"I forgive you but SOMEONE has to pay!"

[Elijah John]

If someone says "I forgive you, but someone has to pay, how about my innocent Son?" Would that really be forgiveness?

Does true mercy require "payment"? If so, how is it still mercy?

If a loan is forgiven, does the creditor require payment from someone else?

Isn't God capable of forgiving the contrite, without "payment"?

[myth-one.com]

It is all determined by God.

Yes, here is what God has determined:

It is appointed to all mankind to die once:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Likewise, all mankind who died will be resurrected:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (I Corinthians 15:22-23)

So Jesus will be resurrected first, and that has already occurred.
The resurrection which we presently await is the one at which those "that are Christ's" will be resurrected. Those "that are Christ's" refers to Christians. This resurrection for all Christians occurs at the Second Coming of Jesus to the earth, or "at his coming."

Christians who are alive on the earth when Jesus returns will be born again as spirits and meet Him in the air:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (I Thessalonians 4:17)

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

So no Biblical evidence then for your claims. As far as your claims that I need to prove my stance is already proven by the fact you have no Biblical proof it should not be understood just is it is written. All other instances in the Bible where something should be viewed as parable or as figurative is noted to be so. No where in the Bible does it say that the A&E account should be understood as anything else than what it says. It's your word vs the Bible, not mine as I didn't write the Bible.

If I say, "It's a cloudy day at the office today" and later I say, "It seems like there is a cloud hanging over everyone's head at the office". Then you know my first statement was figurative as my second statement is directly connected to the first.

You're unable to produce the second part. You have shown no evidence from the Bible that directly speaks of the A&E account as figurative. Just because another part of the Bible is known to be figurative dosen't give a person the authority to start calling parts of the Bible figurative whenever they want. That's a strawman because figurative speech about something that is not the A&E account doesn't make the A&E account figurative too.

[ttruscott]

But Hagar was never a symbol for anyone's covenant with GOD...was she?

That's what Paul was claiming, wasn't he?{Gal.4) Hagar was a type for the old covenant with Israel who was cast off due to their failure to keep the law, while Sarah was a type for the new covenant which is by promise. She was promised a son, and her son was who God's promises would be fulfilled. The covenant is by promise, not by works.

Indeed - thanks for the reminder,

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

So no Biblical evidence then for your claims.

Evidently, you're ignoring my posts. Thanks for the heads up.

[myth-one.com]

It is all determined by God.

Yes, and here is what God has determined:

Every deceased human whose name is written in the Book of Life (deceased Christians) will be resurrected to everlasting spiritual life at the Second Coming.

All living humans with their names written in the Book of Life (living Christians) at the Second Coming will also be changed into everlasting spiritual beings at that time.

All of these believers have then been born again into the Kingdom of God.

We will then spend the 1000-year millennium with our Lord and Savior.

After the 1000 years, all deceased nonbelievers will be resurrected as physical bodied beings.

All nonbelievers (those resurrected and those living at that time) will face judgment and be preached the true good news of the gospel.

After judgment, those whose names are written in the Book of Life will be born again of the Spirit as spirits into the Kingdom of God.

All whose names are not written in the Book Of Life will be cast into the lake of fire and suffer a quick second and everlasting death.

All human believers will have been born again into the Kingdom of God.

All human nonbelievers will have perished.

The kingdom of man will be at an end!

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

So no Biblical evidence then for your claims.

Evidently, you're ignoring my posts. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm waiting for you to present something fro the Bible to support your claims so I can respond to that.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 60 by 2timothy316]

So no Biblical evidence then for your claims.

Evidently, you're ignoring my posts. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm waiting for you to present something fro the Bible to support your claims so I can respond to that.

You're ignoring simple straightforward questions I have asked which spotlight the fact that what you are posting is blatantly false. These are questions that are straight from the bible so you're claims that I have presented nothing from the bible are nonsense.

This is my last post on the subject. I submit it for your edification. The evidence is overwhelming and pervasive.

I wish you would review what I've posted arleady. You are reading your own ideas into my posts. I am not claiming that the Genesis account is a myth, a legend or a fable, but literal historical facts that are being emphasized by figurative speech. When one takes what is literal as figurative or what is figurative as literal, there is going to be conflicting exigesis. I have pointed this our repeatedly with your posts. You have simply claimed that people aren't engaging in exigesis at all. You have made one baseless claim after another. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose emphasizing, the literal reality, the historical events connected with them.

The fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4. In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

The LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph. Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Notice also the structure of the passage as the structure of the chapter is an Introversion:

Chapter 3.

A. The NaXash: seeking humanity's death in Adam.
- B. The Tree of Knowledge; eaten
--C (1.) The Effect on Adam and Eve.
--- (2.) Human provisioned fig leaves.
----D. God's inquiry of Adam
-----E. God's inquiry of Eve.
------F. The NaXash sentenced.
-------f.Promise of the seed.
-----e. God sentences Eve.
---- d.God sentences Adam
---- c. (1.) Effect on Adam and Eve.
-----(2.) God's provision skins
---b. The Tree of Life; expelled from it.
-a. The Cheribim: preserving man's life in Christ.

Pay close attention to the fact "A" corresponds with "a", and it makes no sense for "A" to be a literal serpent. This structure locks in the meaning of "naxash". It also points to the fact that the story will always be just a myth for those who inject their own private interpretations into the texts. So atheists, skeptics, etc. will always see the myth you are providing for them with your interpretation.

The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is referred to as "an angel of light" in v. 14. Isn't this a clear indication that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, 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?

Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :-- "Thy heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17).

The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

The word "beast", in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it 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" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); 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. It is of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said. When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (v. 15), "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. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 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, 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's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). 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 v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15. 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. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

Talking snakes only show the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

In accepting this traditional belief Satan has cunningly succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied. This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 65 by shnarkle]

You're still not giving me what I'm asking for. I'm asking for the scripture plainly states that Moses was speaking of the A&E story as a parable, figurative account, illustration or myth or whatever you're calling to say it didn't happen the way the Bible describes it. The account of the serpent on the pole says nothing of what I'm looking for before I even consider what you're saying. So I'll save you some time from barking up that tree any further.

Let me give you an example of the only thing I would accept.

Luke 15:11-32 is a about the prodigal son. It's not about a real person. It's a parable. Yet how do we know this? Because the Bible says that Jesus would speak in illustrations or parable compare Matthew 13:35 and Psalm 78:2.

So:
The parable = Luke 15:11-32
Scriptures that say Luke 15:11-32 is parable = Matthew 13:35 and Psalm 78:2.

Your assertion:
The parable = Genesis Chapters 1-3
Scriptures that say that Moses wrote Gen chap 1-3 is a parable = ??????

The scriptures you present must say 'Moses wrote in parable'. I will accept nothing less. The serpent on the pole account says nothing of Adam and Eve at all. In fact the Bible explains the serpent on the pole in John 3:14, 15 which speaks of Jesus not the Adam and Eve account.

[PinSeeker]

I'm going to jump in here:

It is all determined by God.

Yes, and here is what God has determined:

Every deceased human whose name is written in the Book of Life (deceased Christians) will be resurrected to everlasting spiritual life at the Second Coming.

Yes.

All living humans with their names written in the Book of Life (living Christians) at the Second Coming will also be changed into everlasting spiritual beings at that time.

Well, they'll be changed, certainly, into everlasting beings, but we'll most certainly have physical bodies. Those who died before the Second Coming will have their souls/spirits reunited with their physical bodies.

All of these believers have then been born again into the Kingdom of God.

Yes, but again, if they are believers, they will have been born again from the time of their belief in their earthly life. They could not ever have believed if they were not born again, or been given new life in Christ.

We will then spend the 1000-year millennium with our Lord and Savior.

Nnnnnnn-no. When Jesus comes back, eternity will have begun. There is no literal 1000-year period referred to by the millennium of Revelation 20. It refers to the fullness of the church age, the time between Jesus's ascension and Pentecost to the time of His Second Coming.

After the 1000 years, all deceased nonbelievers will be resurrected as physical bodied beings.

Yes. But see above regarding the millennium.

All nonbelievers (those resurrected and those living at that time) will face judgment and be preached the true good news of the gospel.

Yes and no. It'll just be the Judgment. The time of the Gospel will have passed. No preaching. Just the separation of the tares from the wheat.

After judgment, those whose names are written in the Book of Life will be born again of the Spirit as spirits into the Kingdom of God.

No. No need to be born again... again.

All whose names are not written in the Book Of Life will be cast into the lake of fire and suffer a quick second and everlasting death.

Well, again, yes and no. The lake of fire is not literal. This is symbolism, but we must not, though, think of it as being merely a symbol. But the sinner in hell would prefer a literal lake of fire as his eternal abode to the reality of hell represented in the lake of fire image; the reality is worse than the symbol suggests. That Jesus used the most awful symbols imaginable to describe hell is no comfort to those who see them simply as symbols.

All human believers will have been born again into the Kingdom of God.

Yes, but if they are believers, they will have been born again from the time of their belief in their earthly life.

All human nonbelievers will have perished.

Yes, but they will not have ceased to exist. That would be annihilationism, and that's wrong; there's absolutely no Biblical support for it.

The kingdom of man will be at an end!

Um, okay. Really, though, it's the kingdom of the world that will be at an end. But I'll accept "man."

[myth-one.com]

All living humans with their names written in the Book of Life (living Christians) at the Second Coming will also be changed into everlasting spiritual beings at that time.

Well, they'll be changed, certainly, into everlasting beings, but we'll most certainly have physical bodies.

There is no such thing as an everlasting physical body.

Physical bodies perish.