Genesis
King James Version (KJV)
Genesis Chapter 1 Discussion Page 42
Viewing page: 42 of 147
< Previous Discussion Page Next Discussion Page >
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
What did God teach to Moses on Genesis 1:2:3:4
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Here are the scriptures of Adams Geneology. Seth was born, and his bloodline carried on Jesus's bloodline. That's who God ordained.
Yes Adam and Eve had other children. But they are not named and there is NO mention of twins.
Mishael
Ephesians 4:29, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Even though 'corrupt communication' could be perceived to be too general, in Greek it actually refers to 'rotten, worthless, useless, depraved'. I would think that using swear/bad words would fall under this meaning as speech that has no value in it that rather places the person in a baser standing. You could look at Ephesians 5:4 as well, for a similar warning which includes foolish talking & jesting. I would think 'jesting' here is not just humour but with lewdness sprinkled within.
But to answer your question: "who decides which words are bad words and how do they decide, is it just somebody's opinion or is it scripture?" I think the criteria for that would be the source or history of the word used, its meaning & its manner of presentation, both in verbal expression & context. I certainly don't know the history of those words, nor do I wish to, but every now & then something comes up. For example, what some consider a 'mild bad word' such as the extended use of the word 'blood', has its origins in either the Cross or a woman's monthly cycle. But there are other words, such as used in the Bible for 'an illegitimate person' ( Hebrews 12:8), which in itself is an appropriate English word, but when used today and against a person in an angry tone, amounts to swearing. I think you get what I'm saying without the need for further examples!
But Colossians 4:6 says it well: "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." I feel that this is the criterion we need to abide by: how do our words or manner of speaking affect the one hearing us - is it gentle, encouraging, uplifting, informative or 'spiced' up & devaluing us & our message?
A whole day has been used up for this controversy. Sometimes you just have to leave it on the throne that Jesus is sitting on. He is the judge. We are to make righteous judgements and on the sinning after Grace has come: this is an issue to leave with Jesus. He will undertake. Live in the light you are given. Beware of teaching Jesus's lambs something else.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Galatians 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
1 Timothy Chapter 1
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 12:25
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
We are not to go to law with each other.
Mishael
Then in Genesis 2:22, God noticing that man was alone & wandering around aimlessly (2:18), decided to make another human to be his companion in life & a help to him (2:18). So from a part taken from Adam (his rib), God created another human being & Adam named her 'Woman'. In Hebrew, 'woman' is 'ishshah'.
In Genesis 2:23, we read that Adam named this new creation, Woman, as she came out of man (i.e. made from his body). Now the Hebrew changes as it allows for not mankind, but for the dual genders. The Hebrew then for this man Adam becomes 'ish' and for 'out of man' is 'ishshah'. So we have 'ish' (man) & 'ishshah' (woman, or one coming out of man).
Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Adam could never fully enjoy or identify with the other of God's creation (animals) as they were unlike him. But once, Ishshah was made, he knew that this was special/different, one he could be at one with for procreation, companionship, care & dependency. Then in Genesis 3:20, Ish changes the name of Ishshah & now calls her 'Chavvah', which means 'Eve', because she would be the mother of all living.
I was taught that: there is MAN
And WOMAN means, MAN WITH A WOMB
Explore the website and find the Commentary BOX. You'll like that.
Highlight your verse till it turns yellow; scroll down to the Commentary of it.
Gen 2:16,17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Given this direct commandment & explanation from the LORD, I think that it is safe to understand that God wanted to keep Adam & Eve focused on a couple of things: firstly, to strictly obey His Word under all circumstances in spite of the tasty tantalising fruit before them on the tree. And secondly, and as a result of disobedience, sin would enter into them & they would lose their innocency by knowing both to do good & to do evil - features that were not evident before they sinned since they were created in God's Image in all purity & holiness. So IF 'someone' came to them before their Fall into sin, & talked about committing sin & going against God's Directive, I sense that they would have no understanding of this, as all they knew was according to the holy connection they had with God. We know that the Serpent, the Devil, did come to them, but his thrust was not for them to sin & rebel against God, but to give them a convincing reason why the fruit was a necessity for them. Disobedience & eating that fruit opened up the way to gain that knowledge - a product of Sin. And so for us too, a convincing argument for us to sin is all we need to do so.
Therefore, I don't think that to procreate, to talk, to eat, to sleep, commune with the animals, etc. were anything outside what God had enabled them to do in their unfallen state. But when they tried to hide from God, & likely other actions that the Bible does not detail, proves that sin entered them & they had the ability to know the difference between good & evil & also sense conviction of heart as a result.