WAS THE RIB FLESH?
Genesis 2:21 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (KJ)
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
Vilifying that is clearly shown in that she hasn't responded to my comment yet.....hmmmm
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Tracy,
My intention has never been to vilify Adam, it is only to establish what the word really says about the female who is herself today still vilified and subjugated by the church based upon erroneous interpretation. As African-Americans did we accept our interpretation as human beings to be negotiable from State to State? You are free in Michigan but not in Alabama? What did we say about that? All I am saying is, how and why is it right for the Church to do the same in the life of the female? Are we negotiable? Did God not give a sound word about who the female is as well? We are not beholden to the opinion of men, that we can be received as equal here yet not there, but we should only be beholden to what does the word of God say about the matter.
If we are going to settle the issue in NT, then let's settle it in NT and end segregation, I mean subjugation, of the female based upon the tradition of an OT garden word. Where is the coordinated movement within the Church to do this? But if we are not going to do it, and it seems to me as a Church we are not, then the word must be rightly proven in the OT.
In my effort to speak truth to power, I speak strongly about an “Adam” based upon what is in the Hebrew (that I did not write) but even what is in the very word, but what do I, or even we, owe Adam? And don't we owe it to God to speak the truth of his word? The personal faults of Adam represented Adam in the garden not the entire gender of men, just as it was always wrong of the Church to charge every female with the sin of Eve. In doing so we readily create (and have created against the female) a weapon formed against a child of God and even finding favor within the Church to prosper.
I must ask as a general question to the discussion, where was all of this objection about the vilification of an Eve? It is very difficult to digest. I mean no harm when I say this, but suddenly so many riding in on a white horse for the sake of Adam though never a subjugated Eve? Why? Compassion is always good but why now for Adam and never for Eve, and in many cases, not even for her still vilified daughters? Why? How have our minds been trained to think? -
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
Sis. Dawn:
1. Eve was given a name, but what is this title you speak of? Surely you aren't referring to the meaning of her name.
2. Eve’s action in eating the fruit was an act of disobedience.
3. If Eve’s statement that she was “beguiled” by the serpent was a “confession” because it was spoken in truth, then Adam’s truthful statement, “That the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat” should be considered as a confession. Is this not a true statement? God asked him a question just like He did Eve and Adam spoke the truth. So, how is it that Eve’s truthful statement is considered a confession honored by God and Adam’s truthful statement was not a confession honored by God? They both ate of the tree and therefore, both were disobedient. After all, was not Eve aware of the commandment given by God? It would be different if she did not know about the commandment, but she knew what God had said about this particular tree.
Another point I would like to address. You said that Adam was present during this time for the female, but silent making no interference . . . .remember, before the Fall, they were created as EQUALS. Adam did not have rule over Eve. So why would you think Adam should have interfered since she was his equal and she was just as much aware of the commandment given by God as he was, and therefore, being equal to Adam should not have required any type of interference. She should have stood on the commandment of God, but she didn’t. Instead, SHE ALLOWED herself to be tricked by the enemy by entering into a discussion with him. Why didn’t Eve just walk away? There is no scripture that said she was forced into this conversation with the serpent, so WHY DID SHE converse with the serpent?
Think about it. All Eve had to do was walk away. Are you blaming Adam for this also? Is it his fault that she didn't walk away? After all, she was his equal so she could have just ignored the serpent but she didn't. She made the decision to enter into a discussion with him. And isn't is just like the enemy to entice a person to do wrong and that person turns around and entices another person to do the same? Why did Eve give her husband the fruit to eat knowing it was against God's commandment? -
-
-
Sis. Dawn:
You said: “As to the meaning of the names Adam and Eve .....I do not see where the definition of Adam is stated within the creation story. This means the scribes that penned these scriptures reflected on the actions of Adam and therefore associated same to describe his character, thus giving a definition to the name Adam.” Ok. And why is it that the scribes knew to do what we don’t? Reflect upon his actions, carefully consider them, and then call it for what it is.
The books of the Bible were written by 40 different authors of which the first 5 books of the OT were written by Moses; then later transcribed from the original language to the languages of today. God is not calling anyone to re-write the Bible so what is written stays as it is written. So, carefully rethink the question you are asking . . .the scribes of the OT were writing these books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are you attempting to re-write the Bible?
You said: “Eve comes from the verb to live. Adam giving his wife the name Eve can be seen as an act of faith, looking to the future with hope after being cast out of the Garden of Eden.” Except that among other reasons, his timing was all wrong for this to be true. God is Eternal. His will is Eternal. The will of God was always that the female should be called “Eve,” even from the first moment of her creation. It was a rebellious Adam who had other plans in Genesis 2:23. Yet God does not change his mind, first calling her “Woman” and then “Eve,” and Adam was not authorized to act independently of God’s will in the garden.
Can you present specific scripture that supports these statements that I have underlined? In other words, what scripture specifically says it was always God's will that the female should be called Eve from the first moment of her creation. Where does it specifically say that Adam was not authorized to act independently of God's will in the garden in reference to calling the female Woman then Eve?
Eve earned her name from the foreknowledge of God because as the only human due to make right confession of sin in a soon fallen world she alone would provide reason for a righteous God to continue life for the humans in the earth. A righteous God could not continue life in the earth in the total absence of a demonstrated show of his righteousness in the earth, that would only be to further the evil. He doesn’t do that.
You keep saying Eve confessed when all she did was speak the truth just like Adam spoke the truth. But you insist on making her a heroine and Adam the villain. What you are really saying is that God forgave Eve for her so-called confession after her act of disobedience, but God did not forgive Adam for his act of disobedience even though he, too spoke the truth as Eve did. Is that a righteous God? To forgive one for her so-called confession and not the other for doing the same? If God foreknew Eve's pending "confession" wouldn't He also have known about Adam's future statement of truth? After all, He is God and He knows all, past, present and future.
In His Grace -
-
-
Sister Harris,
It’s past one a.m. here but I noticed this before shutting down for the night and had to make at least a quick response.
You said: 1. Eve was given a name, but what is this title you speak of? Surely you aren't referring to the meaning of her name.
2. Eve’s action in eating the fruit was an act of disobedience.
Genesis 3:20, “mother of all living” is (what I call) a title earned by the female but not respectively also earned by the man as “father of all living” and yet he would go on to physically father every child belonging to Eve - proving this, I believe, to be a title she won speaking to the spiritual (and that due to the confession of Genesis 3:132). I don’t disagree that Eve’s act in eating the fruit was disobedience, I only say that it is a sin she alone made a just confession of before God.
If Adam spoke the truth, then why was Adam a punished man by God, even receiving the death pronouncement? Why was Adam not used also by God in Genesis 3:15 in opposition to the “seed” and “head” of the enemy as was a garden Eve? Why did God single her out for this and not also him?
You said: “After all, was not Eve aware of the commandment given by God?” The female only knew what she was told by Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which is why a present Adam who failed to speak truth in the moment of her deception is that much more sinister.
You said: “So why would you think Adam should have interfered since she was his equal and she was just as much aware of the commandment given by God as he was, and therefore, being equal to Adam should not have required any type of interference.” Two things. God is no respecter of persons and God designed the man to be a husband to the female. That God is no respecter of persons means also that Adam was to be a help meet to Eve even as Eve was to be a help meet to Adam. God after all, as supplier of all of her needs, provided her with this as well. Further, we are not talking about two people, living in distant worlds and not called to be in relationship one to the other. You are attacking Eve now for relying upon her husband to demonstrate what ought to be basic between two people, that which works toward the preservation of one, or even both, lives. If you re-read what I wrote, I also stated that Eve was ultimately at fault for not calling upon God herself before committing an act which she knew God spoke against, and that was to eat of the fruit.
You said: “Is it his fault that she didn't walk away? After all, she was his equal so she could have just ignored serpent but she didn't. She made the decision to enter into a discussion with him.” Read Matthew Chapter 4 and then tell me what you think about a Jesus who did not walk away either.
You said: “Why did Eve give her husband the fruit to eat knowing it was against God's commandment” Well, using your words, is it her fault now that Adam didn’t just walk away? What did she do, beat him over the head and force him to bite? She simply gave. He could have thrown it to the ground, he could have refused to take it, but a silent Adam did what he wanted to do all along provided that the female herself lived after eating the fruit. She lived, and then he ate too. -
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
Sis Davidson, anyone who knows me knows that I am EXTREMELY analytical. I examine everything sometimes just for the sake of analysis.
The one thing I realized is this... oftentimes I would find myself on a wild goose chase. It was like chasing after a dandelion that was floating in the wind only to find myself somewhere I didn't need to be…in a field of dandelions… surrounded by questions about God’s word while missing the true point of the Word of God.
Eve's greatest lusts was for knowledge/wisdom but she masked it with something. Let me show you something that happened in the garden:
GENESIS 3:1-6
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The serpent was subtle in his enticement of Eve. What did he entice her with?
1. don’t believe God’s word as it stands
2. desire to be as gods by way of KNOWLEDGE
Those were Eve’s lusts but she masked those lusts by first convincing herself that the tree was good for food AND it was pleasant to the eyes… oh yeah and by the way it would make her wise… but let’s just leave that for last. Oh and then she decided to bring others in on her thinking.. she gave the fruit to Adam and he did eat. Adams unbridled desire was to please Eve and they both did eat. *sigh*
Satan could have never tempted Eve if she didn’t already have a lust for something.
You can NEVER escape God’s word.
James 1:13-15
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
The devil would NEVER have been able to tempt EVE if it weren’t for her OWN lust… unbridled desire or intense longing to be as gods by way of KNOWLEDGE. We mask what our unrighteous thoughts and deeds by some righteousness. But a little leaven will leaven the entire lump.
The only way Eve could fulfill that desire was to NOT believe God’s word as it stood. He said don't eat of THAT tree. She didn't have to know why... all she needed to do was... obey. With the help of the enticing words of Satan, Eve was only a hearer of God’s word and not a doer of it … deceiving herself.
Chasing dandelions….
Sometimes, in our quest for knowledge we may find that we are only chasing dandelions and deceiving ourselves. We see the quest as an act of righteousness but the deception comes when we don’t believe God’s word as it is. We search for a hidden meaning… the analyzing (the tree) is good for food (for knowledge) and is pleasant to the eyes (seems righteous to search for knowledge doesn’t it)… but it is only so that we can be wise in our OWN eyes not so much that we get closer to God and seek to learn more about Him so that we can be pure in our obedience towards Him.
The greatest way to deceive a person (even ourselves) is DISTRACTION. Distract a person from what the Word God has inspired men to write as it is and you will find yourself… chasing dandelions and in a place you should not be.
Don't just stop at knowledge... keep going... in all your getting, get an understanding of
2 Peter 1:5-7
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
I love you sis.. be careful of what you choose to be so very analytical about or you may find yourself chasing dandelions. -
-
-
God bless you HOPE. I love your story about the dandelions and it is so true. I must share this with others when the appropriate opportunity arises.
-
-
-
Its about time someone placed it raw and blunt!! Good work!!
-
-
-
Please do not think I am poking fun at you or anything like that. I use pictures because sometimes pictures speak louder than words. I think my picture in my earlier comment didnt come thru so i made it smaller.
My point is I remember being soooo analytical (chasing dandelions) that I would find myself in arguments with people over things that we shouldn't even be analyzing or arguing about... and pretty soon, you find yourself lost in the conversation... in a place you should not be.
don't chase dandelions... stick with the Word of God as it stands. And stay on the focus of the Gospel which is Christ. We can seek after soo much knowledge that we teeter on becoming Gnostics.
Knowledge in and of itself is not bad at all. But when it becomes a lust it becomes... the "seeking" becomes perverted. -
-
-
You see, in the picture the girl started chasing dandelions... she asked a lot of questions about a lot of different things. Then she found herself lost in a field full of nothing but... questions. Distracted from her real purpose. Then she found herself being chased by the very thing she went after....
You will find that your opposition here on BPN isn't so much the people who are full of strong opinions about what you say... but that spiritually you are being consumed by your extreme analysis of the scriptures.
Curiosity isn't bad but when unchecked .. unbridled desire of knowlege is in fact a lust for knowledge.. not a thirst for truth.
James 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
When that lust is conceived it will bring forth the sin of pride. Sin has a built in judgment.. death. The death that prideful knowledge produces is the death of a sound mind. You begin to think that what you are thinking is truly coming from God. You being thinking that what you are thinking.. the quest that you are on is divinely inspired. When in truth you are being distracted from the Gospel. It's the old okie doke dear.
Don't be distracted by the prize of knowledge.
1 Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
Knowledge alone will puff you up so full of pride you will look like the goodyear blimp!
But an understanding of the scriptures from a place of love...God's kind of love will not look like a person posting a discussion defensively.
I love you Sis, I really do.. but you are defensive. You are fighting... shadow boxing. And I'm not trying to punch you.. I'm just trying to show you something that you don't see yet.
Just sit back for a moment. Chill out for a minute. And allow God to show you something different yet simple. Some secret things belong to Him. Some things don't even need to be analyzed or questioned.
ok. -
-
-
So true. It is the aged on trickery Satan used on Eve as you stated previously . . . enticing the individual with "secret knowledge."
I like the way you present this warning with compassion. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
