Dr. Murray suggests things are so, and people assume he is accurate and giving them the facts. Every interpreation rests on a set of facts, if the facts are false the interpretation cannot stand, at least not on those facts.
The scriptures' testimony is to be preferred over doctrines which seek to contradict the scriptures, if something which is plainly said, has to be contradicted by interpretation, then there has to be an overwhelming amount of evidence in scripture to the contrary. You can't just say that Eve had sex with Satan and concieved Cain because of 2Cor11 saying she was "seduced," a Greek word that does not indicate sexual seduction " and numerous other scriptures which give feathery light support to such a re-write of Genesis 3.
Look at all the uses of Exapatao:
Ro7:11 deceived me and by it slew me
Ro16:18 deceive the hearts of the simple
1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself
2Co11:3 as the serpent beguiled (deceived) eve
2Thess2:3 Let no mand deceive you by any
Not a hint of sex
Exapatao is a compound word from ex meaning "out, from" and apatao meaning to delude, cheat, or decieve, "Exapatao" basically means "Out-cheated" like Out-run, Out-fight, Out-spit, Out-shoot etc. it never means to seduce sexually, ever, wholly seduced, fine, sure, maybe, but in english that is way too suggestive these days, when we say "seduced" in modern English, sex is implied, it was never so for Exapatao.
Here are the uses of Apatao the root of Exapatao
Eph5:6let no man deceive you with
1Tim2:14Adam was not deceived...womann being deceived ...that one is downright interesting
Js 1:26 his tongue, but deceiveth his own
Those are all the uses, notice how it was said that Adam WAS NOT deceived (read "seduced") But according to Genesis , he ate the same fruit that Eve ate, and people suggest to me all the time that there is more there than meets the eye and I say "hogwash."
My point being that in order to erase the plain meaning of a passage, one has to have big reasons, I mean scriptures that outright contradict or something big like that.
or fruit being symbolic of knowledge given by someone.
Such an interpretation is unneccesary. The fruit was already said to grant knowledge. So to say that this fruit of knowledge symbolizes the giving of knowledge... it does not need to be said, because it is already part of the text. Do you follow me? To say "Eating the fruit of knowledge symbolizes the granting of knowledge" sounds like a bad joke from a low-budget movie. What is Dr. Murray thinking? If someone were to come up to me on the street and say to me, What is the "fruit of knowledge" I would say, "Understanding" Because if knowledge given were to bear fruit, it would seem to me that understanding would be the proper answer.
My question to you is, that you state "fruit" here is not symbolic but literal and that it should not be hard to believe that this type of act, like many other miracles, could happen. I do not disagree at all that this could be true.
Dr. Murray wants to double up on symbols here, fruit is not only symbolic, so is knowledge, he means "carnal knowledge" and really, the fruit of carnal knowledge is "the fruit of the womb" so if I were to look at it symbolically, then they woiuld have been eating babies. The fruit in the narrative is literal, but that does not mean that it is not symbolic of things (Just like Sarah and Hagar), it just means that it is not purely symbiolic, meaning that the literal narrative is factual and trust-worthy. Whatever symbolic meanings may be derived from it, do not alter the history recorded in the narrative. That would be utterly unprecidented in scripture and if it were true I would expect a testimony to be given from a more reliable source than a 20th century preacher, a source such as an Apostle or the Lord Himself.
I am just trying to understand how you decide when to take something as being symbolic and when to take something as being literal.
That is an excellent question, one I have often thought about myself, I would really like to write out what I believe are sound elements of interpretation in that regard.
It is something I have only thought about, and practiced (I hope) as this will be my first stab at writing about it, my thought are going to be a bit scattered.
Sometimes things are downright contradictory,
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit
So, should I answer a fool according to his folly or not??? I actually love issues like that, and like your question. Things that defy simple answers.
I already partially answered your question above (in the part about "seduced"), now, consider also this:
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar...etc etc the other is Sarah...
The Apostle Paul is saying that the story of Abraham's sons was an "Allegory" of the two covenants. That does not mean that the events described were totally allegorical, just that there is an allegory hidden within the story. The problem with Dr. Murray's version of Genesis is that it is not an allegory, he wants to read an entirely different set of literal events over an existing narrative, which is basically symbol abuse. With Abraham, the events symbolized a great issue of faith and the law, (I talk about this extensively in my study on Romans http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/45_Romans/45_Romans.html ) but the events of that History (or their allegorical meaning and the symbols involved) do not represent an entirely different narrative hidden within the narrative given, or make that narrative false, and the story of Abraham and of the Garden are testified by the Apostles and Prophets as historical.
One thing that I think is an obvious principle of interpretation is that narrative events may have symbolic meaning, or symbols in them, but the events themselves are to be understood to have literally occurred. Otherwise you will never know what is real and what is a parable. If that were so, then Jesus ressurrection may never have occurred, (and there are people who look at the bible in that way), maybe then Jesus' ressurrection was not a literal event, but rather a pure allegory. It could all be symbolic.
When something is said that is said either in doctrine or a dark saying, detrermination must be made within the context. Like this:
Matt7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
That is a good example, Jesus is speaking in his doctrine and we see that there are some obvious symbolic things being related here. First he gives you something literal, and inserts symbolic elements to create a particular image, but the symbols don't change the facts, we are still talking about false prophets.
But when you consider Genesis, the whole thing is turned around, because Genesis is clearly presented as a narrative, just like all the other stories in Genesis, they may have allegorical meaning, no doubt, but to say that what is written is purely allegorical and that what is written is not what really happened...well, to say that you have to have very strong reasons.
The best place to look for those reasons would be the commentary of the Apostles and prophets in regard to Adam and Eve, and they never indicate that the events themselves were nothing more than allegories of other events, which represent a hidden history. Dr, Murray makes this a mess, because it would be the only case in all of scripture of such an interprtation, totally unprecedented in the bible.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come...19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Tim2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2Cor11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (its all about what happened upstairs, not downstairs, what a perfect oppourtunity Paul missed to explain "what really happened in the garden, " as I said before "beguiled" has no sexual implication AT ALL. NONE.)
In all the commentary of the Apostles there is no mention of an amazing rewrite of History, Dr. Murray's interpretation does not even turn the garden into an allegory, because if that were the case (such as with Abraham) you turn everything into an allegory, you do not retain parts, you do not only convert the elements you need to be symbolic of something, in other words, everything becomes symbolic, the whole narrative. (I hope you get that) Dr. Murray only turns parts of the story into symbols, and uses that transformation to create a new narrative, not even a proper allegory, he is a bad teacher.
Now then, in this scenario, should we know them by the apples dangling from their clothes or the oranges they are holding in their baskets or do we know them by the words they speak and actions they commit? Do you see my point, a little confusing.
I do see your point, but, come on, it's not really that confusing (not there at least). That passage is easy, because Jesus first makes it clear that he is speaking of men, not "trees", and then he adds the symbolic portions (which are indeed intended to confuse people but which are readily understood). Whenever you have mixed elements like that, symbols are a likely interpretation. Genesis 3 may contain symbols, or the elements of Genesis 3 may be symbolic of things, and the whole thing is an allegory (but not of a different narrative) but because it is a historical narrative, we can trust that the events themselves are not MERELY symbolic, and occurred as stated.
When Jesus gives a Parable, that is a good example of a purely symbolic narrative, the whole thing is symbolic, beginning to end, again and again. Genesis 3 is clearly not a parable because of the testimony of the Apostles, who make it pretty clear that the events in Genesis were real and did not represent another separate "secret" reality.
When You read the teachings of the Lord, the Apostles and the Prophets you will see a mixture of Literal and symbolic elements, ultimately the Spirit of God has to be our guide in interpreting them. Dr. Murray denies the baptism of the Holy Spirit, so It is clear to me why he is so prone to error.
I am not asking this question in attempts to prove neither Murray or you right or wrong, my goal is to educate myself and that is never from one particular source (Although, the Bible is the most important). I'd like to thank you in advance for your answer to my question, it is men like you (though I don't agree with everything you say) that help create the vast amount of accessible material available to help me gain knowledge and ultimately form my own opinion. Thank you for sharing your fruits :) God Bless and keep up His good work!
I'm glad you are listening (reading) to some of what I have to say, really what I have said about Murray is mostly looking back on where I came from, since you are looking for good instructional material, I'd like to direct you away from my endless debate with my former "classmates" and toward something that I believe is more productive
If you are looking for diversity of instruction, then listen to what I have to say, I will gladly put myself up for comparison against everything else out there, you will hear the gospel that is hardly ever preached.
Ultimately you need to get all your instruction from one source, God himself, that is where I go.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: Either way, fruit is good!
|Thank you for your quick response. Browsing the web, I came across this article http://www.christianityboard.com/index.php?showtopic=509 which seem to be in total agreement with Murray. If you have time to read it, I would like you to explain your point of view in a little more detail on the events happening, to help me really understand your beliefs. I am not sure whether or not that Eve was truly seduced both sexually and morally, but I have to say there is something that makes me question your belief that both the tree and fruit were not symbolic but literal. If this is the case, after talking to an actual serpent then walking up to a tree that bears magical fruit (I am not being sarcastic at all, just painting the picture), Eve bites into this fruit and Adam also eats. After doing so, they are both aware of being naked and are punished by God. Now keeping to what you said, whether verses are symbolic or literal, they usually start and finish in the same manner. My question now would be, in the verse that states: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:, is this also referring to man walking up to the tree of life and taking one of the magical fruits from the tree of life at some point of time in the future, seeing that they were banished from the Garden of Eden. Or if someone were to think they ate from the Tree of Life right after eating from the Tree of Knowledge than the verse would imply that Adam and Eve were originally made to not live forever but by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which ultimately led to eating from the Tree of Life, they were in return rewarded the ability to earn access to everlasting life. To me it seems just by reading that verse it is referring to Jesus and mans ability to take in and live by His Word, will be the deciding factor whether or not one receives everlasting life. Then when accompanied by other versus that refer to the Tree of Life, it really becomes that more believable. If this is the case, we have two totally different meanings of one Tree (literal) and the other tree (symbolic), which creates a bit of doubt which is right. Thank you for letting me pick your brain, I really appreciate the time you put into answering my last question and your help in leading me in the right direction. God Bless You!
My Second Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Either way, fruit is good!
Here is the problem, you are looking to man to teach you. What this man says and what that man says. My perspective is that I have to let the scriptures teach me. I used to teach serpent's seed, fervently, but I received that doctrine from men, there is no way you would have ended up even thinking about the garden of Eden in this way if you only had the scriptures as your guide. If you are more willing to listen to men than to the scriptures, then there is nothing I can do to help you, I am just another man with an opinion, if you are listening to the argumentation of two men, you will never find the truth out. The scriptures need to instruct, that is the problem with these guys and Genesis, they are the instructors of the scriptures, they teach the bible what the bible means, they do not submit themselves to the word.
The very title of that webpage you sent me is illustrative of that fact "The True Sin in the Garden of Eden Bible Study." The implication is that the sin was not, as the Apostle Paul plainly and clearly teaches, "Disobedience"
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
The teachers of this doctrine suggest that mere disobedience in eating something that God had forbidden them to eat was not enough of a sin, or something. The stories in the old testament are treated as history by the Apostles and if we think we know better, then we are doomed
My question now would be, in the verse that states: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:, is this also referring to man walking up to the tree of life and taking one of the magical fruits from the tree of life at some point of time in the future, seeing that they were banished from the Garden of Eden. Or if someone were to think they ate from the Tree of Life right after eating from the Tree of Knowledge than the verse would imply that Adam and Eve were originally made to not live forever but by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which ultimately led to eating from the Tree of Life, they were in return rewarded the ability to earn access to everlasting life.
is this also referring to man walking up to the tree of life and taking one of the magical fruits from the tree of life at some point of time in the future, seeing that they were banished from the Garden of Eden
Yes, they were physically kept from the tree of life, Honestly, I know you are not being sarcastic, but magical tree is a mistaken way of putting it. What makes the trees powerful is the word of God, because God said "lest they eat from this tree and live forever." That tree (which does symbolize Christ) therefore had the power to give life eternal, just because God said so, because that is how everthing in the universe works and is created, by the power of God's word. Why does Jesus blood take away sin? Does Jesus blood have some magical properties that makes the past to be no more? No, Jesus blood takes way sins because that is what God has said will take away our sin. If you were to stay consistent with the Serpent seed method of interpreting, then Eve would have to have sex with Christ in the Garden in order to live forever, if that is what "take" and "eat" meant. I do not believe that those fruits had any special chemical properties. I have used the term "magical" at times because I'm groping with this too. Noone ever instructed me in this, I'm learning how to explain it as I go along. They had the power to do what God said because God said they had the power to do it. That is the best way i can think of at the moment to explain the power of the fruit. The fruit did not have any power in and of itself, except that God said "Thou shalt not eat of it" and this is what will happen if you do. This is the very meaning of the Law, the law is what makes sin sinful. If God had not commanded them to eat of the tree of knowledge and they had heaten it, then they would not have surely died.
Or if someone were to think they ate from the Tree of Life right after eating from the Tree of Knowledge than the verse would imply that Adam and Eve were originally made to not live forever but by eating from the Tree of Knowledge, which ultimately led to eating from the Tree of Life, they were in return rewarded the ability to earn access to everlasting life.
Adam and Eve were created in such a way as their death was not certain, they probably could have been killed, but their death was not certain, until they sinned. It is impossible to earn access to eternal life. The fact that you would even say this shows me that you are deeply lacking instruction in the most fundemental and basic concepts of Christianity. Everything we get from God is a gift which we could not possibly earn. While you are digging around in the garden you are missing everything important in Christianity. I suggest you study my teaching on Romans, whiich I have already suggested.
Your question here is difficult for me to decipher, but it seems like the answer must be no.
In the garden of Eden God created sin. God made man to sin. When Eve looked at the tree of Knowledge, it appealed to her, it looked good, it looked tasty, she wanted to be wise, she did not create those desires, they were already in her, now made manifest by the forbidden object of her desires. God could have made the tree to be unappealing, placed sharp needles on the fruit or something. God created the tree to be tempting, and God created man in such a way that man would want to eat of the tree, and then God forbade man to eat it. God intended that man should eat from that tree and die, God intended to bring eternal life through his son, not a tree. The purposes of God have progressed from before the world began. The other tree symbolized Christ, but the work of Christ that would give fruit to eternal life was not yet accomplished, man could not partake of eternal life, the garden was a set up, and God was in control. God planted the trees of the garden and let the snake in, it was his doing.
To me it seems just by reading that verse it is referring to Jesus and mans ability to take in and live by His Word, will be the deciding factor whether or not one receives everlasting life.
That is so wrong. That is salvation by the power of man. Who gives man the ability to take and live by God's word?
Rom3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
If salvation is up to us, then Christ died in vain. If that is the case, then we are all dead men. God is responsible for my salvation, if he wants to save me, then it has to come from him, not me. If you choose God, then you have cause to glory, because other men were not as smart as you, they didn't have what it takes. And who created "what it takes" in you? How is it that some can see and others never will? The things in men that guide them towards and away from God are beyond their control.
You lack so much understanding in the very basic elements of Christianity, the vanity of this secret knowledge of the Garden has seduced you. You have become exalted in your mind. That is where you are.
On to this little prize: (the link he gave me)
The True Sin in the Garden of Eden
This is, in my humble opinion, one of the single most misunderstood stories of the Bible. We have single-handedly (as a human race) managed to take the very Word of Our Father and twist it into some fairytale story about an apple and a snake. Neither the word apple nor the word for snake is ever used. (that is a lie right there) We're going to shatter some common misconceptions today and let God's wonderful and awesome letter to us do all of the talking.
When I start reading this, I see it as thick with irony. God's word is definitely not going to be doing all the talking. But I'll make sure He gets heard. No the word "apple" never appears, but this is a straw-man argument, because fruit is certainly used. And so is snake, because serpent most DEFINTELY means snake:
Ex4:3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
That is the exact same word for serpent as is in Genesis 3 in fact, the exact same word is used numerous times in the old testament to refer to nothing other than bona fide snakes, so he is innacurate right out of the gate. Is such a student who lacks any dilligence in "checking it out for himself" worthy of anyones attention? This person hasn't done their homework. Not that I believe that the serpent is literally a snake or not, I don't really know, but if people do believe it is a snake, it is because the word sure is misleading if it isn't a snake.
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Pardon us simple folk, but we read that and get the distinct impression that God is talking to a snake. Call me crazy.
Nu 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
More fairy tales. The students of apostasy have a real contempt for the things the scriptures teach us. A real contempt.
The story of the sin against God is found in Genesis 3. I'm going to assume that you are familiar with it at this point meaning that you have read it and not just heard your preacher preach on it. If you have not done so lately, quieten down the room, pray, and read Genesis 3. Then you can return to this lesson and finish it.
So much for letting God's word do all the talking, if he reprinted Genesis 3 here it would stand too starkly in contrast to the tripe he is about to dump on us. Did you do that Keeta777? Did you read Gen 2 and 3 completely right here, do it, or you might as well just forget about learning anything.
**This Bible Study should only be read by a mature audience. It's very deep and has some topics that are not really suitable for all ages.**
Give me a break. I think they love saying that. This bible study is so perverse no one should have to be exposed to it. This is just another play in the game of suggestion. He never gets down and dirty with the facts, he just gets really, really, deep in you know what.
The creation of the world of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is interrupted by the appearence of the one whom is labeled "the serpent" in Genesis 3:1.
Interrupted is an interesting choice of words. Using this kind of language is another play in the subtle art of suggestion, The idea that the serpent is "interrupting" implies that God's will is about to be interfered with. As if the serpent is out-foxing God.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Let us familiarize ourselves with what the enemy is talking about here. God gave Adam some very simple and important commands back in Genesis 2:
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 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.
There's some very, very important things going on right here. Number one, God has given Adam a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is God's law in this case. Keep the phrase "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in your mind as we return back to Genesis 3. We'll make a very important connection to this term in a moment.
So far so Good.
The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in the KJV and other versions of the Bible is "nachash" which roughly means "shining one" amongst other definitions:
= Hebrew word # 5175: nachash (naw-khawsh'); a snake (from its hiss). From # 5172: nachash (naw-khash'); a primitive root; properly, to hiss,ie: whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate: to practice divination, to divine, to observe signs, to learn by experience, to diligently observe, to practice fortune telling, to take as an omen.
Didn't he just say the word snake never appears? When snake is the definition of serpent?
This same term is also used in Revelation 12:9:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
One thing is quite clear here. This isn't a snake, its the old enemy alive and well in the Garden of Eden. So take a step back a moment and try to picture the woman having a conversation with a snake. I think the absolutely absurdity of it becomes clear quite quickly. The woman was approached by this shining one, nachash, and he's quite the handsome and appealing character. Certainly someone worth listening to if you rely on looks alone. (And on whether or not they might be good for food!)
I refer back to the conversation of Balaam with his very real ass, but according to this person, just more fairy tales. Just because the serpent was Satan does not mean that the serpent was not a snake. As I said before, God sure talks to it like a LITERAL snake, if this is so "simple" then why does it require a special bible study? God said, "On your belly you shall go." Was he intentionally trying to mislead us? I don't think so. Satan can be manifest in people or animals.
John6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
John13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Mt8:31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
Mt 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
I think the absolutely absurdity of it becomes clear quite quickly.
Contempt. There are more good reasons to assume that Satan was in the guise of a snake than in an Angelic form, if that was the case, then God could have said he was in an angellic form, and not cursed the snake to go on its belly. Plus, Satan is going to exalt himself in the person of antichrist. The issue of whether these things are literal or figurative are not even the core issues here, in any case, this is not what Christianity is about. Christianity is about remedying this situation, not exploring it to no useful end. How will obtaining any such knowledge make me righteous before God?
Now let us look at the word tree here:
= Hebrew word # 6086: `ets (ates); a tree (from its firmness) from # 6095:`atsah (aw-tsaw'); a primitive root; properly, to fasten (or make firm),ie: to close the eyes. figuratively:The spine giving firmness to the body (The body is the trunk, and the arms and legs are the limbs).
(When I first replied to this I did not notice. But this is actually a gross corruption and Abuse of the contents of the Strong's Dictionary, he is actually mixing the definitions of several words in a deceitful manner. The part about "Figuratively" is not in the definituion of 6086 "tree" or 6095 to fasten/make firm. He is taking the definition of another word 6096 "the spine" and trying to say that it has a figurative meaning of "spine" in rrelation to the word "tree." This is not scholarship. This is handling the word of God deceitfully.
That is the word for tree in Strong's. And this is it's primitive root, always translated "shut."
This is another word derived from the same root. Being derived from the same root is not what this person is saying, he presents all of his information as if it is part of a single definition. I'm sure he justifies this deceit on the basis of the rightness of his cause. But how will the rest of us regard such deceit?
Both 6086 and 6096 are derivatives of the same root word, which denotes firmness and is always translated shut. But the way this person presented the information is completely deceitful. He presents the literal definition of 6096 as being the figurative definition of 6095 and 6086. Dr. Murray's doctrines do not teach people how to properly use the Strong's concordance. In order to make tree "figuratively" mean "spine" this person has done something dishonest. Which is not the way of Christ.)
2 Cor 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
The serpent is not a snake and now we see that the trees are not quite trees at this point. It's clear from the above verse that the word used to denote tree is a completely figurative term. This is by no means the only appearance of the figurative use of this word:
Ouch! "a completely figurative term" One of the worst things you can do is rely on the the figurative uses of words as listed in strongs or any other dictionary. He refers to the strong's concordance entry as a "verse"
Ok, I can buy the serpent being Satan, even literally, like "serpent" is just a name, nevermind what God said against that "beast of the field." But Satan is also the tree? So he is the tree and the serpent. Why even have two elements in the story? Why not just have the tree talk to eve?
Tree is used over a hundred times in which it can mean nothing else than a literal tree, so the idea that the word itself is "completely figurative" is completely wrong.
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.
What does this prove? Oh, that trees can be symbolic. Does that mean they are always symbolic, or that they are nothing but symbols? Or say anything about Genesis? No. This is scripture abuse.
Jeremiah 17:7-10, Ezekiel 31:1-14, and Daniel 4:18-28.
Remember the reference to the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" found back in Genesis 2:9? This tree is a being; one and the same as the serpent. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the serpent; or that is to say, Satan. The important thing to note about the title given to Satan at this point that confirms it. Who was the one who had already rebelled from God? Who is the one condemned to the fiery lake? Who is the one who knew what it was to rebel from God?
So much for letting the scriptures talk, just how do we know that the tree was not Samwaza, Satan's second in command? "The tree is... one and the same as the serpent." There is nothing to even remotely suggest that. This is one place where he clearly tells the scriptures what is what, because the scriptures sure don't teach that.
He was given the title of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" because he knew good and evil. He knew good because he once served God; he then knew evil because he committed evil in his rebellion from the Father. We'll come across one more tree towards the end of the chapter.
"Given the title" talk about your fairy tales. Mind you, the scriptures teach us that God made this tree to grow out of the ground.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:6 (with sarcstic remarks) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (but it really wasn't), and that it was pleasant to the eyes (but it was really a handsome dude), and a tree to be desired to make one wise (but it was really just a wise person), she took of the fruit thereof (which didn't exist), and did eat (she f***'ed him), and gave also unto her husband with her (she couldn't give him anything, because the fruit was invisible, intellectual fruit); and he did eat (no, he f***'ed him).
See, God is just messing with your mind. That bit about trees and fruit and a serpent, is just a fairy tale, there was not any tree growing in the garden (why isn't the garden symbolic too?) Certainly not out of the ground! (heavy sarcasm intended) There was just the two people and this handsome bi-sexual angel, that's all.
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Thus are the first words of Satan in history and they immediately begin to do the dirty work.
(First recorded) I never make statements like this, honestly, I hate when people handle the word so recklessly.
He jumps right to the use his best weapon; to twist and corrupt the Word into something that he can use to gain his ends.
There is thick irony here.
He offers the reward of being "as gods" to tempt the woman to commit the act that he desires at the moment.
What act is that? Come on, say it, the kids are out of the room, say it.
The phrase is very similar to what we hear many modern 'scripture lawyers' say - that "the Bible (God's Word) doesn't really say that, it means this instead..." Sound familar?
The irony is so very, very, thick. "The serpent is not a snake and now we see that the trees are not quite trees"
Satan was at work then and is at work now. I thank God everyday for what he has given us to combat him and the power he has given us over him.
One more verse confirms the nature of Satan for us:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Ah, the power of suggestion, Satan murdered Adam and Eve by his lies, so therefore he must be Cain's spermal father. As if those characteristics are hereditary and exclusive to those people. Vomit.
We have some more important Hebrew words to understand. These are vital in understanding the figurative terms used.
fruit of the tree
[I] = Hebrew word # 6529 periy- fruit, in a wide sense: a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or fruit,offspring, children, progeny ( used of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions).
eat of it
Hebrew word #398; 'akal (aw-kal'); This word has many uses, among which, one use means to lay with a woman (which is a sexual act).
Hebrew word # 5060; naga` (naw-gah'); Properly, to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman.
Again, the misuse of concordances is displayed. These tools are being abused. The figurative use of a word is determined by the context of the use. If it says "Do not touch my wife" then you need to envoke the figuarative use, but in Genesis the object is a tree and you can't fornicate with a tree.
You don't need a concordance to figure out the figurative uses of words, they are self-evident.
[/I]The sexual tone of Genesis 3:6 is unmistakable. We have multiple clues here that something more than looking at a fruit and eating it is going on.
Then how come if it were not for people like this guy, we would all be very mistaken? Objection: Counsel is leading the witness.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
All doubt is erased. The act being committed here is a sexual act. One simply can speculate on the latter part of the verse, but that's another discussion for another day somewhere away from here. You now understand the important part, but it gets a little deeper than this.
No, discuss it right here you dirty little coward. Did Satan insert his penis into Adam's rectum or not? Or did Adam take hold of Satan's penis and put it in his mouth? Maybe Satan bent over and spread his buttocks and let Adam insert his penis into Satan's rectum. The kids are gone bro, we can talk like "adults." This man is a coward. Speculate? There is only one possibility. All doubt is erased. This is a stupid doctrine.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's sodomy many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
but that's another discussion for another day somewhere away from here.
This little coward wants to stay as far away from that question as possible. Yeah, talk about it, somewhere away from here, far, far, away. Spineless coward. He does not want to let the word speak, he wants to shut the word up. Because if that is the interpretation of the first part then it MUST also be the interpretation of the latter part. He does not want to let the scriptures instruct him, he is the master, he tell us the "real meaning"
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
An important point to make here is that Satan did this; he opened their eyes.
Again, so much for letting the scriptures talk, it does not say that. It said that eating the fruit opened their eyes. NOT SATAN
We see what kind of power we are dealing with here. This is what happens when you let Satan take control. However, as I have already said, God has given us power against this, so take comfort in His Word.
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
We continue on.
If they have such power...Then how come these people all say that they commit sin?
1Jn3:8He that committeth sin is of the devil;... 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God
If they have such power over Satan, why do they deny that we cannot continue in sin?
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Focus in with me for a moment on verse 13. The key word here is "beguiled" and for this we look to the Hebrew once again:
= Hebrew word # 5377 nasha' (naw-shaw');a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: to beguile, to deceive utterly (infinitive).
We find that this same idea is used in the New Testament Greek.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
serpent = [I]Greek word # 3789 ophis (of'-is); probably from 3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person[/I]
beguiled [I]= Greek word #1818 "exapatao" (ex-ap-at-ah'-o); [/I]To seduce wholly.
Bingo. Further confirmation that this was indeed a sexual act. There is only one single meaning of the Greek "exapatao" and it's quite clear.
I already covered this beguiled. It is reverse reasoning to say that beguiled means seduced sexually.
We now come upon the first prophecy in the Bible.
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
upon thy belly shalt thou go
= A Hebraism (figure of speech) for utter defeat as in Ps 72:9 & Isa 49:23.
dust shalt thou eat
= A Hebraism (figure of speech) meaning an ultimate term of degradation, as in Ps 44:25.
= Hebrew word #342 'eybah (ay-baw'); from 340; hostility: a primitive root; to hate (as one of an opposite tribe or party); hence to be hostile.
between thee and the woman
= Not enmity between a garden snake and a woman, that doesn't even make sense! But enmity between the offspring of the serpent (satan) and the offspring of the woman (Eve, through Adam, and thus of God).
between thy seed and her seed
Hebrew word #2233 zera`- seed, sowing, offspring, a sowing, seed, semen virile, offspring, descendants, posterity, children. From #2232:to become pregnant, to be made pregnant.
= Jesus Christ.
bruise thy head
= Jesus destroying Satan.
bruise his heel
= Satan causing the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
But who is the seed of Satan? We don't have to guess, the Apostle John takes all the guesswork and confusing symbology out of the equation.
1Jn3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
|Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
The rest of the other guy's stuff is just more "Blah Blah blah, Bull" I won't glorify it with any more of my attention. Honestly, you have caught me at a bad time, I'm into recording my bible studies right now, and teaching the true doctrine of God, this disputing with people who are not of God is a real drag for me, especially since I have to type it all, and typing is a very tedious process.... I've given you enough, and I've written even more on my website, if you really want to know, look for yourself, I'm not going to take you by the hand and baby you through all this. I don't need disciples.
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray"