Jbarrax

This one should be easy (and fun).

Next clue. You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

I'm not well today. got a touch of flu or something. Can't think clearly enough for pictionary. Someone please take my turn unless you want to wait a day or so for my noggin to clear. :-)

Avatar

The Big Lebowski

That's a good point. It also reinforces the statement at the end of the chapter when God said "Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil." God had given them only good and they didn't have his sense of right and wrong. But man had the capacity to have that knowledge. And yes, we have some of His capacity for compassion, kindness, etc. all of which are part of his image and likeness. I still don't favor the idea of the thousand year day. I know it leaves us with a contradiction but I guess my broader point is that there are going to be contradictions and gaps in our understanding that we just have to accept. We still can't even really agree on what the words soul and spirit mean. So why do we expect to be able to nail down exactly what kind of death Adam and Eve experienced 6,000 (or 20,000 or however many you want)years ago? I understand that we want to be able to understand and explain allllll about the things of God. But we don't. And we won't until we receive whatever God has in store for us when we graduate from the body-soul-spirit plane to the next level. For now we see through a glass darkly...

Just one problem with that. It intrepets the word "day" contrary to the context of the passage. Although II Peter 3:8 does provide the thousand years clause, the word day is used repeatedly in the first chapters of Genesis: the immediate context of the story. And all of those uses specifically stipulate that a day is one evening and one morning. People attempting to resolve apparent contradictions in the scripture often leap form one verse to a completely different book to try to find an angle that seems to solve the problem. I call that context-hopping. VP did a lot of that. Case in point: Trying to relate Genesis 1:27 (So God created man in his own image) to John 4:24 (God is spirit...) completely ignores verse 26 which says Let us make man in our image. The context of Genesis presents the term day as a 24 hour period. Trying to interpret it as a thousand years is not good exegesis, imho. Speaking of context and the image of God, I think we should consider what it means when it says God made man in his image in light of what God is presented as in this section of the Bible. God spoke things into being, he created stuff. Then he made Adam and Eve in his image; in other words, he made them like him. What that might mean is that he gave mankind the unique ability to create. To build, to invent to shape the world. None of the other living souls God put here can create language, art, technology, architecture, etc. Only man. I think that's what it means when it says He created man in his image. But then again, I could be wrong. :-)

These are all good thoughts, but, regarding what part of Adam died when he sinned isn't that simple. We've all accepted Weirwilles teaching (and that of other fundamentalists) that some part of Adam died when he sinned. Of course God told Adam for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. It's not that simple. If you read the rest of the story carefully you will see another perspective. The serpent said to Eve Okay, Satan's a liar right? Well not quite...What actually happened? It says their eyes were opened. That's what the serpent told them would happen. Moreover, God himself confirms it. Read verse 22. So. God said "thou shalt surely die." The serpent said they wouldn't die but that their eyes would be opened to know good and evil, which would make them like gods. A blasphemous lie, surely. But God says that they did indeed become "as one of us, to know good and evil". So, according to what's actually written in the Bible, Adam and Eve did not die. They became as gods and acquired the knowledge of good and evil. So rather than trying to twist our minds into knots figuring out what part of them died and when, perhaps we should be asking ourselves why the serpent's prediction is the one that came true, and why God was trying to prevent that. If one were bolder than I, one could make the argument that God lied to Adam and Eve and that the serpent told the truth. This would be heresy in almost any Church, but that's essentially what the Bible tells us here. What the serpent predicted happened. But it was not a good thing. Therefore, if God did lie to Adam and Eve, that was not inherently bad. If the Gestapo came to your door and asked you to hand over your mother, would you lie about her whereabouts? Would that make you evil? So why did God try to keep Adam and Eve from having their eyes opened to the knowledge of good and evil? Well maybe it's because once they acquired that knowledge, their children filled the earth with violence and became so degraded that God wiped them all out and started over. What looked like a blessing was such a curse that God did everything he could short of violating their freedom of will in order to prevent it. Maybe they weren't ready for that knowledge and God wanted to keep them in a state of moral ignorance--and therefore innocence-- until they had matured enough to handle it. I think those are the more important lessons and questions from this section of Genesis.

Hi Twinky. It's an interesting and important topic. I haven't done an exhaustive study of the terms, but did review the PFAL teaching on it when we were working through the PFAL Review way back in Waydale era. Here's what I found in a nutshell VP's teaching that spirit, soul, and body are analogous to formed,made and created is flawed. It's clearly contradicted by Genesis 1:18 (Let us make man in our image). If the verb "make" is used only of man's soul, and the image of God is spirit, the verse should say "let us create man in our image". So this is just another one of Weirwille's attempts to insert "mathematic accuracy and scientific precision" where it doesn't exist in the Scriptures. The usages of these terms throughout the Bible tends to change depending on the writer and context. Sometime the word spirit (pneuma or ruach) is used to depict an anointing from God such as the spirit of God that enabled the prophets of the Old Testament. Sometimes it seems to communicate the heart or soul; that inner identity of a person that drives the flesh. (I Corinthians 2:11) Imho, there really isn't a clearcut, biblically consistent definition of these terms. You have to look at the context. To his credit, that's kind of what VP did in Receiving the Holy Spirit today with the 8 or so different "usages" of the word pneuma. He offered different definitions depending on the context. But he still tried to shoehorn the collective usages into very narrowly defined meanings that supported his doctrines. I don't think that's an honest approach to the subject. As for whether a soul needs to be saved or lives on, there are variant Scriptures that speak of different things. Since the word "spirit" is sometimes used synonymously with soul, one could say that when someone is born again, their spirit is saved. But if we're referring to the threefold Christian addressed in I Thessalonians 5:23, we assume that spirit and soul aren't the same thing. VP's teaching that the soul dies when you take your last breath and that only the spirit continues into heaven runs afoul of Revelation 20:4. The context obviously, is a period of time during the Milennial Reign of Christ, after Jesus' return in judgement. These are saints, who were faithful unto death; martyrs. So we must assume they had spirit, soul, and body. They were beheaded so obviously they died. Yet their souls are seen in heaven. According to VP's pre-tribulation rapture doctrine (which is also not in harmony with I Corinthians chapter 15, btw) this would occur after the gathering together, so these people should be Christians in their glorious new bodies. But the use of the word souls (translated from psuche, not pneuma), contradicts that expectation. If the soul dies and the spirit lives on, St. John the Revelator goofed here and used--gasp!-- the wrong word! According to VP, the whole Bible falls to pieces. You know God has a reason for everything he says, where he says it, how he says it. etc, etc. If these folks have souls after they've died and gone to heaven, VP's slicing and dicing of body, soul, and spirit doesn't work. So what we have to decide is this; Does the Bible use the words spirit and soul as distinctively as we were taught, or are they basically synonymous terms used to refer to the part of man that is beyond the realm of the physical?. I Thess 5:23 implies a difference between one's soul and one's spirit. I Cor 2:11 implies the opposite. Personally, I don't think there is a clear answer. This is just another example of the complexity of Biblical language. The Bible is not an infallible, integral, harmonious truth. It's a tapestry of truths received, interpreted and communicated through the veils and filters of human minds. It can't be put together without contradictions and inconsistencies. And tempting as it is to try, we really shouldn't. It's a waste of time and energy. The more we try to turn spiritual truths into empirical data, the less real good we do for God and for one other.

That's quite a mind blowing thought there! It's a shame you can only vote a post "up" once. I would give each of your last two posts three clicks if I could. Great thoughts! Thanks for sharing. :-)

You still have not made one specific argument as to WHY the word "logos" doesn't fit. It's unreasonable to make such bold claims without specific arguments. What problem does logos cause in the context? What other specific biblical truth does it contradict?

While I've not read the Koran, it seems to me that the big problem is that one of the things all the Abrahamic religions share is intolerance that can be blamed on their scriptural traditions. The Jews trace their heritage back to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to whom God gave the lands of the Gentiles. To this day, the underlying cause for animosity between the Israelis and Palestinians over that property. The Israelis and their Zionist supporters here in the US believe that God gave them that land and that no one else's rights matter. The Old Testament is full of examples of the children of Israel basically committing what would today be seen as genocide. All with God's blessing and support. Christians can't legitimately lay claim to that kind of holy war mindset, since Jesus was the Prince of Peace and said his kingdom was not of this world. But that didn't stop the early Roman Church from burning heretics and carrying on the Inquisition and the Crusades. And as we know, those who practice Sharia law use the Koran to oppress women and proclaim death sentences on Christians and Jews. So you're right that the three major religions share a common ancestry. And I believe most followers of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed want to do good, love God/Allah/Jesus and live in peace. But the Fundamentalists among all the tribes won't accept anything but their vision of God's will. As long as there are Fundamentalists in these religions, there will be war, hatred, and strife.

Okay then, the song was Breakfast in America, which was a big hit back in my college days. From the album of the same name. Free Post.

The next line of the song is

Thanks Human! :D Let's see a clue... Hint #1. Think of the nationality of the terms "kippers" and "Mummy dear". Then think of a different nationality than that one. Hint #2. One of the words in that line is also in the song title.

Could we have kippers for breakfast Mummy dear, Mummy dear

Okay, this one should be easy.

Deb says that's the name of the song. If it's not I'm guessing Sunshiny Day. :-)

I don't know who's turn it is, but "I'll be back" is from Terminator.

Burn Notice?

Wow. That's some insightful analysis right there. :-)

Birdman?

I can see your face still shining through the window on the other side

Alexander?

I don't recognize the lady in the clue.