A Marriage Made In Paradise
Published on May 14, 2010 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion

Last weekend I was asked to speak at a woman's luncheon for Mother's Day.  When I inquired as to what they wished for a subject matter they left it up to me.  So I thought about it for a day or so.  Then I came up with Eve.  Why not?  Afterall she was the mother of us all.  Since I've never heard a Mother's Day Sermon on this topic I decided I'd tackle it myself.   

Woman are important to God and He makes that very clear thru His written Word.  Even so, the message gets clouded by the cultures.  In the Eastern culture we know that women are surpressed.  In the Western culture women are aggressive and domineering more than ever.  During the days of Christ the Jews kept their women as subservient.  I heard that that it's written about the Torah that it would be better to burn it than to teach it to women! 

But what does the bible say about woman's role in society?  What is their purpose?  Jesus did much to elevate women during His time on earth and they loved Him.  It was to a woman He first announced He was the Messiah.  It was to women He first revealed Himself as risen from the dead.  He delivered at least one woman from unjust justice. 

Women were used mightily by God.  I think of Rahab who God used to save two spies facing sure death as a result if caught.  I think of Miriam who was a prophetess and ministered alongside her brother Moses.  Deborah was a judge and leader who was chosen to deliver God's people during the terrible days of the Judges.  Esther helped save her people, the Jews, from sure extermination and Lydia was a business woman who was instrumental in starting a first century church out of her home. 

So we come to Eve.  We know very little of this first lady.  We do know she was God's final creative work in the first week.  She was also a companion for Adam.  But there's more. 

Everything started out well in the garden although it didn't end that way thanks to Eve and her husband.  Eve led her husband into direct violation of God's revealed will to them.  So they were banished from Paradise.  She is a very human portraid of falling into sin but also of picking up the faith afterwards. 

She was created for a unique role in creation.  She was to minister to Adam and with Adam being his help-mate.  She was designed to complete him as well as assist him.  We read this in Genesis 1:26-28:

"And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.  And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 

Did you see the word "them?"  This was for both of them. A job for two.  These things were too great for them to do alone.  We see a few things about God's purposes for mankind here. 

1.  To be like Him; to reflect God's image in creation.  It took both of them to do this.  We think of God as a He and that pronoun is used but it takes both man and woman to accurately reflect God's image.  We think of God as mighty, powerful, just, logical, strong, etc. but He's also depicted in scripture as loving, tenderhearted, merciful, gracious etc.  We see both male and female characteristics in Him. 

2.  They were to rule over creation.  They were given authority over all the earth.  Together.

3.  They were to reproduce; be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.  Together.

So zooming in on Eve let's look at why she was created.  What is her purpose for being created?  Gen 2:18-22:

"And the Lord said It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper for him.  And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name.  And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field but for Adam there was not found a helper for him.  And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh.  And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her to the man." 

1.  Adam was not complete by himself.

2.  It was not good.  Even in Paradise something was not good.  Seven times, it was mentioned in the first chapter after God created, God said that "it was good" until we get here to 2:18 which says "it was not good." 

3.  Man was completed with need.  He was created incomplete.  He was made complete with Eve. 

4.  She was to be a helper suitable for him. 

Looking a bit further we can see some principles for the marriage relationship right here that brought this first couple together in Holy Matrimony. 

Genesis 2:23-24

"And Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh."

We see that God brought Eve to Adam.  It wasn't Adam's job to find a mate which makes me wonder looking around today at all the broken marriages.  How many consulted God in the choosing of their mate?   What would it have been like if they did?  God know more than we do so why don't we ask Him first?  

Unlike the animals she was like him.  She was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.  She was perfect for him.  The relationship necessitated him to leave his mother and father.  Obviously this was meant for future generations because these two were a special first couple with no parents.  This marriage required cleaving and the Hebrew word implies "to be joined by commitment."   Marriage is a commitment not a feeling or an emotion.  We need to stick it out, stay together and work things out as much as possible with us. 

Marriage results in being one together.  This one flesh points to the physical body but in principle also includes all that a person is; mind, emotions, will etc.  One cares for the other as one would care for oneself. 

And marriage results in nakedness without shame.  They had no shame.  They were naked and it was good.  This, again, goes beyond the physical.  We need to be open and up front with each other.  There should be no hiding, no secrets from each other. 

So everything started out well.  Until Eve was tempted.  Then everything changed.  She entered into a discussion with a serpent.  Is it no wonder women and snakes don't get along today?  We'll start there next time.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments (Page 9)
13 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last
on Jun 25, 2010

My post was not incoherent Lulapilgrim, you just didn't want to hear what I was saying to you.

Even though we disagree, so far I've always been glad to read your comments...to me your post #110 was jumbled.

You want to believe as you believe, so much so that you can't even be challenged in your beliefs.

Be serious. KFC continually challenges my religious beliefs! You are following in second place. These blog discussions are proof.

......................

I will tell you once more that the word "nephilim" is not 'GOD GIVEN", it is a word with sumerian roots and used by the sumerians long before the hebrew nation ever existed. Please try to remember that Abraham came from the city of Ur, which was also as you put it pagan. You have the right to believe that they were pagan, but you don't have the right to rewrite history. Nor do you have the right to rewrite the bible since you are not the original author.

I also told you that the word Anakim was also sumerian and I told you what it meant. I told you that the meaning of nephilim was "sons of the gods that came from the sky or heaven". It was perfectly clear and concise.

No one is trying to rewrite history and I certainly am not attempting to rewrite the Bible. I'm quite satisfied with the Douay Rheims version just as it is and believe it's the most accurate word-for-word translation in the world.

Agree, you said the words "Nephilim" and "Anakim" have Sumerian roots. Agree, you said the meaning of Nephilim was "sons of the gods that came from the sky or heaven." This is an ancient pagan Sumerian legend, not Sacred Truth.

This Sumerian legend is popular fantasy.

Angles never came to earth and slept with women? Just how the heck would you know? Where you there? Don't make assumptions about history to which you were not present.

That fallen Angels came to earth and slept with women is popular legendary fantasy and the stuff of Hollywood, not God's revealed truth.

 

...............

 

 

on Jun 25, 2010

 

...............

 

 

on Jun 25, 2010

Why do I say into the earth? You try to figure it out according to this passage" Genesis chapter 4 verse 14 "Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth.." Any questions now? It sounds like he will not dwell on the face of the earth any longer to me, but then again it could be said that Cain was dwelling on something that faced the earth and the earth could be seen,

Whisper2 posts:
(However it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it.)

Here is the entire passage....

8 And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. 9 And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.

11 Now, therefore, cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. 12 When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. 13 And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. 14 Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy face, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: everyone, therefore that findeth me, shall kill me.  15 And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark  upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him.

 16 And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. 18 And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech: 19 Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. 20 And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of them that play upon the harp and the organs. 22 Sella also brought forth Tubalcain, who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain was Noema. 23 And Lamech said to his wives Ada and Sella: Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have slaim a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising. 24 Sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain: but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.

According to the account here, Cain dwells on the earth...it's just that in the selfishness of his envy of his brother, Cain believed that if Abel were dead, he would receive more blessings from God, and 2...that the earth would produce more under his cultivation and 3....that he himself would be happier. However, the exact opposite took place....First...God cursed him....2...the earth was barren under his touch...and 3...he was prey to constant fear and unrest and never knew another happy moment.

 

on Jun 26, 2010

Well, in this case I can dogmatically say that the "sons of God" were fallen angels who married human women and begot giants is not Biblical truth.

It would be disorder to His Creation for Angels to marry humans and beget offspring.

Fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth, not Scripture.

That fallen Angels came to earth and slept with women is popular legendary fantasy and the stuff of Hollywood, not God's revealed truth.

You keep saying this over and over and over again and ONLY give YOUR opinion.  Nothing to back it up with.  You know why?  Because you can't.  That's the whole point we've been trying to tell you.  But YOU WILL NOT listen.

I earlier said it was because of your ignorance.  My husband said to tell you it's not ignorance but arrogance. 

As far as disorder goes.  Look around you.  Is the world in order or out of order?  What does that have to do with anything?  Fallen angels are a result of sin just like everything else that goes against God's plan is a result of sin. 

You said you wanted the plain sense of scripture when I gave it to you (sons of God ALWAYS refer to angels) you dismissed it going back to one of your above comments. 

You have to separate YOUR opinion from FACT Lula.  And the fact of the matter is we can't know exactly in this passage who the "sons of God" really are.  That's the whole point.  That's why there is so many varied opinions out there.  If we were ONLY to go by what the scripture tells us (using "sons of God") we would have to go with the fallen angels.  That would make the most sense. 

It's very frustrating talking with you Lula, because you will ONLY go so far as what the RCC commentaries are telling you.  You have no room for any clear concise rational discussion.  End of story.  You believe what you want to believe.  Doesn't make it right but if it makes your ears feel better...so be it. 

 

 

on Jun 26, 2010

lula posts:

However, with chapter 5 which details Seth's lineage for context, one can only sensibly conclude that the Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" are descendents of Seth while the daughters of men were the wicked descendants of Cain. God is showing an opposition here and this opposition between the sons of God (good) and the sons of men (evil) continues to this day and will until the end of the world.

KFC posts:

As far as disorder goes. Look around you. Is the world in order or out of order? What does that have to do with anything? Fallen angels are a result of sin just like everything else that goes against God's plan is a result of sin.

Exactly..and in saying so you actually acknowledge and strengthen my point. Genesis 6:1-4 adds to the detail of earlier chapters as to who are the good and who are the evil taht leads to verse 5 and the punishment by the Great Flood.

Noah and His family are the only "sons of God" (descendents of Seth) left as they kept faith in God and obeyed Him cooperating in God's plan. While the wicked sons of the unfaithful sons of God who married the daughters of men (descendents of Cain) who went against God's plan are the whole world that would perish in the Flood. 

If there is one central message of Genesis (the entire Bible really), I think it would be that there is good and evil (sin) and we must choose. In the NT, Christ said we are either with Him or against Him.

The opposition between good and evil and choosing sides began in the Heavens when Lucifer and the other fallen angels went against God's plan.  The sons of God in Genesis 4:1-4 are people, descendents of Seth, who chose sides and fell out of grace with God. They are fallen people, not fallen angels. The fallen people who will perish in the Flood.

Interestingly, Ecclesiasticus 16:8 has that "the ancient giants did not obtain pardon for their sins who were destroyed trusting to their own strength."

 

on Jun 26, 2010

KFC POSTS:

You said you wanted the plain sense of scripture when I gave it to you (sons of God ALWAYS refer to angels) you dismissed it going back to one of your above comments.

And I might remind you that it is your opinion of Scripture that sons of God ALWAYS refer to Angels.

You cited the 3 verses in Job as fallen angels and I acknowedged that.

KFC posts:

You have to separate YOUR opinion from FACT Lula. And the fact of the matter is we can't know exactly in this passage who the "sons of God" really are. That's the whole point. That's why there is so many varied opinions out there. If we were ONLY to go by what the scripture tells us (using "sons of God") we would have to go with the fallen angels. That would make the most sense.

Does the "sons of God" always refer to angels? I would argue no it doesn't....

For along with the plain sense of Scripture, how many times have you yourself pointed out to me....it's about context, context, context?

And so I explained the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" in the framework of context saying.....

However, with chapter 5 which details Seth's lineage for context, one can only sensibly conclude that the Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" are descendents of Seth while the daughters of men were the wicked descendants of Cain. God is showing an opposition here and this opposition between the sons of God (good) and the sons of men (evil) continues to this day and will until the end of the world.

The sons of God in Job is totally out of the context of the sons of God in Genesis 6. It's not sensible that the sons of God are fallen angels who wed human wives and produce giants. Wedding human wives and producing children is not what fallen angels do. That's disordering God's Creation.

Fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth, not Scripture.

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men. 

Nothing to back it up with. You know why? Because you can't.

I backed what I said by citing the context. If you disagree, then you would have to rebut the context.

(it would be nice if you would discuss without the personal name-calling. We disagree on the meaning of Genesis "sons of God"...that doesn't make me ignorant or arrogant.).

on Jun 26, 2010

We disagree on the meaning of Genesis "sons of God"...that doesn't make me ignorant or arrogant.).

KFC posts 86

Here's the passage in question 6:1-4:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old men of renown."

This is a summary of the state of affaris of Adam's descendants before the account of the Flood. This small passage has had many diverse interpretations. Historically there are three primary ones;

1. The "sons of God" are angels are the oldest view.

2. The "sons of God" are royalty, another old view.

3. The "sons of God" are pious men from the "line of Seth".

The most commonly accepted view is #3 although I've heard many good preachers take the #1 view. I don't have a strong opinon either way but if push came to shove I'd probably go with Seth.

Am I ignorant, arrogant and irrational because I am one of those who according to you have the most commonly accepted view?

This is, after all, the same view that you said you'd probably go with.

But that was until you became enlightened....And then your view changed to # 2 ....

 

I've always thought Seth (as you seem to) but I'm more inclined really now after looking at this closer to go with the #2 view that I gave above. That seems to fit the best by looking at the wording.

And now evidently you've changed your view to #1....

And the fact of the matter is we can't know exactly in this passage who the "sons of God" really are. That's the whole point. That's why there is so many varied opinions out there. If we were ONLY to go by what the scripture tells us (using "sons of God") we would have to go with the fallen angels. That would make the most sense.

Even though "sons of God" as fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth and makes no  Scriptural or contextual sense at all.

 

 

 

on Jun 26, 2010

Even though "sons of God" as fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth and makes no Scriptural or contextual sense at all.

here we go yet once again. ....how many times have you said this NOW Lula?  Was my post #125 not enough to make you see that you keep repeating yourself over and over and over with nothing to back it up?  Yet once again only two posts later you're saying the same thing with NOTHING to back it up but your opinion. 

Do us all a favor and stop repeating yourself.  It's just wasting time. 

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men.

you can't make a proof by using the puzzling scripture in question and calling it proof.  That's the whole crux of the matter.  Who are these "sons?"  They were NEVER called "sons" anywhere else OTHER THAN ANGELS!   You can't just look at it and say wah-la!  They are Seth's line because it says "sons of God" when there is no other prescedent for it.  That's the rub. 

I showed you how they could be angels.  I showed you how they could be royalty...yet you dismiss it (even though it's backed up with scripture) and you cling to what you want to believe just because. 

I think you just like to argue...PERIOD! 

And I might remind you that it is your opinion of Scripture that sons of God ALWAYS refer to Angels.

You cited the 3 verses in Job as fallen angels and I acknowedged that.

THEN HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT MY OPINION???????   You just acknowledged I showed you three verses that verify my point.

Do you know you are making NO sense???   I cited three verses and it's still my opinion???  You've cited NONE and you have the facts?

*shakes head*  Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall. 

 

 

on Jun 26, 2010

 

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men.

you can't make a proof by using the puzzling scripture in question and calling it proof. That's the whole crux of the matter.

I didn't  just use the Sripture in question to make my proof that the sons of God are the unfaithful descendents of Seth.  I argued its meaning from  context, context, context. I explained the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" in the framework of context. Put Genesis 6:1-4 in context with chapter 5 and then the verses and chapter that follows 6:1-4.

I keep repeating becasue instead of checking out my points about context and giving them consideration, you are stuck in your mindset which we have seen keeps changing ....maybe, you'll go back with option # 3 again. Huh....or not!

.................

[quote]THEN HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT MY OPINION??????? You just acknowledged I showed you three verses that verify my point.

You said "sons of God" ALWAYS refers to angels. Your use of the word "always" is your opinion. I acknowledged yes it does in those 3 verses of Job, but you are trying to make the leap that it means fallen angels in Genesis 6:1-4 and that's what I called you on arguing that if you put Gen. 6:1-4 in context (as I mentioned above), the sons of God make more sense to be the unfaithful descendents of Seth.  

*shakes head* Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

Funny I was thinking the same thing.....Before too much more frustration settles in, let's call peace on this one. Shall we agree to disagree?

 

  

 

on Jun 26, 2010

 yes, I'll agree to disagree. 

Next?

on Jun 28, 2010

"14 Behold thou dost cast me out from the face of the earth...."

And the difference is? 

The fact that it says that Cain shall wander on the earth, doesn't mean a thing.  One need not be on the face of the earth to wander the earth, scientific fact.    Cain was still cast out from the face of the earth.  If one is cast out from the face of the earth, that doesn't mean that the earth will no longer give of it's fruits.  It means that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth, exactly as it was written.  You don't get to change it.

You rewrite the bible Lulapilgrim.  Nowhere does it say that this statment means what you say it means.  You twist the words in order to make them into what you want to believe they say because you can't accept what they do say.  They insult your intelligence and reason, the bible however, wasn't written to indulge either your intelligence or reason.

No where, and I mean no where, does the bible back up any of your assertions.  You interpret, instead of taking the words at face value.  Sons of God means just exactly that , sons of God.  Not men, not men of another race or family.  If it meant men of another line, it would have said so.  It's not your perogative to change what it reads.  God never called man "his son", but his creation.  To say that man is, is a huge leap of assumption and a changing of the words of God.  Do you really think that you have that right?

on Jun 28, 2010

As a matter of fact the only person that was ever recognized as God's "only begotten son" was Jesus, not Adam, not Eve, nor any of their line.

on Jun 28, 2010

As a matter of fact the only person that was ever recognized as God's "only begotten son" was Jesus, not Adam, not Eve, nor any of their line.

This is true.  While we've been talking about the OT we do read this in the NT...

"Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God..."  1 John 3:1

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is."  1 John 3:2

"But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name. John 1:12

Under the law the men of God were called servants of God, but under Grace we are called the "sons of God" or the "children of God."  The changing of the Covenant from the Old to the New changed our status from servants to sons. 

God never called man "his son", but his creation. To say that man is, is a huge leap of assumption and a changing of the words of God. Do you really think that you have that right?

or his servant.  We see that quite often in the OT. 

 

on Jun 28, 2010

Wow.

Great convo.

 

on Jun 28, 2010

"Servant" is quite true and I'm glad that you brought it into the conversation.  It is an interesting word to use.

 Tell me if you will KFC, what does "grace" mean to you?  Does it mean just a new convenant. or is it more than that?

13 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last