Why was "the Tree" placed in the center of the garden (orchard)

[face2face]

I made no such claim…..why would I, as I do not believe that any animals were sacrificed to produce clothing for Adam and his wife. There is no scripture that say so, and no sacrifice was ever made by either of them for the sin they committed. As sinless beings, there was no basis upon which to forgive them.
The first mention of sacrifice was in connection with Cain and Abel, which resulted in Abel’s murder by his jealous brother.

So you must believe they magically appeared? A miracle of sorts and that A&E did not teach their children to offer the animal and its fat?

It's amazing how far a believer will go to defend an undefendable position.

@GodsGrace

This is what Aunty believes.

God condemned A&E to a hopeless existence, but before doing so, He ripped their fig leaf coverings off and forcibly clothed them with a miracle (of some sorts we are not told) and sent them from the Garden to die a slow hopeless death. In the meantime A&E teach their children all about God and how to make offerings to Jehovah God. Their children (two of them) learn from A&E about the principle of the shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins, which A&E believe hopelessly all their days. Aunty Jane also believes Eve's statement in Genesis 4 that Eve stating the blessing from Jehovah God was not a blessing at all, and how she named her son Appointed which wasn’t Eve's understanding God's purpose with her, or her son. Basically everything from Gen 3 - Gen 5 didn't happen as we read because Jane didnt understand... 1 God makes Covenants of promise and 2. God teaches the shedding of blood principle.

25 Adam again had sexual relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth*l because, as she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring* in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.”

Basically Jane goes against her own Bible's teaching for some cockabull story she has been fed by her elders, which she can't defend because the evidence is so convincing she knows her half-hearted responses are false. Other than her very poor interpratation of Ezek 28 this is the second time I've seen her flounder.

F2F

 

[GodsGrace]

Actually, I gave you the Catholic definition of the word “Protoevangelium” which is defined as…. Traditionally the woman and her offspring have been understood to mean Mary and her Son.”

So Catholic tradition is responsible for this definition, not the Bible.
Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with Mary, who is not the source of Jesus’ life, but the means through which he was born as a human.

So who do you think Protestantism would describe as the woman?
Who are the following persons?:
WAR BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN
HE'LL wound YOUR head....

Who is the offspring of the woman?
Certainly it means Jesus.
And who is the woman that gave birth to our Lord?

My research shows otherwise. 99% of Catholic doctrine is not scripturally based, which is the main reason why they claim “sola scriptura” is invalid. If they had to substantiate all of their doctrines scripturally, they would have difficulty finding any of them as teachings of Jesus Christ.

This is nonsense- pure and simple.
The CC does NOT state that sola scriptura is invalid...whoever told you such a dumb statement?
SOMETIMES scripture is not enough.
If you don't agree - then explain HOW we could come to know if OSAS is the truth or not?
IF there is any grey area in scripture - then we must certainly use other sources:
for instance, those that were taught by the Apostles?
Perhaps THEY know more than we do today?

The whole of Christendom falls under that definition….but the parable that Jesus gave about the “wheat and the weeds” (tares) explains that a counterfeit “Christianity” would be sown by the devil, in “the world”, (not just the church). The effect is global. That explains why we see so many denominations in all nations, claiming to teach Bible truth, but in most cases accepting the flawed foundation of Roman Catholicism…..
Whatever you build on a faulty foundation, will not stand.

Hmmm. A faulty foundation will not stand...
Great statement.
Because the CC has stood for over 2,000 years.

And you make my point exactly, stating that there are SO MANY DENOMNATIONS IN ALL NATIONS CLAIMING TO TEACH BIBLE TRUTH.

So, Aunty Jane,
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
How can you be sure?

Aunty Jane said:
I made no such claim…..why would I, as I do not believe that any animals were sacrificed to produce clothing for Adam and his wife. There is no scripture that say so, and no sacrifice was ever made by either of them for the sin they committed. As sinless beings, there was no basis upon which to forgive them.

The above is fraught with error.
1. It's general Christian accepted belief that God made the leather garments for Adam and Eve from an animal. Some versions say SKINS.
To get an animal's skin - the animal must die.
This is accepted as being the first sacrifice, the blood that was shed, to forgive man for his sins....sacrifice has always been made for mankind's forgiveness. I'm sure you're familiar with the sacrificial system in the OT and the role of priests to offer them to God.

2. You state that no sacrifice was ever made by Adam or Eve for the sin they committed.
What sacrifice did YOU make for the sins YOU committed?
None.
The sacrifice has been made for you FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, by our Savior Jesus The Christ.
His sacrifice spans all time and is made FOR ALL MEN - including Adam and Eve.
If you continue to chapter 4 you'll find that Eve credited God for giving her another manchild.
She broke her fellowship with God but somehow it was restored.
And why did Cain and Abel offer God a sacrifice?
Perhaps because they were raised knowing about God...

The first mention of sacrifice was in connection with Cain and Abel, which resulted in Abel’s murder by his jealous brother.

This is called an offering in Genesis 4:3
It states that Cain brought an offering ---
How do you understand this to be a sacrifice?


part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

@Aunty Jane

2 of 2

The animosity between “the seed of the woman” and “the seed of the devil” that was prophesied, is not what you have stated. We first have to identify the real “mother” of Jesus Christ…..he did not originate on earth, but came from heaven, to be born as a sinless human in order to redeem the human race. Mary is not the woman. His Father had a figurative “wife”.

Jesus didn't have an earthly mother?
Then how was He born excactly?

Although Jehovah honorably fulfilled his role as “Husband”, the nation of Israel became an unfaithful wife. “As a wife has treacherously gone from her companion,” Jehovah said, “so you, O house of Israel, have dealt treacherously with me.” (Jer 3:20) God accused Israel of ”adultery”….like an unfaithful wife who sought to betray her husband with another man, Israel committed spiritual adultery in he unfaithfulness to her “husband”.

I agree with the above....
but I also know that Jesus had a real mother.
The entire bible is not allegory or metaphor, etc.

Jehovah uses family relationships—husband and wife, mother and children—to convey profound spiritual truths because such symbols are meaningful to humans….we understand those relationships.
Ancient Jerusalem on Mount Zion, when it was a city faithful to Jehovah and his worship, was a prophetic picture of the spiritual Jerusalem on the heavenly Mount Zion….”the Jerusalem above” whom Paul said was their “mother”. Since Jesus called them “brothers”, they have the same mother.
Gal 4:22-26…
”….it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant girl and one by the free woman; 23 but the one by the servant girl was actually born through natural descent and the other by the free woman through a promise. 24 These things may be taken as a symbolic drama; for these women mean two covenants, the one from Mount Siʹnai, which bears children for slavery and which is Haʹgar. 25 Now Haʹgar means Siʹnai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.”

The Scriptures themselves tell us who the “woman” is…..
”Jerusalem above” is in the position of a figurative “wife” to Jehovah, the great Father and Life-Giver. When earthly Jerusalem was used as the chief city of God’s chosen nation, it, too, was spoken of as a woman, married to God, being tied to him by holy bonds in a covenant relationship. (Isa 54:5)
So it stood for, or was representative of, the entire congregation of God’s human servants. “Jerusalem above” therefore represents the entire congregation of Jehovah’s loyal spirit servants In heaven, where Jesus originated.

I doubt anyone reading along would agree to your explanation of who the woman is in Genesis 3:15

I give no credit at all to the RCC…..It was the brainchild of a very astute politician, who sought to unite his divided empire by fusing together pagan Roman concepts and celebrations with weakened Christianity, and apparently, it was accepted without much protest…..those who did protest were not heeded….weak voices in the wilderness, drowned out by the weight of opposition to the truth. The power of the church resulted in much corruption, as Jesus and the apostles said it would.

This is so preposterous that I have no comment.
A study of church history from when Jesus died would behoove you.
I'm not sure who you're speaking of.
Maybe Constantine.
But that was over 300 years after Jesus.
The Early Church Fathers come before this.

Those who teach the existence of a god who is nothing like the “one God” of Israel (Deut 6:4) taught by Jesus himself….immortality of the soul, which is of pagan origin, (Eccl 9:5, 10)….and a hell of eternal conscious torture for the wicked, also borrowed from pagan ideas, have no basis in Scripture at all. (Rev 20:12-15) And since when was “Pontifex Maximus” a “Christian” title for a pope?
None of these teachings came from Jesus or his apostles…but most permeate Christendom as a whole. Where can one find “the only true God” in that divided mess? (John 17:3)

Jesus taught the immortality of the soul.
He said:
John 11:24-26
24Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”
25Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Never die means that a person will never die.
Our body dies, but our soul and spirit live on.
You might believe in soul sleep.
This is not taught in the NT.

Jehovah hasn’t finished with him yet. The devil wanted to “be like God” and gain the worship of the human race, so God allowed him to do his best to prove that he was a better ruler for mankind. (Luke 4:5-7) He slandered his Creator and now we are in the process of being “witnesses”, either for the prosecution…or for the defense….by the stance we take, we will prove which side we support.

It was the devil who wanted to be “the god of this world”.…(2 Cor 4:3-4)…but he has the ability to “blind the minds of unbelievers”…..which means that none of the senses, which can give the minds of those unbelievers a chance to gain access to the truth, will acknowledge it. The darkness of the devil’s rule will never allow that truth to “shine through”. They will believe that they are Christians in good standing….yet complete rejection awaits them. (Matt 7:21-23) “Few” will be found on the difficult road to life. (Matt 7:13-14)

Only God can dispel that darkness….no one can come to the Father except through the son….and no one can come to the son unless it is granted by the Father (John 6:44; 65)….do we understand what that means?

Too much here.
I think I've stated enough.

 

[Taken]

{B] Why was "the Tree" placed in the center of the garden (orchard)[/B]


WHY?
Inanutshell…

So even as Adam and Eve were being SENT OUT of the Garden, THEY had Freewill to reach out and TAKE from the TREE “of Life”….Bite, eat, swallow (In the midst of the garden, situated next to the TREE “of Good and Evil that they took from, bit, ate, swallowed.

“they did not”….and thus they and every human born thereafter (from a mans seed) BECAME subject to bodily death.

Moral of story…
Eternal Life is a GIFT Offering from God, freely available for mankind…to reach out and TAKE…..
IOW….it is not FORCED Given a man…
The man must freely TAKE the Gift.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

The sacrifice of an animal and the clothing / covering of the first pair.

Agreed.
Except I'm used to calling it THE SEAL of the §Covenant.
Every covenant has one.

We're talking about the Adamic Covenant which was unconditional.
THE SIGN was the two angels with the flaming sword.
THE SEAL was the shedding of blood - an animal sacrifice.

 

[GodsGrace]

So you must believe they magically appeared? A miracle of sorts and that A&E did not teach their children to offer the animal and its fat?

It's amazing how far a believer will go to defend an undefendable position.

@GodsGrace

This is what Aunty believes.

God condemned A&E to a hopeless existence, but before doing so, He ripped their fig leaf coverings off and forcibly clothed them with a miracle (of some sorts we are not told) and sent them from the Garden to die a slow hopeless death. In the meantime A&E teach their children all about God and how to make offerings to Jehovah God. Their children (two of them) learn from A&E about the principle of the shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins, which A&E believe hopelessly all their days. Aunty Jane also believes Eve's statement in Genesis 4 that Eve stating the blessing from Jehovah God was not a blessing at all, and how she named her son Appointed which wasn’t Eve's understanding God's purpose with her, or her son. Basically everything from Gen 3 - Gen 5 didn't happen as we read because Jane didnt understand... 1 God makes Covenants of promise and 2. God teaches the shedding of blood principle.

25 Adam again had sexual relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth*l because, as she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring* in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.”

Basically Jane goes against her own Bible's teaching for some cockabull story she has been fed by her elders, which she can't defend because the evidence is so convincing she knows her half-hearted responses are false. Other than her very poor interpratation of Ezek 28 this is the second time I've seen her flounder.

F2F

I just posted to you about the Adamic Covenant.
As I stated, a person only needs to know that Covenant to know that a blood sacrifice is the seal of that covenant.
It could be that @Aunty Jane never studied the covenants or that she might be a JW and they have a completely different understanding of the biblical story: past and future. (and present of course).

So we could only address her statements and remark as the Christian faith teaches.
And then, I guess a person could believe what he wants to believe.
No one here is going to change their mind.

 

[face2face]

So who do you think Protestantism would describe as the woman?
Who are the following persons?:
WAR BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN
HE'LL wound YOUR head....

Who is the offspring of the woman?
Certainly it means Jesus.
And who is the woman that gave birth to our Lord?


This is nonsense- pure and simple.
The CC does NOT state that sola scriptura is invalid...whoever told you such a dumb statement?
SOMETIMES scripture is not enough.
If you don't agree - then explain HOW we could come to know if OSAS is the truth or not?
IF there is any grey area in scripture - then we must certainly use other sources:
for instance, those that were taught by the Apostles?
Perhaps THEY know more than we do today?

Hmmm. A faulty foundation will not stand...
Great statement.
Because the CC has stood for over 2,000 years.

And you make my point exactly, stating that there are SO MANY DENOMNATIONS IN ALL NATIONS CLAIMING TO TEACH BIBLE TRUTH.

So, Aunty Jane,
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
How can you be sure?

Aunty Jane said:
I made no such claim…..why would I, as I do not believe that any animals were sacrificed to produce clothing for Adam and his wife. There is no scripture that say so, and no sacrifice was ever made by either of them for the sin they committed. As sinless beings, there was no basis upon which to forgive them.

The above is fraught with error.
1. It's general Christian accepted belief that God made the leather garments for Adam and Eve from an animal. Some versions say SKINS.
To get an animal's skin - the animal must die.
This is accepted as being the first sacrifice, the blood that was shed, to forgive man for his sins....sacrifice has always been made for mankind's forgiveness. I'm sure you're familiar with the sacrificial system in the OT and the role of priests to offer them to God.

2. You state that no sacrifice was ever made by Adam or Eve for the sin they committed.
What sacrifice did YOU make for the sins YOU committed?
None.
The sacrifice has been made for you FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, by our Savior Jesus The Christ.
His sacrifice spans all time and is made FOR ALL MEN - including Adam and Eve.
If you continue to chapter 4 you'll find that Eve credited God for giving her another manchild.
She broke her fellowship with God but somehow it was restored.
And why did Cain and Abel offer God a sacrifice?
Perhaps because they were raised knowing about God...


This is called an offering in Genesis 4:3
It states that Cain brought an offering ---
How do you understand this to be a sacrifice?


part 1 of 2

Wonderful!

 

[face2face]

I just posted to you about the Adamic Covenant.
As I stated, a person only needs to know that Covenant to know that a blood sacrifice is the seal of that covenant.
It could be that @Aunty Jane never studied the covenants or that she might be a JW and they have a completely different understanding of the biblical story: past and future. (and present of course).

So we could only address her statements and remark as the Christian faith teaches.
And then, I guess a person could believe what he wants to believe.
No one here is going to change their mind.

Yes, I've been hitting their false doctrine from every possible angle but I've yet to show them the Covenant as their minds are infected with JW dogma. Aunty Jane, Keiw, TheHC and Mark51 have absolutely no understanding of Genesis 3 even on a simple child like level.

If they don't understand how God deals with sin how can they witness?

F2F

 

[face2face]

Agreed.
Except I'm used to calling it THE SEAL of the §Covenant.
Every covenant has one.

We're talking about the Adamic Covenant which was unconditional.
THE SIGN was the two angels with the flaming sword.
THE SEAL was the shedding of blood - an animal sacrifice.

I also believe for some time this flaming sword consumed their sacrifices, which they offered with understanding (fat) and a full heart.

F2F

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I've been hitting their false doctrine from every possible angle but I've yet to show them the Covenant as their minds are infected with JW dogma. Aunty Jane, Keiw, TheHC and Mark51 have absolutely no understanding of Genesis 3 even on a simple child like level.

If they don't understand how God deals with sin how can they witness?

F2F

The JWs witness because they HAVE TO.
It used to be that they were required to go door to door to hand out Awake and that other magz, can't think of the title right now.
Whether or not they witness to save souls or to get more members is questionable.

I know a woman that continually called me and came to visit and kept harping on the fact that she teaches from the BIBLE --- like as if we teach from something else. Now I live here and she must have thought I was Catholic because Catholics here are pretty ignorant of their faith beliefs. When I told her I wasn't and that she needed to stop preaching to me because, frankly, I got tired of discussing theology all the time with her, she stopped calling me.

OTOH, I also knew a wife and husband team that went around (years ago) and we got to be friends and they knew I'd never be converted but they'd stop by for coffee every now and then. So it takes all types, as they say.

I doubt anyone could be convinced of much UNLESS they have real doubts about what they believe....
but those are few and far between.

So, you and I will keep posting when we have the opportunity for those that are reading along and may have real questions about something or other.

Keep doing what you're doing!

 

[GodsGrace]

I also believe for some time this flaming sword consumed their sacrifices, which they offered with understanding (fat) and a full heart.

F2F

What do you mean by CONSUMED? (the flaming sword CONSUMED their sacrifices).
Weren't the two angels placed at the Garden entrance to keep A and E out lest they eat from the Tree of Life?

 

[Aunty Jane]

So who do you think Protestantism would describe as the woman?
Who are the following persons?:
WAR BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN
HE'LL wound YOUR head....

Jesus is the offspring of the “woman” in heaven, from whom he was sent….neither Eve nor Mary produced the savior….God did. Jesus had no earthly “mother” in the sense that Gen 3:15 indicates. His heavenly Father was the first to bring him into existence in eons past. After that, he produced a whole family of heavenly “sons” who serve him in various capacities in that realm…….but it was not revealed who the players in the Edenic scenario were, until Jesus came in the capacity for which he was sent.…the redeemer of mankind. A role that required him to become 100% mortal human in order to give his life for mankind.…hence, as part of his credentials as Messiah, he had to be born of a human woman, but he came “through“ her, not “from” her.

Jesus said that he had “come down from heaven”, which means that he existed in another form before becoming a human. Philippians 2 indicates that Jesus, before his human birth, was in the same “form” as God….that is he existed as a spirit son of God…his “firstborn”. He paid the redemption price demanded…a perfect sinless life for the one Adam lost for all his children….and after he had fulfilled his role, he was resurrected and returned to where he was before.

Who is the offspring of the woman?
Certainly it means Jesus.

It did come to mean Jesus, but before Jesus was baptized, he was just Jesus, son of Joseph the carpenter…..only after his baptism was he identified as Messiah, by the voice of God himself. In actual fact he revealed that first to the Samaritan woman at the well. (John 4:25-26) His own family of siblings did not believe that he was the Messiah until after his death and resurrection…..he was just their older brother with whom they had grown up. That is the reason why Jesus gave the care of his mother over to the apostle John, taking care of her spiritual welfare rather than just her physical care, as she was a widow by then.

This is nonsense- pure and simple.
The CC does NOT state that sola scriptura is invalid...whoever told you such a dumb statement?
SOMETIMES scripture is not enough.

But that is the basis for believing that ‘sola scriptura’ is invalid…..for the RCC, scripture wasn’t “enough” to support their doctrines, so they added to them to make the Bible ‘suggest’ what it never said. There is a reason why the writings of the apostolic fathers never made it into the canon…..it was closed after John’s Revelation and his three letters. Nothing written after that can be considered “Scripture“.

If you don't agree - then explain HOW we could come to know if OSAS is the truth or not?
IF there is any grey area in scripture - then we must certainly use other sources:
for instance, those that were taught by the Apostles?
Perhaps THEY know more than we do today?

After the death of the apostles, things began to go downhill quite rapidly.
During the first century, the apostle John warned: “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.” (1 John 4:1) How appropriate these words were!

By the end of the first century, many so-called Christians had already abandoned the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Far from resisting the rising tide of apostasy, the Apostolic Fathers accelerated it. They adulterated truth with false teachings adopted gradually over time to completely derail everything that Christ taught.

The apostle John said of such individuals: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” (2 John 9) For all sincere seekers of Scriptural truth, this divinely inspired warning was—and remains—crystal clear.

Hmmm. A faulty foundation will not stand...
Great statement.
Because the CC has stood for over 2,000 years.

I have to ask what they stood for? Not for Bible truth….since it is missing in all their doctrines.
Jesus taught that the “wheat and the weeds” were going to “grow together in the world”….not in the church…..”the church” was what became corrupt, Christ’s true disciples were not part of the church that betrayed their Master….and “no part of the world” that the church dominated for most of its history. (James 4:4) These were accused of heresy by the real heretics, and silenced.

And you make my point exactly, stating that there are SO MANY DENOMNATIONS IN ALL NATIONS CLAIMING TO TEACH BIBLE TRUTH.

So, Aunty Jane,
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
How can you be sure?

Jesus told us, not just to listen to what people say…but to observe the kind of people they produce…..”love among themselves” was to be the identifying characteristic (John 13:34-35)…..they would not be fighting one another in the wars of the nations. The churches of Christendom prove their hypocrisy by doing the exact opposite to what Christ taught….(Matt 5:43-44)….not to mention the many adopted doctrines that found their way into a corrupted church. (2 Thess 2:3; 2 Pet 2:1-3; 1 Tim 4:1-3)

The apostle Peter said that when God’s day of judgment suddenly comes, Christ’s true disciples will be found in a condition that others will not possess….

2 Peter 3:10-14….
“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that day the heavens will pass away with a dreadful noise, the elements will be consumed by fire, and the earth and all the works done on it will be exposed. waiting for and hastening the coming day of God. Because of that day, the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt away in the flames. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be? You must live holy and godly lives, But according to his promise we are waiting for a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. Therefore, dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen, make every effort to be found by him in peace—pure and faultless.” (CEB)

This is not talking about the literal “heavens and earth” as these are the perfect creations of God…it is the corrupt ruling elements of this world along with the ungodly people who support them that will be destroyed…consumed by the fire of God’s anger.

Christ’s disciples are “no part“ of that world, ruled by the devil. (John 18:36; 1 John 5:19)

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Scriptures themselves tell us who the “woman” is…..
”Jerusalem above” is in the position of a figurative “wife” to Jehovah, the great Father and Life-Giver. When earthly Jerusalem was used as the chief city of God’s chosen nation, it, too, was spoken of as a woman, married to God, being tied to him by holy bonds in a covenant relationship. (Isa 54:5)
So it stood for, or was representative of, the entire congregation of God’s human servants. “Jerusalem above” therefore represents the entire congregation of Jehovah’s loyal spirit servants In heaven, where Jesus originated.

I doubt anyone reading along would agree to your explanation of who the woman is in Genesis 3:15

Its not about the number of people who accept this explanation because with God, quality is preferred over quantity…..as Jesus stated in Matt 7:13-14….the majority are traveling the wrong road that leads to destruction….blissfully unaware that it is a dead end. They are convinced that it is the right path for them….God allows them their choice. BUT…the truth is not always popular, so “few” will be found on the right road. Only God can reveal the way, and even though it is “cramped and narrow” it is the way to life and it requires endurance to remain on it in the face of the opposition that was sure to come. (John 15:18-21)

 

[face2face]

Jesus is the offspring of the “woman” in heaven, from whom he was sent….neither Eve nor Mary produced the savior….God did.

The seed (singular) would come through a woman for very important reasons you which may not be known to you.

But when the appropriate time had come, God sent out his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, Ga 4:4.

Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. Gal 3:16

The promised "seed" of Genesis 3:15 is Christ born of a woman, born of the condemn line of sin's flesh.

Don't go to Revelation 12 and try to force your false doctrines there if you cannot understand the Gospel in Genesis 3:15.

Your reply to God'sgrace is a terrible mess Jane

F2F

 

[Aunty Jane]

I just posted to you about the Adamic Covenant.
As I stated, a person only needs to know that Covenant to know that a blood sacrifice is the seal of that covenant.
It could be that @Aunty Jane never studied the covenants or that she might be a JW and they have a completely different understanding of the biblical story: past and future. (and present of course).

So we could only address her statements and remark as the Christian faith teaches.
And then, I guess a person could believe what he wants to believe.
No one here is going to change their mind.

And yet I see no reference to a blood sacrifice until the offering of Abel in contrast to Cain’s.

Just because God provided clothing for Adam and his wife that first of all covered them modestly, and secondly protected them from the harsh environment that existed on the cursed ground outside of the garden….doesn’t mean that God killed animals to provide them. He created the animals after all and so could have provided the clothing as a creation. Where does it say that animals were sacrificed or provide the clothing? Show us please…..

I also believe for some time this flaming sword consumed their sacrifices, which they offered with understanding (fat) and a full heart.

You will learn that this person has some very weird views, which I am surmising has sprang out of his own overactive imagination. As you correctly tasted, the angels and the flaming blade of the sword were to prevent re-entry to the garden and access to the tree of life. (Gen 3:22-24)

 

[face2face]

And yet I see no reference to a blood sacrifice until the offering of Abel in contrast to Cain’s.

Jane, can you explain how a skin of an animal is removed without killing it?

Just because God provided clothing for Adam and his wife that first of all covered them modestly, and secondly protected them from the harsh environment that existed on the cursed ground outside of the garden

you are funny Jane a real hoot - its a sickness you have in resisting the Word which is so plainly shown you! Wow the extent one will go to uphold the traditions of men

….doesn’t mean that God killed animals to provide them.

O it doesnt Jane - after sin enters the world God doesn't show them a sacrifice?

He created the animals after all and so could have provided the clothing as a creation. Where does it say that animals were sacrificed or provide the clothing? Show us please…..

Ha keep going Jane - if you need any help in digging that hole I'll bring my shovel.

You have been shown Jane, you don't want to see the hidden things of God...or how God reveal to the first pair how life would be attained.

He covered their nakedness Jane!

What does nakedness represent in the Bible Jane?

Don't be a fool

You have Noah's example with his boys! What did they do?
Noah naked and prostrate on the ground within his tent. Cp. 1 Cor. 10:7.

They could not bear to look upon the shame of their father, for they had a deep affection for him. They laboured, at personal inconvenience to serve one in need of a covering, with their eyes averted from the sin and shame. This was in contrast to Ham who
revelled in the humiliation of his father.

It staggers me the depth of you ignorance Jane - the extent that ignorance would take you as you know A&E exposing their shame and allowing God to cover their sin is in the text!

You are right to have me on ignore because you ignore God's truth in the same manner

F2F

 

[face2face]

@everyone & @Aunty Jane @Keiw @TheHC @Mark51

Look at the evidence!

3:20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 3:21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. Ge 3:20–21.

9:23 Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness. Ge 9:23.

You have been shown Jane, you don't want to see the hidden things of God...or how God reveal to the first pair how life would be attained.

He covered their nakedness Jane!

What does nakedness represent in the Bible Jane?

Don't be a fool

You have Noah's example with his boys! What did they do?
Noah naked and prostrate on the ground within his tent. Cp. 1 Cor. 10:7.

They could not bear to look upon the shame of their father, for they had a deep affection for him. They laboured, at personal inconvenience to serve one in need of a covering, with their eyes averted from the sin and shame. This was in contrast to Ham who
reveled in the humiliation of his father.

It staggers me the depth of you ignorance Jane - the extent that ignorance would take you as you know A&E exposing their shame and allowing God to cover their sin is in the text!

You are right to have me on ignore as you also ignore God's truth in like manner to your own harm.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Aunty Jane what I've found so frustrating with you and your method of reading the text is your inability to read the Word in context. It's as though you speak "at" the text and don't allow it to speak to you.

When I asked you what was the motivation for Adam naming his wife Life - you didn't even try to seek that knowledge - you would rather look away and stare into JW traditions than allow your Gods Word to speak to you. Put plainly, you just don't want to know.

I've shown you no less than 10 - 15 Divine principles all found within the Word of God and you have not acknowledge one (1) of them. You are unreasonable in the fullest sense of the word. Meaning you can't be reason with, such is your cold hearted approach to this subject.

So belligerent is your approach you won't state God covered their sin (nakedness)....just dwell on that for a moment and all that that means.

You can't admit Adam named his wife "life" as a result of hearing the Covenant of Promise in Gen 3:15

You wont admit God was required to slay an animal to provide skins though you know this is what happened.

Not once have you spoken to how Abel learned how to offer animals and the fat

I could go on an on about you resistance to the Word of God and how the loud sound of these posts is starting to ring throughout the whole forum such is your foundationless position on this subject.

From here on in anything you write is questionable at the very least until you state openly you are wrong - and who cares what that looks like to you JW friends

This is about your integrity now

F2F

 

[face2face]

@everyone

Re the nakedness of Noah...The son saw the father reduced to the shameful state referred to in Hab. 2:15-16

2:15 “You who force your neighbor to drink wine are as good as dead— you who make others intoxicated by forcing them to drink from the bowl of your furious anger, so you can look at their genitals Hab 2:15.

Instead of going to Naoh's aid, manifesting concern for the reputation of his father, like all fools he made a mock of sin (Prov. 14:9).

9 Fools mock at making amends for sin, but goodwill is found among the upright. NWT

@Aunty Jane unknowingly is making a mockery of sin in believing God did not cover A&E's sin - she's also making a mockery of their "Nakedness" which is ervah, rendered nakedness, shame, unclean, uncleanness.

Her doctrine is unclean...the JW's do not understand these divine principles and will defend their position until they become like Ham in their treatment of nakedness!

I find it shocking how far a JW will go to defend the institution.

The evidence is just pilling up and weight must be unbearable?

F2F

 

[face2face]

As soon as Jane admits to God covering A&E's sin (nakedness) the JW doctrine of A&E being unsavable is lost.

I've been in this position and I know how hard it is to accept the weight of truth over the traditions of men.

F2F