@viaro: You have little idea how much respect I have for you! At the risk of overflogging the issue, let me say
1. The allegory of partaking in the mind &getting death, may I remind u of Christ's temptation? The devil quoted accurate scripture with a distorted spiritual meaning. So when he said it will make them like God he spoke the TRUTH. Partaking should NOT cause death, but it did BECAUSE that was the punishment for disobedience, and that was God's test of their faith &trust in Him.
2. The two trees. Again u say I directly refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit but I will further liken it to this: God was in a pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of Egypt but the fire wasnt God. C.f. The burning bush where God appeared to Moses IN the bush. I guess the imbuement (lol) is of that wise. Thanks 4 always!

@No2Atheism: Thanks 4 watching my back, big bro! I will be fine!

this thread has become something else!

Finally . . .

On the discussion on Eden. Maven, that is lot to chew and I understand No2A's concerns. When we begin to wade in the waters of speculation and "my own understanding" its flirting with . . .  But I am glad you have taken extra effort to stress that it is your own view and understanding. Nevertheless, pondering on these things can be of tremendous benefit and to that, I will toast

  I'm not even sure I have much to take you to charge on, its an interesting piece that I will need to sit with and ponder (my MO) . . . I have ur #, we'll be talking about this soon 

  I did want to touch on something you mentioned though - the issue of allegorical vs historical. This issue stretches far beyond just the garden of eden into Noah's ark, the crossing of the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale etc . . . in all our analyses, how do make distinctions and to what degree do we regard a biblical narrative to be A. or H.?

ancel:

this thread has become something else!

Seconded! I thought it was only la la and the other members of the turbaned warfare brigade that had a patent on thread derailing. Please O, we, the young minds, are waiting for the thread to revert to its title.

nuclearboy:

Seconded! I thought it was only la la and the other members of the turbaned warfare brigade that had a patent on thread derailing. Please O, we, the young minds, are waiting for the thread to revert to its title.

Lol, young mind for where? abeg oga kpatata, senor, sire, sage, white wizard, sensei stop using false lables for yourself and ancel.

LOL! Nuclearboy + Ancel! I sincerely apologize, I will resume the topic after this post. I hope more questions and answers won't cause further derailment.

@viaro: I hope my last post made sense. I just read it again and it seemed I was equivocating. Peace be unto you, brother.

@JeSoul: Yes dear, we can gist about that later I appreciate your concern on historical vs. allegorical, darling sister.
The understanding I have of the matters H. vs A. are as follows:
1. The Bible is made up entirely of truth
2. The truth is almost entirely historical, but some few instances are heavily typed in allegory, parables, prophecies and visions.
3. The allegories are as true as the historical accounts, they are not to be dismissed because the Bible is not only a book of history, it is a book of instruction and guidance.
4. The difference between the historical pieces and the allegorical pieces is simple:
(a) the characters in the allegorical pieces are either fictional, or are symbolic in nature, describing real-life characters; while the historical accounts have entirely real-to-life characters.
(b) therefore even if a piece is suspected to be allegorical, the mention of the characters in other scripture, as real-to-life characters; and/or the events experienced, as real-to-life events, will clearly show that it indeed occurred, and is not an allegorical piece.
(c) while taking note of the caveat: some scripture may be falsely considered allegorical just because there is no other reference to the characters or events. This is not necessarily so, because every single character in the scriptures may not be mentioned in other scripture.
(d) and lastly: if at least one character in an event, or an event in itself can be shown to be allegorical, i assume it can follow that the other characters in that event as well are allegorical.

By virtue of the above, I will say that Noah's flood was a historical account, he is mentioned as a man who existed, and the floods were mentioned as existent as well (Heb 11:7, 1 Pe 3:20, 2 Pe 2:5).

The crossing of the Red Sea was historical, although the Egyptians wiped it from their own history books as they often did whenever they faced such a defeat. It's historical because it is mentioned in Acts 7:36, Heb 11:29 as a real event in which God operated.

Jonah's story at first may appear allegorical, and Jesus employed it in a parable, saying that the only sign they would get would be the sign of the prophet Jonah: that just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, he would be in the earth for three days and nights too (Matt 12:40). This instance is not enough evidence that Jonah actually existed, and I would have said it may have been allegorical but that would be hasty. See the next verse.
Mat 12:41  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Here, real human beings are promised to be condemned by the people of Nineveh who had repented at Jonah's preaching. By clause 4b of mine above, it shows that Jonah's story is not allegorical but pure history.

You may recall also the story of Lazarus and the rich man? It was employed by Jesus in a teaching but it's not certain if it was historical or allegorical.

Now to Eden. I'm sure you agree with me that Lucifer is not a limbless scaly elongate reptile, commonly called "snake". It was thus an allegorical type. This is the description God gives about him:
Eze 28:13  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, topaz, jasper, chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and your settings and your sockets and engravings were wrought in gold. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Gen. 3:14, 15; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 16:23.]
Eze 28:14  You were the anointed cherub that covers with overshadowing [wings], and I set you so. You were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [like the paved work of gleaming sapphire stone upon which the God of Israel walked on Mount Sinai]. [Exod. 24:10.]

Also, talking about Pharaoh, a real human being, God said
Eze 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
which would indicate to me that the trees in Eden envying Pharaoh's splendour (or the spendour of whoever Pharaoh is a prophetic archetype of) were not herbacious green woody perennials either.

In the New testament, the SIGNIFICANCE of Eden was what was discussed, with relation to God's plans for man, and not the exact details. The snake is shown to have been lucifer. The location of the garden is not discussed, neither is the nature of Adam's role in Eden expatiated. The essence of the story is what is related for our purposes, and it is not once drawn as a historical reference, IMO.

So, in my opinion, I would say Eden's story is a strongly typed allegory. I may be wrong, but I am yet to find contrasting evidence from the Bible. I'm honest and sincere, and may God help me if I'm honestly and sincerely wrong.

Thanks for always. 

Mavenb0x:

LOL! Nuclearboy + Ancel! I sincerely apologize, I will resume the topic after this post. I hope more questions and answers won't cause further derailment.

Apology accepted.

PS: I sneaked a look at your profile to see if somehow a turban or sword had found its way there. Glad to say I came back relieved.

We await!

We have already established that we are vested with the authority to take charge of our lives, and our vast human experience; and rather by God's Word which brought them into existence and will ably keep supporting them through eternity.

Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] [b]were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of Go[/b]d, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.

The Word of God is like nails hammered home, holding human capital development in all ramifications together, holding life together.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise development indicates the development of a seed or idea in you to such an extent that it becomes a unique and recognizable public entity, that is, the will of God, a blessing to mankind that ordinarily will generate money as a reward for work well done.

Godly Enterprise development is not just making money, it involves building an enduring structure that seeks to promote the next will of God in commerce, information technology, banking or any other field and simultaneously bless mankind with these inventions. When these two are in place you will never lack money.

Why get involved in enterprise development? Here are some reasons you may consider:
To extend the frontiers of the kingdom of God.
To do the will of God.
To bless mankind.
To occupy the market places till he comes.
To translate the kingdom resource in us to capital on the earth.
To demonstrate industry, excellence and service.
To pay useful offerings, tax and duties to support the church and state.
To bless all the families of the earth as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant.
To show the difference between gold and God, as all the gods of the enterprise world are but silver and gold.
To provide economic management and leadership as a way of translating kingdom principles to the world.
To be an exemplary ambassador for God when the world economic principles come crashing down like it did in Joseph's day.

We will consider the natures of work, jobs, labour, slavery and corporate drudgery, the black market, seeds, harvest, inheritance, etc.

If time permits, as God helps us, we will use the original concept of work as defined by God in the creation experience, and then consider enterprise development in the cases of Joseph, Pharaoh in Moses' day, Daniel in Babylon, Adam in Eden; famines in ruth, david, elijah, elisha's days; economic meltdown in Isaac and Abraham's days; Jesus' teachings and occurrences in the Acts of the Apostles, among others.

I say "we" because it is going to be a discussion . I have been doing most of the talking so far

Lest I forget, I think I will discuss faith on an entirely different thread, it is fundamental to many things involved in Christian Enterprise Development.

Mavenb0x:

LOL! Nuclearboy + Ancel! I sincerely apologize, I will resume the topic after this post. I hope more questions and answers won't cause further derailment.

@viaro: I hope my last post made sense. I just read it again and it seemed I was equivocating. Peace be unto you, brother.

@JeSoul: Yes dear, we can gist about that later I appreciate your concern on historical vs. allegorical, darling sister.
The understanding I have of the matters H. vs A. are as follows:
1. The Bible is made up entirely of truth
2. The truth is almost entirely historical, but some few instances are heavily typed in allegory, parables, prophecies and visions.
3. The allegories are as true as the historical accounts, they are not to be dismissed because the Bible is not only a book of history, it is a book of instruction and guidance.
4. The difference between the historical pieces and the allegorical pieces is simple:
(a) the characters in the allegorical pieces are either fictional, or are symbolic in nature, describing real-life characters; while the historical accounts have entirely real-to-life characters.
(b) therefore even if a piece is suspected to be allegorical, the mention of the characters in other scripture, as real-to-life characters; and/or the events experienced, as real-to-life events, will clearly show that it indeed occurred, and is not an allegorical piece.
(c) while taking note of the caveat: some scripture may be falsely considered allegorical just because there is no other reference to the characters or events. This is not necessarily so, because every single character in the scriptures may not be mentioned in other scripture.
(d) and lastly: if at least one character in an event, or an event in itself can be shown to be allegorical, i assume it can follow that the other characters in that event as well are allegorical.

By virtue of the above, I will say that Noah's flood was a historical account, he is mentioned as a man who existed, and the floods were mentioned as existent as well (Heb 11:7, 1 Pe 3:20, 2 Pe 2:5).

The crossing of the Red Sea was historical, although the Egyptians wiped it from their own history books as they often did whenever they faced such a defeat. It's historical because it is mentioned in Acts 7:36, Heb 11:29 as a real event in which God operated.

Jonah's story at first may appear allegorical, and Jesus employed it in a parable, saying that the only sign they would get would be the sign of the prophet Jonah: that just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, he would be in the earth for three days and nights too (Matt 12:40). This instance is not enough evidence that Jonah actually existed, and I would have said it may have been allegorical but that would be hasty. See the next verse.
Mat 12:41  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Here, real human beings are promised to be condemned by the people of Nineveh who had repented at Jonah's preaching. By clause 4b of mine above, it shows that Jonah's story is not allegorical but pure history.

You may recall also the story of Lazarus and the rich man? It was employed by Jesus in a teaching but it's not certain if it was historical or allegorical.

This is good. I understand a whole lot better where you coming from now. Lets proceed, as I think my brain is cooperating now . . .

Now to Eden. I'm sure you agree with me that Lucifer is not a limbless scaly elongate reptile, commonly called "snake". It was thus an allegorical type.

Not a soul on earth would disagree  .

  but my sister I got mucho problemos with the next bit:

This is the description God gives about him:
Eze 28:13  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, topaz, jasper, chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and your settings and your sockets and engravings were wrought in gold. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Gen. 3:14, 15; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 16:23.]
Eze 28:14  You were the anointed cherub that covers with overshadowing [wings], and I set you so. You were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [like the paved work of gleaming sapphire stone upon which the God of Israel walked on Mount Sinai]. [Exod. 24:10.]

    Correct me, this is the description God gives about the King of Tyre? no? And saying that "he was in Eden" is merely symbolism? implying that he lived in splendour and opulence like as was in the garden of Eden?

How does this verse speak to lucifer/the devil?

Also, talking about Pharaoh, a real human being, God said
Eze 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
which would indicate to me that the trees in Eden envying Pharaoh's splendour (or the spendour of whoever Pharaoh is a prophetic archetype of) were not herbacious green woody perennials either.

  Another case of mistaken identity symbolism? 

In the New testament, the SIGNIFICANCE of Eden was what was discussed, with relation to God's plans for man, and not the exact details. The snake is shown to have been lucifer. The location of the garden is not discussed, neither is the nature of Adam's role in Eden expatiated. The essence of the story is what is related for our purposes, and it is not once drawn as a historical reference, IMO.

. . . perhaps it may not have been refered to historically, but what do you make of and how do you fit in or out, the geographical references to its location in Gen 2?
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

@JeSoul: True, that word was for the King of Tyrus. But not the entire prophecy, for it is obvious that he is not an anointed chereub that covers, and was created, and iniquity was found in him. This is a strongly typed prophecy, and Ezek 28:1-10 begins by telling what the MAN: king of Tyrus did, and then the next few verses tied him in with his "father": Lucifer, to show that he was repeating an archetype of what Lucifer did in Eden. So, indeed the verse spoke about King of Tyrus, but the highlighted parts were definitely not about the king of Tyrus, since we both know that Adam or Eve were not the king of Tyrus and they were the only men in Eden

My point about Pharaoh was that if the Bible used symbolism to describe the trees of Eden here, how certain are we that the ones in Genesis were herbacious perenial greens? Do you get my point?

As I said earlier, I never said Eden never existed as a physical place. Do you understand me? What I said was that it was strongly and allegorically typed. I can, for instance, write a parable about something in Russia. The fact that it is a parable or allegory does not mean Russia must not exist. What I was trying to say is that WHAT EXACTLY happened in Eden is not clearly defined. Or maybe it was actually a certain fruit that Adam ate by biting into it, in actuality? Maybe so. But there is no clear indication in that direction either, as there are no references elsewhere showing that it was a real fruit from a woody tree that Adam and Eve bit into.

Please lets agree to disagree. I would not like to pursue the matter further. I love you!

Mavenb0x:

@JeSoul: True, that word was for the King of Tyrus. But not the entire prophecy, for it is obvious that he is not an anointed chereub that covers, and was created, and iniquity was found in him. This is a strongly typed prophecy, and Ezek 28:1-10 begins by telling what the MAN: king of Tyrus did, and then the next few verses tied him in with his "father": Lucifer, to show that he was repeating an archetype of what Lucifer did in Eden. So, indeed the verse spoke about King of Tyrus, but the highlighted parts were definitely not about the king of Tyrus, since we both know that Adam or Eve were not the king of Tyrus and they were the only men in Eden

My point about Pharaoh was that if the Bible used symbolism to describe the trees of Eden here, how certain are we that the ones in Genesis were herbacious perenial greens? Do you get my point?

As I said earlier, I never said Eden never existed as a physical place. Do you understand me? What I said was that it was strongly and allegorically typed. I can, for instance, write a parable about something in Russia. The fact that it is a parable or allegory does not mean Russia must not exist. What I was trying to say is that WHAT EXACTLY happened in Eden is not clearly defined. Or maybe it was actually a certain fruit that Adam ate by biting into it, in actuality? Maybe so. But there is no clear indication in that direction either, as there are no references elsewhere showing that it was a real fruit from a woody tree that Adam and Eve bit into.

Please lets agree to disagree. I would not like to pursue the matter further. I love you!

Why now? this is just getting interesting and you're giving myself and other invisible readers something to think about.

Okay lets let it sleep for now, I'll harass you some other time I need to even ponder and reflect some more on a bunch of what you've already said. Issall good G!

JeSoul:

Why now? this is just getting interesting and you're giving myself and other invisible readers something to think about.

Okay lets let it sleep for now, I'll harass you some other time I need to even ponder and reflect some more on a bunch of what you've already said. Issall good G!

I'd rather you ask now if you still have questions, than harass me later.

Nah girl issok. I really do need to think more on it for a while anyways. We'll polish up any loose ends offsite sometime in the future. Deal?

Okay, JeSoul 

while you two thrash it out . . . lets those of us who are grasses watch and ponder.

@No2A: puts today's Boli & Epa aside in shock What?! You mean you want the thread to derail further cos of Maven & JeSoul, who have already agreed to discuss later?

NuclearBoy, please arrest this man, rename him as No2Derailment and lets put this thread back on track

@JeSoul: for once I can actually say some offtopic posts have caused great insight to be shared. Hmm. Deep stuffz. God bless you!

@Maven: I think if im right you're saying that scripture gives credence to scripture. So for historical accounts, there will be other scriptures elsewhere attesting to the actual characters & event. But for allegories only the message behind it will be found expressed in other scriptures. Howz that for a summary?

Mavenb0x:

@viaro: You have little idea how much respect I have for you! At the risk of overflogging the issue, let me say
1. The allegory of partaking in the mind &getting death, may I remind u of Christ's temptation? The devil quoted accurate scripture with a distorted spiritual meaning. So when he said it will make them like God he spoke the TRUTH. Partaking should NOT cause death, but it did BECAUSE that was the punishment for disobedience, and that was God's test of their faith &trust in Him.
2. The two trees. Again u say I directly refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit but I will further liken it to this: God was in a pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of Egypt but the fire wasnt God. C.f. The burning bush where God appeared to Moses IN the bush. I guess the imbuement (lol) is of that wise. Thanks 4 always!

Mavenb0x:

@viaro: I hope my last post made sense. I just read it again and it seemed I was equivocating. Peace be unto you, brother.

No worries, I understand where you're coming from. La pace sia con te.

Thanks, viaro.

Another abandoned thread. I hope now Ancel realizes why I'm often reluctant to start threads: posting takes too much of my time (I type slowly) and energy