, such as no bear ever had, by placing in its very tip the most important, wondrous, and mysterious Polar Star, the central star of the heavens, round which all others revolve. The patriarchal astronomers, we may be sure, committed no such folly as this.

The brightest star, a (at the point of the tail), is the most important in the whole heavens. It is named Al Ruccaba, which means the turned or ridden on, and is today the Polar or central star, which does not revolve in a circle as does every other star, but remains, apparently, fixed in its position. But though the star does not revolve like the others, the central point in the heavens is very slowly but steadily moving. When these constellations were formed the Dragon possessed this important point, and the star a, in Draco, marked this central point. But, by its gradual recession, that point is sufficiently near this star Ruccaba, in the Lesser Sheepfold, for it to be what is called "the Polar Star." But, how could this have been known five or six thousand years ago? How could it have been known when it received its name, which means the turned or ridden on? That it was known is clear: so likewise was it made known in the written Word that the original blessing included not merely the multiplicaiton of the seed of faithful Abraham, but it was then added, "And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" (Gen 22:17)."]_

If you are going to quote (or rip off) websites, one of the requirements in here is that you at least give them credit for the words you're posting....so that the GON Forum doesn't get sued for stealing other people's writing.  Unless you're Mr. Wadsworth (which I guess is possible because he's from Oregon), this ain't yours to claim.

http://www.biblicalastronomy.com/11July.htm


I apologize to the folks in this forum.  I've been doing exactly what I asked you guys not to do.  I've been feeding the bears (pun intended) all day long.


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> _"no bear was ever seen with such a tail! No one who had ever seen a bear would have called attention to a tail, such as no bear ever had, by placing in its very tip the most important, wondrous, and mysterious Polar Star, the central star of the heavens, round which all others revolve. The patriarchal astronomers, we may be sure, committed no such folly as this.
> 
> The brightest star, a (at the point of the tail), is the most important in the whole heavens. It is named Al Ruccaba, which means the turned or ridden on, and is today the Polar or central star, which does not revolve in a circle as does every other star, but remains, apparently, fixed in its position. But though the star does not revolve like the others, the central point in the heavens is very slowly but steadily moving. When these constellations were formed the Dragon possessed this important point, and the star a, in Draco, marked this central point. But, by its gradual recession, that point is sufficiently near this star Ruccaba, in the Lesser Sheepfold, for it to be what is called "the Polar Star." But, how could this have been known five or six thousand years ago? How could it have been known when it received its name, which means the turned or ridden on? That it was known is clear: so likewise was it made known in the written Word that the original blessing included not merely the multiplicaiton of the seed of faithful Abraham, but it was then added, "And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" (Gen 22:17)."]_
> 
> If you are going to quote (or rip off) websites, one of the requirements in here is that you at least give them credit for the words you're posting....so that the GON Forum doesn't get sued for stealing other people's writing.  Unless you're Mr. Wadsworth (which I guess is possible because he's from Oregon), this ain't yours to claim.
> 
> http://www.biblicalastronomy.com/11July.htm
> 
> 
> I apologize to the folks in this forum.  I've been doing exactly what I asked you guys not to do.  I've been feeding the bears (pun intended) all day long.



But, how could this have been known five or six thousand years ago? How could it have been known when it received its name, which means the turned or ridden on?


----------



## Huntinfool

Give me your words and not someone else's and we can discuss.  

You still haven't answered my questions.  I have to assume it's because you haven't found a website to address them yet.


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> Give me your words and not someone else's and we can discuss.
> 
> You still haven't answered my questions.  I have to assume it's because you haven't found a website to address them yet.



Though for more than 2,500 years the contents that is written in the stars, God’s first great prophetic promise of Genesis 3:15, people were not left in ignorance and darkness as to God’s purposes; nor were they without hope as to ultimate deliverance from the Evil One. Adam, who first heard that wondrous promise, repeated it and gave it to his posterity as a most precious heritage. The ground of all their faith, the substance of all their hope, the object of all their desire ( “his holy prophets, which have been since the world began” Luke 1:67-70; Acts 3:20-21).


----------



## RH Clark

Huntinfool said:


> So, then....I'm curious....
> 
> 
> Why did Eve say to God, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
> 
> In her confession and conversation to the Creator of the Universe in a very personal conversation, what reason would she have had to not reference the being that she actually saw?  Up until that moment, snakes were not, in any way, a representation of evil to Adam and Eve.  They were part of God's perfect creation.  Eve would have literally had no frame of reference to refer to a person that she saw as a snake with the intent of demeaning him.
> 
> In this instance, both the narrator AND the participant in the story reference the same form Satan took.  My man....he was a serpent.  There is no way around that scripturally.  If he wasn't actually a serpent, then what's with the curse to the snake?
> 
> "...cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life..."
> 
> It would make no sense for God to curse the snake if it was simply a figure of speech.  Satan was already cursed in his existence, no?  Had he simply shown up in his 'normal' (non-snake) form....why would God feel the need to curse the snake?
> 
> 
> Had he walked up to Eve on two legs in the form of a man, she would have said to God, "That dude....he told me to eat the fruit.".
> 
> 
> Gracious sakes.  I leave for a little while and now there's not one, but TWO of them!



I see Satan in the story as a literal snake. When God cursed the snake and spoke that he would bruise man's heel and man would bruise his head, I see it as twofold. It is both literal as snakes striking at man and man destroying them, and the spiritual of Jesus ultimately crushing Satan beneath his feet. I don't think it need be more complicated than that.


----------



## Huntinfool

_Though for more than 2,500 years His people had not this Revelation written in a book as we now have it in the Bible, they were not left in ignorance and darkness as to God's purposes and counsels; nor were they without hope as to ultimate deliverance from all evil and from the Evil One.

Adam, who first heard that wondrous promise, repeated it, and gave it to his posterity as a most precious heritage— ground of all their faith, the substance of all their hope, the object of all their desire. Seth and Enoch took it up. Enoch, we know, prophesied of the Lord's coming, saying, "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment upon all" (Jude 14). How could these "holy prophets, since the world began," have recorded their prophecies better, or more effectually, or more truthfully and powerfully, than in these star-pictures and their interpretation? This becomes a certainty when we remember the words of the Holy Spirit by Zacharias (Luke 1:67-70):_

The Witness of the Stars 
E. W. Bullinger
1893


I know good and well you weren't alive in 1893.  Keep this up and the mods are gonna give you a 'banded' tag.  

You are misrepresenting someone else's words as yours.

Do you have anything original to say on this or any other matter?


----------



## newnature

Huntinfool said:


> _Though for more than 2,500 years His people had not this Revelation written in a book as we now have it in the Bible, they were not left in ignorance and darkness as to God's purposes and counsels; nor were they without hope as to ultimate deliverance from all evil and from the Evil One.
> 
> Adam, who first heard that wondrous promise, repeated it, and gave it to his posterity as a most precious heritage— ground of all their faith, the substance of all their hope, the object of all their desire. Seth and Enoch took it up. Enoch, we know, prophesied of the Lord's coming, saying, "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment upon all" (Jude 14). How could these "holy prophets, since the world began," have recorded their prophecies better, or more effectually, or more truthfully and powerfully, than in these star-pictures and their interpretation? This becomes a certainty when we remember the words of the Holy Spirit by Zacharias (Luke 1:67-70):_
> 
> The Witness of the Stars
> E. W. Bullinger
> 1893
> 
> 
> I know good and well you weren't alive in 1893.  Keep this up and the mods are gonna give you a 'banded' tag.
> 
> You are misrepresenting someone else's words as yours.
> 
> Do you have anything original to say on this or any other matter?



Public domain, get his work and study up.


----------



## newnature

At that fateful moment, Adam and Eve are standing together at the tree, and although only the woman and the serpent speak, Adam was present, and it seems he accepted the fruit that his wife handed him. He was fully complicitous, and indeed, Yahweh holds him responsible. Yahweh reproaches Adam. Adam says: Well, Eve handed to me. She gave it to me. Eve explains, the serpent tricked me. 

Yahweh vents his fury on all three, and he does so in ascending order: first the serpent for his trickery and then the woman, and finally the man. The doctrine of original sin, which is the idea that humans after Adam are born into a state of sin, by definition. The actions of Adam and Eve bring death to the human race, they don’t bring a state of utter and unredeemed sinfulness. In fact, humans have moral choice in each and every age.


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> I see Satan in the story as a literal snake. When God cursed the snake and spoke that he would bruise man's heel and man would bruise his head, I see it as twofold. It is both literal as snakes striking at man and man destroying them, and the spiritual of Jesus ultimately crushing Satan beneath his feet. I don't think it need be more complicated than that.



Nothing spiritual about the second Adam?


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> Nothing spiritual about the second Adam?



Read my statement again. I thought I clearly said "and the SPIRITUAL of Jesus ultimately crushing Satan beneath his feet."


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> Read my statement again. I thought I clearly said "and the SPIRITUAL of Jesus ultimately crushing Satan beneath his feet."



If this 7-Sealed Book has to do with the whole subject of prophecy, with its causes, and not merely with its consequences and its end, then it may well take us back to the beginning when man was driven out from Paradise, when Adam forfeited his inheritance; and the promise of a coming Deliverer and Redeemer was given.


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> if this 7-sealed book has to do with the whole subject of prophecy, with its causes, and not merely with its consequences and its end, then it may well take us back to the beginning when man was driven out from paradise, when adam forfeited his inheritance; and the promise of a coming deliverer and redeemer was given.




ok?????


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> ok?????



Who has the right to redeem the forfeited inheritance, the lost Paradise? Satan is in possession of this world now, and as such Satan was able in a peculiar way to tempt him who had come to redeem it, in the only lawful way in which it could be redeemed. Who is worthy, who will act the Goel’s (or Redeemer’s) part for man and for Israel, and recover his lost estate. â€¨

This 7-Sealed Book was given to the one worthy to open the seals, in connection with such a transaction for a much weightier Redemption of Creation, both by unanswerable right and unequalled might. For the Goel was an avenger as well as a redeemer.


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> Who has the right to redeem the forfeited inheritance, the lost Paradise? Satan is in possession of this world now, and as such Satan was able in a peculiar way to tempt him who had come to redeem it, in the only lawful way in which it could be redeemed. Who is worthy, who will act the Goel’s (or Redeemer’s) part for man and for Israel, and recover his lost estate. â€¨
> 
> This 7-Sealed Book was given to the one worthy to open the seals, in connection with such a transaction for a much weightier Redemption of Creation, both by unanswerable right and unequalled might. For the Goel was an avenger as well as a redeemer.



I don't know exactly what you are talking about. Satan is not in possession of this world. Chris has already redeemed it and given it to redeemed man.

What in the world do you mean by "Satan was able in a peculiar way to tempt him who had come to redeem it, in the only lawful way in which it could be redeemed." ?


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> I don't know exactly what you are talking about. Satan is not in possession of this world. Chris has already redeemed it and given it to redeemed man.
> 
> What in the world do you mean by "Satan was able in a peculiar way to tempt him who had come to redeem it, in the only lawful way in which it could be redeemed." ?



And Yeshua was about thirty years old; and Yeshua, having the fullness of power, yea, the powerful power of Yahweh upon him, returned from the Jordan. Than was Yeshua led by Yahweh into the wilderness forty days, to be tempted by Satan; and during those days, he ate nothing; and he was with the wild beasts; and when he had completed them, he was at last hungry; and Satan said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, command this stone to become bread.” Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is written, that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that Yahweh decrees.” â€¨

And Satan conducted him to a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the land, in a little time; and Satan said to him, “To you will I give all this dominion, and the glory of it, which is committed to me, and to whom I please, I give it; if therefore, you will worship before me, the whole shall be yours.” But Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is written, revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast, and swear only by his name.” â€¨

And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, cast yourself down from here, for it is written, he will give his angels charge over you, to keep you; and in their arms will they sustain you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” And Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is said, do not try Yahweh.” And when Satan had finished all his temptations, he departed from him for a time; and Satan came, and said to Yeshua, “If you are the son of Yahweh, command these stones to become bread.” But Yeshua replied, and said, “It is written, that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that Yahweh decrees.”  â€¨

Then Satan took him to the Holy City, and set him on a pinnace of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, cast yourself down; for it is written, that he will give his angles charge of you, and in their hands will they sustain you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” Yeshua said to him, “It is moreover written, do not try Yahweh.” 

Then Satan took him to a mountain that was very high, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and said to him, “All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Yeshua said to him, “Begone, Satan; for it is written, revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast, and swear only by his name. â€¨

Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels came, and ministered to him. Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with God, and God was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be by God’s hand; and without God, not even one thing that was created came to be. The life is in God, that life is the light of men.


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> And Yeshua was about thirty years old; and Yeshua, having the fullness of power, yea, the powerful power of Yahweh upon him, returned from the Jordan. Than was Yeshua led by Yahweh into the wilderness forty days, to be tempted by Satan; and during those days, he ate nothing; and he was with the wild beasts; and when he had completed them, he was at last hungry; and Satan said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, command this stone to become bread.” Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is written, that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that Yahweh decrees.” â€¨
> 
> And Satan conducted him to a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the land, in a little time; and Satan said to him, “To you will I give all this dominion, and the glory of it, which is committed to me, and to whom I please, I give it; if therefore, you will worship before me, the whole shall be yours.” But Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is written, revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast, and swear only by his name.” â€¨
> 
> And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, cast yourself down from here, for it is written, he will give his angels charge over you, to keep you; and in their arms will they sustain you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” And Yeshua replied, saying to him, “It is said, do not try Yahweh.” And when Satan had finished all his temptations, he departed from him for a time; and Satan came, and said to Yeshua, “If you are the son of Yahweh, command these stones to become bread.” But Yeshua replied, and said, “It is written, that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that Yahweh decrees.”  â€¨
> 
> Then Satan took him to the Holy City, and set him on a pinnace of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the son of Yahweh, cast yourself down; for it is written, that he will give his angles charge of you, and in their hands will they sustain you, lest you strike your foot against a stone.” Yeshua said to him, “It is moreover written, do not try Yahweh.”
> 
> Then Satan took him to a mountain that was very high, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and said to him, “All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Yeshua said to him, “Begone, Satan; for it is written, revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast, and swear only by his name. â€¨
> 
> Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels came, and ministered to him. Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with God, and God was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be by God’s hand; and without God, not even one thing that was created came to be. The life is in God, that life is the light of men.



And what does any of that have to do with the " in the only lawful way it could be redeemed" statement?

None of the temptations, had Jesus succumbed to them, would have resulted in redemption of the earth or man. Jesus did later redeem both in a lawful manner through the cross, but that had nothing to do with his temptation in the wilderness.


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> And what does any of that have to do with the " in the only lawful way it could be redeemed" statement?
> 
> None of the temptations, had Jesus succumbed to them, would have resulted in redemption of the earth or man. Jesus did later redeem both in a lawful manner through the cross, but that had nothing to do with his temptation in the wilderness.



Satan had his shot, the only lawful way to tempt the second Adam, but he failed.


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> Satan had his shot, the only lawful way to tempt the second Adam, but he failed.



I don't know that "lawful" enters into the equation. I do believe that it was a temptation, after all to gain all the kingdoms of the earth was exactly what Jesus had come to do, and to do it without dying on the cross, yes it was a temptation.


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> I don't know that "lawful" enters into the equation. I do believe that it was a temptation, after all to gain all the kingdoms of the earth was exactly what Jesus had come to do, and to do it without dying on the cross, yes it was a temptation.



Once Jesus took John the Baptizer confession, Satan had a lawful right to tempt the second Adam. Jesus was raised on Moses and the prophets. Adam learned from Yahweh himself, and he had childlike innocents before he allowed Eve to eat off that tree. Jesus has childlike innocents too, the same as the first Adam had.


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> Once Jesus took John the Baptizer confession, Satan had a lawful right to tempt the second Adam. Jesus was raised on Moses and the prophets. Adam learned from Yahweh himself, and he had childlike innocents before he allowed Eve to eat off that tree. Jesus has childlike innocents too, the same as the first Adam had.



I've no idea where you conjured that from.


----------



## newnature

RH Clark said:


> I've no idea where you conjured that from.



Didn't the fullness of Yahweh's power from on high come upon Jesus. When Jesus got that power upon him, Satan did indeed have an lawful right to tempt the second Adam. Where did Yahweh led Jesus after that baptism?


----------



## RH Clark

newnature said:


> Didn't the fullness of Yahweh's power from on high come upon Jesus. When Jesus got that power upon him, Satan did indeed have an lawful right to tempt the second Adam. Where did Yahweh led Jesus after that baptism?



Again, I don't know where you get lawful or unlawful for that matter.

The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus and he was lead into the desert to be tempted of the devil.

Why does lawful have to enter into the summation? Satan tempted Jesus because he was a man. That's about the only way I see lawful in it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Was the fruit real or literal?

I might see newnature's point if God had not literally cursed the snake.


----------



## hobbs27

Just a pet peeve..Jesus wasn't the second Adam. He was the last Adam. It does matter , but not for this discussion.


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Just a pet peeve..Jesus wasn't the second Adam. He was the last Adam. It does matter , but not for this discussion.



There had to be a second Adam before there was a last Adam.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Was the fruit real or literal?
> 
> I might see newnature's point if God had not literally cursed the snake.




They didn't eat the leaves of that tree.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ok, the fruit was literal as was the tree. I thought that it too may be figurative. You never actually answered the question about God cursing the literal snake on the ground. 
If the serpent was figurative because snakes are keen at leading one astray, why did God curse a literal serpent?


----------



## Artfuldodger

If Satan entered the Serpent to lead Eve astray, why was the Serpent cursed instead of Satan? The serpent didn't have a choice?

If sin enters us because of Adam or Satan, why are we cursed?
If it wasn't really the serpent or it's not really us? Why should God blame us for what Adam or Satan does or the serpent?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Genesis 3:1 
3 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

The serpent previously had a history of cunningness. This is why Satan picked the Serpent. 
In relation to God cursing the serpent and us, maybe the serpent represents us.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> If Satan entered the Serpent to lead Eve astray, why was the Serpent cursed instead of Satan? The serpent didn't have a choice?
> 
> If sin enters us because of Adam or Satan, why are we cursed?
> If it wasn't really the serpent or it's not really us? Why should God blame us for what Adam or Satan does or the serpent?



 Have you ever sinned? Did Adam or Satan make you do it? Didn't you have free will? That's why!


----------



## Artfuldodger

Sure I have sinned but wasn't I cursed before I even sinned? Wasn't the ground cursed? Didn't Jesus curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit?
Why was the serpent cursed, was it his free will?


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> Sure I have sinned but wasn't I cursed before I even sinned? Wasn't the ground cursed? Didn't Jesus curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit?
> Why was the serpent cursed, was it his free will?



What you don't understand is that God didn't fling a curse on them because he was angry, and so unjustly curse the snake and the ground in the process.

They were cursed because they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had previously only known good with God but now they would know evil also. It was the fruit that caused the curse. The earth partook because it was under Adam's dominion.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> What you don't understand is that God didn't fling a curse on them because he was angry, and so unjustly curse the snake and the ground in the process.
> 
> They were cursed because they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had previously only known good with God but now they would know evil also. It was the fruit that caused the curse. The earth partook because it was under Adam's dominion.



Why was the snake cursed first? I'm just trying to figure out why the poor snake got cursed. Wasn't he innocent? I could understand better if God would have cursed Adam, Eve, and the ground/earth. He singled out the snake first.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> There had to be a second Adam before there was a last Adam.



There could be a third a fourth, etc..Christ was the last. There's a reason He's not called the second. That ends it and all prophecy is done.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Why was the snake cursed first? I'm just trying to figure out why the poor snake got cursed. Wasn't he innocent? I could understand better if God would have cursed Adam, Eve, and the ground/earth. He singled out the snake first.



This is Satan’s object in perpetuating the traditions of the “snake” and the “apple”, because it minsters to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God’s truth, the support of tradition. This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Genesis chapter three.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Sure I have sinned but wasn't I cursed before I even sinned? Wasn't the ground cursed? Didn't Jesus curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit?
> Why was the serpent cursed, was it his free will?



The law of Moses cursed you, but now in the age of grace you are free from the curse of the law of Moses. Reconciliation.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Genesis 3:1
> 3 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
> 
> The serpent previously had a history of cunningness. This is why Satan picked the Serpent.
> In relation to God cursing the serpent and us, maybe the serpent represents us.



If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it exercised fascination over other creatures, and if it became known as “wise”, it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who “beguiled Eve” (2 Corh. 11:3-11).


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> There could be a third a fourth, etc..Christ was the last. There's a reason He's not called the second. That ends it and all prophecy is done.



In the constellation Coma (desired), the Star of Bethlehem appeared. There was a traditional prophecy, well-known in the East, carefully preserved and handed down, that a new star would appear in this sign when he whom it foretold should be born. 

Jesus was the second Adam during his life on earth. People were looking for one star.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> Ok, the fruit was literal as was the tree. I thought that it too may be figurative. You never actually answered the question about God cursing the literal snake on the ground.
> If the serpent was figurative because snakes are keen at leading one astray, why did God curse a literal serpent?



The word “beast” does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a “beast”, but only that he was “more wise” than any other living being.


----------



## newnature

Artfuldodger said:


> If Satan entered the Serpent to lead Eve astray, why was the Serpent cursed instead of Satan? The serpent didn't have a choice?
> 
> If sin enters us because of Adam or Satan, why are we cursed?
> If it wasn't really the serpent or it's not really us? Why should God blame us for what Adam or Satan does or the serpent?



We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated by one, apparently “an angel of light” possessing superior and supernatural knowledge. When Satan is spoken of as a “serpent”, it is the figure Hypocatastasie or Implication; it no more means a snake than it does when when Herod is called a “fox” or when Judah is called “a lion’s whelp”. It is the same figure when “doctrine” is called “leaven” (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is intended.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> In the constellation Coma (desired), the Star of Bethlehem appeared. There was a traditional prophecy, well-known in the East, carefully preserved and handed down, that a new star would appear in this sign when he whom it foretold should be born.
> 
> Jesus was the second Adam during his life on earth. People were looking for one star.



They were looking for the last Adam...think about these comparisons

Last Adam:
"And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord." - Ezekiel 37:14

First Adam:
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." - Genesis 2:7-8


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> They were looking for the last Adam...think about these comparisons
> 
> Last Adam:
> "And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord." - Ezekiel 37:14
> 
> First Adam:
> "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." - Genesis 2:7-8



No star appearing in Ezekiel. Ezekiel is talking about Israel.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> No star appearing in Ezekiel. Ezekiel is talking about Israel.



Umm. No it is Christ that raised the dead.

.13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

Paul on the hope of Israel...
Acts 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: {7} Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. {8} Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> Umm. No it is Christ that raised the dead.
> 
> .13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
> 
> Paul on the hope of Israel...
> Acts 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: {7} Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. {8} Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?



Ezekiel is all about the nation of Israel. Didn't they have to be in Babylon for 70 years, after that Yahweh healed their wounds bringing Israel home. King Agrippa is a age of grace thing, it is not wise to mix the two programs.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> Ezekiel is all about the nation of Israel. Didn't they have to be in Babylon for 70 years, after that Yahweh healed their wounds bringing Israel home. King Agrippa is a age of grace thing, it is not wise to mix the two programs.



So what's this opening of the graves?


----------



## newnature

hobbs27 said:


> So what's this opening of the graves?



The graves opening is one of the biggest forgery's added to the text. 

Matt. 27:51, the earthquake that fractured the rock opened a fissure that ran down through 20 foot of solid rock into a cave and cracked the stone lid on top of a black stone volt where the Ark of the Covenant lie hidden inside, pushing the lid aside. John 19:34, the blood that poured from the side of Jesus, ran down through that crevice and dripped onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant that was hidden by God and the prophet Jeremiah, right under where they crucified Jesus, 620 years earlier when the Babylonians destroyed Salomon’s temple.


----------



## hobbs27

newnature said:


> The graves opening is one of the biggest forgery's added to the text.
> 
> Matt. 27:51, the earthquake that fractured the rock opened a fissure that ran down through 20 foot of solid rock into a cave and cracked the stone lid on top of a black stone volt where the Ark of the Covenant lie hidden inside, pushing the lid aside. John 19:34, the blood that poured from the side of Jesus, ran down through that crevice and dripped onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant that was hidden by God and the prophet Jeremiah, right under where they crucified Jesus, 620 years earlier when the Babylonians destroyed Salomon’s temple.



There is no forgery in the text.


----------



## welderguy

newnature said:


> The graves opening is one of the biggest forgery's added to the text.
> 
> Matt. 27:51, the earthquake that fractured the rock opened a fissure that ran down through 20 foot of solid rock into a cave and cracked the stone lid on top of a black stone volt where the Ark of the Covenant lie hidden inside, pushing the lid aside. John 19:34, the blood that poured from the side of Jesus, ran down through that crevice and dripped onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant that was hidden by God and the prophet Jeremiah, right under where they crucified Jesus, 620 years earlier when the Babylonians destroyed Salomon’s temple.



My bible says differently.


----------

