Did Adam...

[visionary]

have foreskin?

The reason I am asking is...

why?

[Lulav]

Not sure I follow.........................?

Maybe you meant, did he have a bellybutton? :D

[lifeinlavender]

Yes, I believe he did, because circumcision was not necessary until the covenent with Abraham.

[talmidim]

have foreskin?

The reason I am asking is...

why?Shalom Vis,

LTNS. Though I am sure you know my views I will share them nonetheless. Adam had a foreskin because he had a different covenant with Elohim. Adam had knowledge. The mark (tav) of this covenant was placed in the foreskin of Abraham because He had a covenant of fruitfulness with Elohim.

The third day of creation saw the advent of the seed and fruit bearing plants into the creation. The third day of creation was a prophetic foreshadow of the third covenant Elohim made with man toward the redemption of His creation.

Each successive day of creation corresponds to each successive covenant made with man toward the redemption of His children. Each successive covenant has a mark, token or sign. Each successivecovenant mark is related to a covenant seal (in terms of blessings and curses). Each successivecovenant is further revealed in each successive Moedim (Appointed times [Leviticus 23]) and each successive furnishing of the Tabernacle.

SEVEN days of creation
1) Light & Separated Darkness
2) Separated Waters Above From Below
3) The Seed & Fruit Bearing Plants
4) Sun, Moon & Stars For Signs and Seasons
5) Birds, Whales & Fish
6) Animals & Man
7) Elohim Rested & Sanctified the Seventh Day

The covenants were made with:
1.) Adam
2.) Noah
3.) Abram
4.) Moses
5.) David
6.) Yahshua
7.) All that believe, that is, His body.

The SEVEN marks or tokens
) Adam Knowledge (Dat) Gen 2:15-17
2) Noah (Rain)Bow (Queshet) Gen 9:13
3) Abram Foreskin (Orlot) Gen 17:11
4) Moses Sabbath (Shabbat) Exo 31:13
5) David Kingdom (Mamlakuth) 1Sa 15:28
6) Yeshua Cut-Off (Kaw-Rath') Dan 9:26
7) Body Dwelling (Bet) 1Co 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Notice that all of the 'marks' listed above end in a 'tav'. The mark that was put in the foreskin of Abraham was a mark of fruitfulness that his 'seed' must pass through in order that the covenant promise be fulfilled. You will find this same dynamic in every other covenant if you look for it.

Take Noah for instance:
2nd Day of Creation - Waters Gen 1:6
2nd Covenant Recipient - Noah Gen 6:18
2nd Covenant Type - Cleansing/Peace Gen 9:8
2nd Covenant Mark - Bow Gen 9:12
2nd Covenant Seal - War Rev 6:3-4
2nd Moed - Unleavened Bread Exo 12:15
2nd Furnishing - Laver Exo 30:18

The waters were separated above from below. But in the flood, the waters came down from above and up from below. Noah was left with a world that had been physically cleaned of all unrighteousness by water. Elohim placed His mark (the bow) in the heavens (sh'mayim - the separation of waters) that the waters would no longer come together to flood the world. The water cannot pass the mark or it will break covenant. In Abraham's case, his seed MUST pass the mark in order to fulfill the covenant. See how that works?

Adam had a foreskin so that Abraham would too. Does that make sense?

I hope this helps...:wave:

[visionary]

That helps with the why.. thanks...

It just struck me funny .. when my thoughts do wander... why create foreskin unless there is a purpose? It isn't to protect it from disease, since it is a harbor for disease for both parties.... so I was back to why?

Just like.. why circumcision for a covenant mark... but you answered that and it helps unravel the mystery.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Yes, I believe he did, because circumcision was not necessary until the covenent with Abraham.
was it necessary after? Sure it was a sign... but is a sign a requirement to fulfill?

[visionary]

IS the sign a requirement....??Hmmmmmm Yep, I think so. It is like saying I got it, I understand and I am willing to be marked as one who does.

It is also like a engagement ring, I will take this ring as a sign of the betrothal, so that all may see that I am a marked woman for one man. I am his. I am willing to enter into a convenant relationship with him forever or at least until he dies. It is also saying I am giving my heart to him.

Maybe the Lord chose the circumcision sign as a way for the man to even put his flesh to dedication to the Lord. Maybe all men should be circumcised when they are older and have made a consciences decision to give their heart and flesh to one master.

[ElsanRandiMom]

IS the sign a requirement....??Hmmmmmm Yep, I think so. It is like saying I got it, I understand and I am willing to be marked as one who does.

It is also like a engagement ring, I will take this ring as a sign of the betrothal, so that all may see that I am a marked woman for one man. I am his. I am willing to enter into a convenant relationship with him forever or at least until he dies. It is also saying I am giving my heart to him.

Maybe the Lord chose the circumcision sign as a way for the man to even put his flesh to dedication to the Lord. Maybe all men should be circumcised when they are older and have made a consciences decision to give their heart and flesh to one master.
hehehe... I never had an engagement ring :).

Sure, I think it was a sign... but the whole conversation with Abram God says "I will" over and over and over again in regard to keeping the covenant. He gave this as a sign... and didn't even say it was required for the covenant to be kept.. but was a sign of it. Personally, I'd take it too, but the question is, is it a requirement.

[Tishri1]

this is great Tal, you should make a thread with thisShalom Vis,

LTNS. Though I am sure you know my views I will share them nonetheless. Adam had a foreskin because he had a different covenant with Elohim. Adam had knowledge. The mark (tav) of this covenant was placed in the foreskin of Abraham because He had a covenant of fruitfulness with Elohim.

The third day of creation saw the advent of the seed and fruit bearing plants into the creation. The third day of creation was a prophetic foreshadow of the third covenant Elohim made with man toward the redemption of His creation.

Each successive day of creation corresponds to each successive covenant made with man toward the redemption of His children. Each successive covenant has a mark, token or sign. Each successivecovenant mark is related to a covenant seal (in terms of blessings and curses). Each successivecovenant is further revealed in each successive Moedim (Appointed times [Leviticus 23]) and each successive furnishing of the Tabernacle.

SEVEN days of creation
1) Light & Separated Darkness
2) Separated Waters Above From Below
3) The Seed & Fruit Bearing Plants
4) Sun, Moon & Stars For Signs and Seasons
5) Birds, Whales & Fish
6) Animals & Man
7) Elohim Rested & Sanctified the Seventh Day

The covenants were made with:
1.) Adam
2.) Noah
3.) Abram
4.) Moses
5.) David
6.) Yahshua
7.) All that believe, that is, His body.

The SEVEN marks or tokens
) Adam Knowledge (Dat) Gen 2:15-17
2) Noah (Rain)Bow (Queshet) Gen 9:13
3) Abram Foreskin (Orlot) Gen 17:11
4) Moses Sabbath (Shabbat) Exo 31:13
5) David Kingdom (Mamlakuth) 1Sa 15:28
6) Yeshua Cut-Off (Kaw-Rath') Dan 9:26
7) Body Dwelling (Bet) 1Co 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Notice that all of the 'marks' listed above end in a 'tav'. The mark that was put in the foreskin of Abraham was a mark of fruitfulness that his 'seed' must pass through in order that the covenant promise be fulfilled. You will find this same dynamic in every other covenant if you look for it.

Take Noah for instance:
2nd Day of Creation - Waters Gen 1:6
2nd Covenant Recipient - Noah Gen 6:18
2nd Covenant Type - Cleansing/Peace Gen 9:8
2nd Covenant Mark - Bow Gen 9:12
2nd Covenant Seal - War Rev 6:3-4
2nd Moed - Unleavened Bread Exo 12:15
2nd Furnishing - Laver Exo 30:18

The waters were separated above from below. But in the flood, the waters came down from above and up from below. Noah was left with a world that had been physically cleaned of all unrighteousness by water. Elohim placed His mark (the bow) in the heavens (sh'mayim - the separation of waters) that the waters would no longer come together to flood the world. The water cannot pass the mark or it will break covenant. In Abraham's case, his seed MUST pass the mark in order to fulfill the covenant. See how that works?

Adam had a foreskin so that Abraham would too. Does that make sense?

I hope this helps...:wave:

[talmidim]

Hey Tish,

Y'know, I think I did at one point. Been so long... Anyway, good to see you! :wave:

In His Love,
Phillip

[ozell]

have foreskin?

The reason I am asking is...

why?

I would say NO because of the following verses.

Ezek 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

Ezek 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

like as the commandments are before Abraham so was the circumcsion and all God's laws.

[talmidim]

I would say NO because of the following verses.

Ezek 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

Ezek 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

like as the commandments are before Abraham so was the circumcsion and all God's laws.Shalom Ozel,

To be UNcircumcised is to HAVE a foreskin. To be circumcised is to NOT HAVE a foreskin.
So is your answer still no? Because the verses you quote aren't supporting your answer...

[visionary]

Shalom Ozel,

To be UNcircumcised is to HAVE a foreskin. To be circumcised is to NOT HAVE a foreskin.
So is your answer still no? Because the verses you quote aren't supporting your answer...
To not even have enough skin for circumcision.... from what I understand, even those who were circumcised as a baby and later want to be joined to the Judaic faith, they are nicked (circumcised).

[talmidim]

To not even have enough skin for circumcision.... from what I understand, even those who were circumcised as a baby and later want to be joined to the Judaic faith, they are nicked (circumcised).Very true Vis, I stand corrected. And if I let anyone nick me there I would stand even longer, if not lay on my back for a long period of time. On the other hand (consider the other hand here a metaphor of a simile :eek:) there weren't a whole lot of other people running around the garden with Adam, much less a Mohel! :D

[Lulav]

"The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 b.c. and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Mohammed was circumcised tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (Gn 17:25)... Among the West Semitic peoples the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25); the Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4)... Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities."

"The practice of circumcision was widespread in antiquity, but [B]its origin and purposes remain uncertain. Bas-reliefs from Egypt, dating from the third millennium, attest to the practice among the Egyptians. In biblical times, West Semitic peoples, comprising Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, were circumcised, but not the East Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia, such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians." [HI:LBI:43,44]Link (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcirx.html)

[talmidim]

"The rite of circumcision is far older than the Hebrew people. Cave paintings give evidence that it was practiced in prehistoric times. Egyptian temple drawings show that the operation was common in 4000 b.c. and probably earlier. Peoples practicing circumcision lived on almost every continent. The rite was observed among Central and South American Indians, Polynesians, the peoples of New Guinea, many Australian and African tribes, Egyptians, and pre-Islamic Arabs. The rite is not mentioned in the Koran, but because Mohammed was circumcised tradition dictates that male Muslims follow the ancient custom. Arab ancestry is traced to Abraham through Ishmael (Gn 17:20), so a common age for Muslim circumcisions is 13, because Ishmael was circumcised at that age (Gn 17:25)... Among the West Semitic peoples the Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, Moabites, and Phoenicians all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25); the Philistines, however, did not (Jgs 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sm 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sm 1:20; 3:14; 1 Chr 10:4)... Young men were usually circumcised at puberty, evidently in preparation for marriage and entrance into full tribal responsibilities."

"The practice of circumcision was widespread in antiquity, but [B]its origin and purposes remain uncertain. Bas-reliefs from Egypt, dating from the third millennium, attest to the practice among the Egyptians. In biblical times, West Semitic peoples, comprising Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, were circumcised, but not the East Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia, such as the Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians." [HI:LBI:43,44]Link (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcirx.html)Shalom Lulav, :wave:

While the articles you posted were interesting and the author's bonifides are impeccable (see below)...

PHILIP J. KING
Director -The Shelby White - Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications
Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Boston College, Philip King is Past President of the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Catholic Biblical Association of America. He served as a staff member of several excavations both in Israel and in Arab countries. Having published five books on Bible and Archaeology, the most recent, Life in Biblical Israel, he coauthored with Lawrence E. Stager of Harvard University.


LAWRENCE E. STAGER
Harvard University - Board Member - The Shelby White - Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications
Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Departments of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, and Anthropology at Harvard University (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Enelc/faculty_files/stager.html), Lawrence Stager is also Director of the Harvard Semitic Museum as well as the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon. He was Field Director of the Punic Project at Carthage in Tunisia, and at Idalion on Cyprus. Co-author with Philip King of Life in Biblical Israel, Professor Stager has published a large number articles on archaeology, anthropology, and ancient history. His archaeological research and writing focus on ancient Mediterranean cultures of Canaanites, Phoenicians, Philistines, and Israelites.

AND ALSO
The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible
General Editor: Walter A. Elwell
Associate Editors: Peter C. Craigie, J.D. Douglas, Robert Guelich, R.K. Harrison, Thomas E. McComiskey

The encyclopedia contains more than 5,700 articles by over 175 leading evangelical scholars from North America and around the world, including Colin Brown, Frederic Bush, Andrew Hill, Howard Marshall, Grant Osborne, Moisés Silva, Willem Van Gemeren, Gordan Wenham, Edwin Yamauchi, and Robert Yarbrough.



...I don't see the relevance. Do you find it likely that either where in the garden with Adam? :confused:

[Lulav]

.I don't see the relevance. Do you find it likely that either where in the garden with Adam? :confused:

sorry, I don't understand your second sentence there.

I posted that to show the history, or at least a mini view of how far back circumcision is dated. You need to read the whole link to get more, but I thought Vis might be interested in the history of it. :)

[talmidim]

:confused:

sorry, I don't understand your second sentence there.

I posted that to show the history, or at least a mini view of how far back circumcision is dated. You need to read the whole link to get more, but I thought Vis might be interested in the history of it. :)
Oh I get it! I was stuck thinking about her original post. My bad...:blush:

[Lulav]

NP,

But the answer to her OP is , only Chavah and G-d know the answer. :D

[ozell]

Shalom Ozel,

To be UNcircumcised is to HAVE a foreskin. To be circumcised is to NOT HAVE a foreskin.
So is your answer still no? Because the verses you quote aren't supporting your answer...



Shalom

Adam did not have foreskin, it is most likely the Lord created him circumcised.

The verse in Ezekiel let us know that uncircumcised in the flesh cannot come near him.

Genesis let us know that God walked in Garden with Adam and was here on earth with Adam and Eve

Gen 3:8 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.

23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

God was here on earth with man and Ezekiel said the uncircumcised in the flesh cannot come near him.

[Lulav]

.

[ozell]

I get what you are saying, so when he sinned and G-d covered him with skins, it may be two kinds of skin and one being what we call a foreskin?

God creaed Adam without the foreskin. He could not have had it when he was created.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

A male who is uncircumcised cannot approach the Lord

It is a convenant from the Lord and it if the male is not circumcised he shall be cut off from his people.

God is a convenant God, so Adam have to be circumcise

Adam was not cut off from his people, we are his people

God walked with Adam and Adam children (Enoch) so they had to be circumcised.

Remember God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his sons

Adam had to be circumcised to be in the Lord's presence

[ozell]

God creaed Adam without the foreskin. He could not have had it when he was created.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

A male who is uncircumcised cannot approach the Lord

It is a convenant from the Lord and it if the male is not circumcised he shall be cut off from his people.

God is a convenant God, so Adam have to be circumcise

Adam was not cut off from his people, we are his people

God walked with Adam and Adam children (Enoch) so they had to be circumcised.

Remember God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his sons

Adam had to be circumcised to be in the Lord's presence


Adam is a son of God


Lk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Gen 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

[visionary]

:confused:

sorry, I don't understand your second sentence there.

I posted that to show the history, or at least a mini view of how far back circumcision is dated. You need to read the whole link to get more, but I thought Vis might be interested in the history of it. :)
:thumbsup: You know me well..... thank you for finding this.

[Lulav]

.

[Lulav]

:thumbsup: You know me well..... thank you for finding this.bevekasha! :)

[talmidim]

Shalom Shalom All,

To everyone that believes that Adam was circumcised, I am not one to tell anyone what he or she can believe. Elohim will not do it so why should I? He will give you a choice and even tell you what the correct choice is. He will tell you what will happen if you don't choose wisely. But He still will not transgress your free will. He will allow you to believe what you want. And so I follow His lead. :bow:

On the other hand I will tell you what I believe and why. If the two should never meet, then so be it. If not then I will have tried.

Despite what archaeologist, historians, etymologists, etc., would have us believe one thing is certain. Every single field of antiquities research that tries to accurately date anything ends up revising their original estimate - which is usually portrayed as a solid fact. I can hear the prerequisite British narration ala Discovery channel now::preach:

"This ancient practice, once thought to be isolated to the Notamon Gusanymore tribes of the lower Twelvestep valley, has now been linked to this recently excavated temple complex of the Wearesurea Bouttheir culture. Owing to recent scientific advances, these ancient structures have been accurately dated to the early creepdatesus period. Needless to say, this discovery dramatically revises the time-frame in which this practice was practiced by its previous practitioners and will stand the entire scientific community on its collective ear - again. Blah blah blah blah blah..."

Scripture is the most thoroughly examined and historically verified document in the history of the world. But the scientific community still treats it as a collection of unrelated cultural folk tales compiled in at random. And every time some "new discovery" is made that verifies another scriptural person, place or thing, the discovery is treated as coincidence. However, none of this diminishes the fact that many prophecies have come to pass, many things have been confirmed and there has never been a single fact or prophecy disproved in all His sacred Word. I cannot say the same for modern science or ancient research.

So what does research say about circumcision and what does scripture say about circumcision? Let's take a brief look.

I thought it interesting that in the articles posted by Lulav above, all the early tribes mentioned as practicing circumcision were all either descendants of Abraham and Lot or were culturally tied to other people like the Egyptians (date setting aside). And of course we have the Ten Northern tribes that were scattered into all of the nations on earth taking the practice with them. However, there is no definitive proof that circumcision was actually practiced prior to the covenant El Shaddai made with Abraham.

Another interesting coincidence about circumcision is that there were no prohibitions concerning circumcision until after the covenant was made with Abraham – in which circumcision was made an intrinsic component of Abraham's covenant. And interestingly enough, not Elohim, nor any of His angels or Prophets ever once even so much as rebuked anyone about coming into His presence uncircumcised until after the covenant was made with Abraham. Golly you can’t break a covenant until it is made can you? Seems like common sense to me.

Elohim appeared several times to Abram starting in Genesis 12. Yet the covenant wasn’t made until Genesis 17 – FIFTEEN years later. So I guess Abraham was an exception to this never-before-mentioned rule about circumcision? How does that happen? But if what you say about Adam is true, then Abraham must have been secretly circumcised. Yeah! That's it! It was a secret! Shhhh...

And I’m confused about something else. If you can’t appear in His presence unless you are circumcised, was Adam created circumcised? Or did He have to sin first and then be circumcised? And if that is the case, what about everyone else that Elohim appeared to before the covenant with Abraham? Were they all secretly circumcised too? And if this was a requirement before the covenant, why wasn’t it mentioned in scripture before chapter 17? Oh, sorry. It must have been a secret. Shhhh...

And as long as you are clearing all of this up for me, since Elohim made coats of skins for both Adam and his wife (that’s what it says) does that mean that she was circumcised too or that she was given a foreskin? And if that is the proof text for all of this ‘Adam was circumcised’ conjecture, it would HAVE to include his wife. So why are only males circumcised later on in scripture? Was Chavah secretly circumcised too? Look out girls. You may have a little *snip* in your near future... :eek:

And another thing. The scriptures from Ezekiel that were quoted are specifically from a vision about the future that starts in chapter 43. It is a time when His Glory returns to His Temple – after the Messiah builds it. Once again long after the covenant was made with Abraham. Matter of fact, it hasn't happened yet! And both of those scripture either talk about breaking covenant (which you have to have in order to break) OR strangers that are among the children of Israel (once again, something that only occurs long after the covenant was in force).

So I personally don’t see that you have a scripture to stand on. But like I said, believe what you want. It just seems like nonsense to me.

So let's recap, shall we?

A male who is uncircumcised cannot approach the Lord
Once the covenant concerning circumcision is in effect
It is a convenant from the Lord and it if the male is not circumcised he shall be cut off from his people.
Once the covenant concerning circumcision is in effect
God is a convenant God, so Adam have to be circumcise
Once the covenant concerning circumcision is in effect - Adam had a different covenant
Adam was not cut off from his people, we are his people
Because the covenant concerning circumcision was not yet in effect
God walked with Adam and Adam children (Enoch) so they had to be circumcised.
But only IF the covenant concerning circumcision was in effect - and it was not - so they did not - because Adam had a different covenant
Remember God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his sons
Because the covenant concerning circumcision was already in effect
Adam had to be circumcised to be in the Lord's presence
But only if the covenant concerning circumcision was in effect - and it was not - so he didn't - AND because Adam had a different covenant

In short, there is no way you are going to convince me that Elohim would punish any of His children for breaking a commandment not given OR a covenant that was not yet agreed upon. Please remember that every covenant that Elohim made with any of His children entailed free will.


Adam had a choice concerning that tree.
Noah had a choice concerning the ark.
Abraham had a choice concerning a son.
Moses had a choice concerning the law.
David had a choice concerning the throne.
Yahshua had a choice concerning the cross...
And you have a choice too. You can choose to believe whatever you want. Don't worry. I'll keep it a secret. Shhh...;)

[Lulav]

,

[ozell]

Agreed! :thumbsup:

Agreed! :thumbsup:

So where's the problem?

Ozell I got what you were saying about being in the presence of G-d. What I am saying is that I think Adam did have a foreskin to be circumcised , but not until after. I don't think he did in the beginning, not until he sinned. I guess it all depends on how you look at verse 3:21, he made coats, of skins or garments of skins. I subscribe basically to the school where they may have lost their glory in the garden and then received their coats of ( flesh) skin. And this could include on Adam , a foreskin.

So I think we are in agreement, no?

The foreskin represents uncleanlessness, I think that there is no way Adam could have stood in God's presence because of the verses in Ezekiel. He hd to be circumcised at creation because he was made perfect.

Gen 1v24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26: 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 creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

also

God created Adam and Eve not to die, they were warned not to talk to satan. If they had not talk to satan they would have lived forever.

Gen 2:16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 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

when the Lord killed the animals to make clothes for man that was the beginning of shedding of blood for the remission of sin.

Paul said

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The wages of sin is death. Something had to die until
the Lord come. It could not be Adam or Eve they were the only to of man on earth.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

the killing(sacrifice) of animal was a form to keep man in check (cleansed) until the true sacrifice appeared.

but back to the topic

Adam was made good as was all the creation.

He could not have had foreskin.

[talmidim]

Help me out here. What is bad about a foreskin? How does it represent uncleanness? Where are you getting this from?

[talmidim]

And by the way, the above was not bashing anything. It was simply an attempt at humor. I am used to another BBS where the people know about humor and are not so easily offended. We kid each other like this all the time.

Perhaps if you could tell me what you find offensive I could change it...

[EricLBess]

Despite what archaeologist, historians, etymologists, etc., would have us believe one thing is certain. Every single field of antiquities research that tries to accurately date anything ends up revising their original estimate *snipped*

...


Scripture is the most thoroughly examined and historically verified document in the history of the world.

in spite of the fact that these assertions are certainly untrue, how do you account for the fact that you just flagrantly contradicted yourself?

if historical methods are untrustworthy, why do you trust them when they confirm, or seem to confirm, some mundane event/person/artifact in the bible?

But the scientific community still treats it as a collection of unrelated cultural folk tales compiled in at random. And every time some "new discovery" is made that verifies another scriptural person, place or thing, the discovery is treated as coincidence.

in spite of your generalizations (supported by no statistical evidence), why should a discovery about a person, place or thing that corroborates the bible record be of any special relevance? the bible is collection of documents which do contain historical narrative with mention of place names, people, etc... just like many other documents. that we occassionally discover things that corroborate it comes as no surprise.

anyway, it seems you're only trying to discredit experts in these fields because you believe somehow that doing so (falsely) will support your erroneous implication below that the practice of circumcision began with abraham.

However, none of this diminishes the fact that many prophecies have come to pass, many things have been confirmed and there has never been a single fact or prophecy disproved in all His sacred Word. I cannot say the same for modern science or ancient research.

i'd like to see genuine examples of these 'prophecies' you mention. and unlike much of christianity's beliefs, modern science and history can be falsified and replaced by views and interpretations which better suit the available evidence. that means they are objective and a more reliable way to assess facts...unlike the dogmas of theology.

However, there is no definitive proof that circumcision was actually practiced prior to the covenant El Shaddai made with Abraham.

an erroneous assertion which is disproven even by the very articles cited in 'Lulav's' link...something i'm willing to admit as i'm not very fond of the apologist glen miller. i would admonish you to actually study the history of circumcision before making these kinds of ignorant comments (no offense intended).




~eric

[ElsanRandiMom]

my question, not being messianic or a jew at this point and likely not educated so much, is if the fact that God is a covenant God means that the covenant is always in existance... and since not being circumcised is a form of covenant that God made with Abram... so Adam would not have had one... then why did he flood the Earth. If all covenants revert to prior times then the covenant promise not to flood the Earth would have superceded itself and therefore the flood would not have happened. It seems very circular... though not very logical. Maybe I am missing the point of the posts though or a deeper meaning.

[talmidim]

Shalom Eric,

You seem to have missed my point, but that is OK. The point of the piece is pretty tongue-in-cheek yet still accurate. Let me see if I can help you through it.:D

in spite of the fact that these assertions are certainly untrue, how do you account for the fact that you just flagrantly contradicted yourself? So you can show me a single field of study concerning the antiquities of man that has NOT revised its date-setting? Go ahead. I'm waiting.

And no, I did not contradict myself. These writing have remained the same for thousands of years. And every time they are confirmed in any manner it is characterized as "mundane" (your term not mine). Yet every time "science" has to revise its last factual pronouncement, its getting a better handle on things...;)

if historical methods are untrustworthy, why do you trust them when they confirm, or seem to confirm, some mundane event/person/artifact in the bible?They have no choice but to confirm. My point is they have yet to prove anything in error, in scripture - especially prophecy - save a few scribal errors over the course of several millennium. Now THAT is a statistic I can trust (and a much better batting average than any field of science you can name.)

in spite of your generalizations (supported by no statistical evidence), why should a discovery about a person, place or thing that corroborates the bible record be of any special relevance? the bible is collection of documents which do contain historical narrative with mention of place names, people, etc... just like many other documents. that we occassionally discover things that corroborate it comes as no surprise.Well if that were true Eric, you wouldn't be so intrigued with a biblically based forum, now would you? The fact is that Prophecy is the way that Elohim has given as a proof of His existence and the non-existence of all other "gods".

anyway, it seems you're only trying to discredit experts in these fields because you believe somehow that doing so (falsely) will support your erroneous implication below that the practice of circumcision began with abraham.No my friend, I am not trying to discredit anyone. However their field of study and their methods are fair game. I think they are sincere. I just believe that they are sincerely wrong.

The entire discipline of dating antiquities is a house of cards. If the dating techniques of one field of science proves to be erroneous, then all of the other disciplines that rely on that "science" are also in error, right? And how may scientists do you know that like to admit error?

Well strangely enough, every technique for dating anything has been repeatedly revised due to gross inaccuracies. And that is a verifiable fact. Revision is the norm. There are all types of things that can skew the results of modern dating techniques. And everyone of the errors that can be introduced in the process (pick one) skews the data towards the older date.

Science is supposed to be the study of observable phenomenon. A 'fact' is supposed to be theory until it can be proven. And the test is the ability to reproduce results in a controlled environment. The problem with modern science is that much of what is passed of as fact is really still theory because there is no way to verify results of theoretic calculations. AH, the best laid plans...

My point has little to do with what I can prove. It has everything to do with what they can prove. It is these assertions of the 'experts' upon which the burden of proof belongs. More often than not, they present their finding as factual, when in 'fact', they are theory.

i'd like to see genuine examples of these 'prophecies' you mention. and unlike much of christianity's beliefs, modern science and history can be falsified and replaced by views and interpretations which better suit the available evidence. that means they are objective and a more reliable way to assess facts...unlike the dogmas of theology.Huh? Facts change to suit the available evidence? You and I may be closer that I first thought. I'm with you on the theology thing though. Most dogmas don't hunt.

an erroneous assertion which is disproven even by the very articles cited in 'Lulav's' link...something i'm willing to admit as i'm not very fond of the apologist glen miller. i would admonish you to actually study the history of circumcision before making these kinds of ignorant comments (no offense intended).

~ericNone taken. But I would urge the same thing on your part. Because I cannot think of a single honest intellect that has seriously studied the Hebrew scriptures - even with an eye towards disproving it by scientific means - that has not come around to believe in Elohim.

Eric, I am not talking about verbal sparring as a means of proof. I wish you would take this personally and actually try to first understand scriptural prophecy and then try to disprove it. I think you would be pleasantly surprised. There is a creator. And He cares enough about you to provide you proof of His existence. If only you would seriously consider examining it.

The reason that the lunar assent module had such long spindley legs was due to the MEASURED rate of cosmic dust CALCULATED to have fallen on the surface of the moon BASED on the moons age. There were many intellectually honest 'rocket scientists' - engineers, theoretical mathematician, physicists, etc., that started to believe scripture the day we landed that vehicle on the moon. Because the depth of the dust exactly matched the date projected by scriptural scholars and not the age of the moon as calculated by astrophysicists and the like.

Science isn't as scientific as some would have you believe. And the Hebrew scriptures aren't nearly so erroneous either...

Phillip

[talmidim]

my question, not being messianic or a jew at this point and likely not educated so much, is if the fact that God is a covenant God means that the covenant is always in existance... and since not being circumcised is a form of covenant that God made with Abram... so Adam would not have had one... then why did he flood the Earth. If all covenants revert to prior times then the covenant promise not to flood the Earth would have superceded itself and therefore the flood would not have happened. It seems very circular... though not very logical. Maybe I am missing the point of the posts though or a deeper meaning.I think You are very astute in your observations my dear. Good questions indeed. :thumbsup: Let's take it one step further. If this is true for the provisions of one covenant, then why not all provisions of all covenants and every commandment ever made?

ElsanRandiMom, you get high marks for 'circular'. Some people call that 'pretzel'...:D

[ElsanRandiMom]

I think You are very astute in your observations my dear. Good questions indeed. :thumbsup: Let's take it one step further. If this is true for the provisions of one covenant, then why not all provisions of all covenants and every commandment ever made?

ElsanRandiMom, you get high marks for 'circular'. Some people call that 'pretzel'...:D
to take it even further, if covenants are "for all time before and after" then Christ died at the formation of the world... and we had no need to do all this garbage anyway. :)

[talmidim]

to take it even further, if covenants are "for all time before and after" then Christ died at the formation of the world... and we had no need to do all this garbage anyway. :)Not sure I would characterize it as 'garbage', but point taken. Book sez we all have to work out our own salvation with 'fear and trembling'. A good analogy is a tightrope across Niagra Falls. Go too far in any direction but the right one and you are in serious trouble. Some people just like to make it harder than it really is though, y'know? ;)

[ElsanRandiMom]

Not sure I would characterize it as 'garbage', but point taken. Book sez we all have to work out our own salvation with 'fear and trembling'. A good analogy is a tightrope across Niagra Falls. Go too far in any direction but the right one and you are in serious trouble. Some people just like to make it harder than it really is though, y'know? ;)
garbage means to me "all of the above". not trash. sorry. my slang carries me away with it sometimes.

[talmidim]

garbage means to me "all of the above". not trash. sorry. my slang carries me away with it sometimes.No apology necessary, my dear sister. I caught what you meant and I agree. I'm old that's all. Different slang. :D

[EricLBess]

You seem to have missed my point, but that is OK. The point of the piece is pretty tongue-in-cheek yet still accurate. Let me see if I can help you through it.:D

your misplaced condescencion is duly noted and unwelcomed.

So you can show me a single field of study concerning the antiquities of man that has NOT revised its date-setting? Go ahead. I'm waiting.

i am under no obligation to do so since i do not deny that revisions have taken place, and no doubt that they will continue taking place in the future. my point was that you most certainly contradicted yourself, because these same fields of antiquities are used to date and redate the bible.

you somehow ignorantly believe that the bible is exempt from revision concerning the provenance of its books. that is simply untrue. you say all fields of ancient research emend their dates (although this isn't nearly the great, anamolous randomness that you're making it out to be), yet you have flargrantly overlooked the fact that this holds true for the bible as well.

how dating methods have any specific relevance to your points is what perplexes me...unless your entire purpose is to make vague polemical generalizations about them.

These writing have remained the same for thousands of years. And every time they are confirmed in any manner it is characterized as "mundane" (your term not mine). Yet every time "science" has to revise its last factual pronouncement, its getting a better handle on things...;)

you would do well to cease making unsupported generalizations. when certain aspects of the bible are confirmed or contradicted, scholars gain a better handle on understanding it as well...just as science does. in other words, you're not making any relevant points. the above quote is just plain nonsense.

They have no choice but to confirm.

so now everyone can see your true sentiments and lack of objectivity in your argumentation. quite obviously you are willing to ignore and/or twist facts to uphold the integrity of your holy book. you have already determined beforehand that all finds must confirm the bible or somehow they are wrong.

My point is they have yet to prove anything in error, in scripture - especially prophecy - save a few scribal errors over the course of several millennium. Now THAT is a statistic I can trust (and a much better batting average than any field of science you can name.)

unfortunately for you, you've produced no such statistic. vague generalizations about the field of biblical studies don't count for much in rational discussion. if at anytime you'd like to discuss the errors which the bible definitely contains, let me know. i'd be delighted to introduce you to several of them.

Well if that were true Eric, you wouldn't be so intrigued with a biblically based forum, now would you?

i am former christian and messianic. i do, in fact, like to study biblical literature and history from my new (and what i would consider 'enlightened') perspectives. so it is true until you actually prove otherwise and cease tangentially making irrelevant statements.

The fact is that Prophecy is the way that Elohim has given as a proof of His existence and the non-existence of all other "gods".

the fact is is that you have provided no such examples.

No my friend, I am not trying to discredit anyone. However their field of study and their methods are fair game. I think they are sincere. I just believe that they are sincerely wrong.

more vague generalizations with no substance germane to the present discussion.


The entire discipline of dating antiquities is a house of cards. If the dating techniques of one field of science proves to be erroneous, then all of the other disciplines that rely on that "science" are also in error, right? And how may scientists do you know that like to admit error?

Well strangely enough, every technique for dating anything has been repeatedly revised due to gross inaccuracies. And that is a verifiable fact. Revision is the norm. There are all types of things that can skew the results of modern dating techniques. And everyone of the errors that can be introduced in the process (pick one) skews the data towards the older date.

Science is supposed to be the study of observable phenomenon. A 'fact' is supposed to be theory until it can be proven. And the test is the ability to reproduce results in a controlled environment. The problem with modern science is that much of what is passed of as fact is really still theory because there is no way to verify results of theoretic calculations. AH, the best laid plans...


yet more vague generalizations, irrelevance, and ignorant comments. perhaps it makes you feel better on internally to attack all fields of science and history because you have doubts about your holy book...even though these selfsame methods are used to better grasp your holy book.

My point has little to do with what I can prove. It has everything to do with what they can prove. It is these assertions of the 'experts' upon which the burden of proof belongs. More often than not, they present their finding as factual, when in 'fact', they are theory.

yet more vague and ignorant generalizations that bear little relevance to any point you thought you were proving. and don't shift the burden of proof. it is you making sweeping assertions about certain academic fields in this thread. the onus is on you to actually explain what it is you disagree with and make it relevant to your points. vague semantic games over the terms 'fact' and 'theory' do little in the way of assisting you in this discussion.

None taken. But I would urge the same thing on your part. Because I cannot think of a single honest intellect that has seriously studied the Hebrew scriptures - even with an eye towards disproving it by scientific means - that has not come around to believe in Elohim.

that's why i'm glad that inquirers about the bible aren't gauged solely on the basis of your irrelevant 'thinking'. much like your treatment above of scientific/historical discoveries (i.e., 'They have no choice but to confirm'), it seems an 'honest intellect' is characterized by some one who agrees with you and your holy book.

I wish you would take this personally and actually try to first understand scriptural prophecy and then try to disprove it.

i am under no obligation to 'disprove' any prophecy. it is your job, given your assertions above, (cf. this statement: 'many prophecies have come to pass, many things have been confirmed and there has never been a single fact or prophecy disproved in all His sacred Word') to provide an example that would need to be 'disproven'...that is, if you're willing to discuss it.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised
.

nah.;)

anyway, unless you have substance to add to this discussion, i'm through toying with you back and forth.


~eric

[visionary]

Please show kindness and humble spirit of love in posting. Moving thread to debate.

[ozell]

You know the question of having it, not having it, having it and having it cut off became very confusing for me today with the scriptures posted and all. I would restate my feelings on this but after this rather rude accusatory bashing I think I shall not bother.

Hi Lulav

I don't know what happen. but thanks for the dialague.

peace to you in Jesus name

[ozell]

Help me out here. What is bad about a foreskin? How does it represent uncleanness? Where are you getting this from?


God said

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

if a male is cut off by the Lord for being uncircumcised there must be something wrong.

Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

nor can they eat of the passover.

Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

what is a uncircumcised heart?
1Sam 17:26 And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

the uncircumcised are a reproach and they are labeled with the unclean.

and when you type in the word uncircumcised in your bible CD you will find that the uncircumcised suffer death and are classified in a negative light.

[stone]

have foreskin?

The reason I am asking is...

why?

Do men have foreskin? Was not Adam the 1st man created?

[visionary]

Do men have foreskin? Was not Adam the 1st man created?As far as I know, there is no logical reason for a foreskin. Later when the Lord used it as a covenant mark, it had a purpose. So the first part of my question was did Adam have a foreskin? If so, why? If not, Why again?

[stone]

I answered your question.

Adam was a man. He was the father of men. All men have them. Your question is answered.

Why? Will you ask god why he made men how he did, or just accept that god listens to no man and does as he will.

[ElsanRandiMom]

As far as I know, there is no logical reason for a foreskin. Later when the Lord used it as a covenant mark, it had a purpose. So the first part of my question was did Adam have a foreskin? If so, why? If not, Why again?
The foreskin has three known functions: protective, sensory, and sexual.
During infancy, the foreskin is attached to the glans and protects it from urine, feces, and abrasions from diapers. Throughout life, the foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from trauma and injury. Without this protection, the glans becomes dry, calloused, and desensitized from exposure and chafing.
Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure. The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.
-per Dr. Dean Edell :) (I love listening to him)

Anyway... it's like hair... it's hard to see the function with what we've made of it but it has some function... though not anything we can't overcome if it is gone

[talmidim]

Shalom Eric,

Sorry you feel that way. I see that you have made up your mind so I will not pursue this any further either. But I am always amused at atheist trying so hard to prove that Elohim doesn't exist. If atheists truly believed that, they just wouldn't care. I mean, who care about things they think don't exist anyway? :D

Shalom Ozell, :wave:

First of all I want to apologize if I offended with my attempts at humor. That was not my intent. Let me see If I can answer your post point for point.

God said

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

if a male is cut off by the Lord for being uncircumcised there must be something wrong.This is the inception of the covenant of fruitfulness made with Abraham. And the circumcision was a mark of THAT covenant. So I take it you don't believe Paul and what He said about the circumcision for the believer in Yahshua?

Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

nor can they eat of the passover.

Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

what is a uncircumcised heart?

1Sam 17:26 And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

the uncircumcised are a reproach and they are labeled with the unclean.

and when you type in the word uncircumcised in your bible CD you will find that the uncircumcised suffer death and are classified in a negative light.All of these things had to do with those people that did not have a covenant relationship with Elohim. It did not mean that the foreskin in and of itself was unclean. It only provided a proof as to who was counted among His chosen. Since that time the circumcision of the heart has superseded the circumcision of the flesh in terms of covenant relationship.

Ozell, if you do the same search on the human heart you suggested on the foreskin, you will find that the heart of man is evil continually, but it doesn't mean that Adam was born without one OR that we should have ours removed.

In His Love,
Phillip

[ozell]

Shalom Ozell, :wave:

[QUOTE]First of all I want to apologize if I offended with my attempts at humor. That was not my intent. Let me see If I can answer your post point for point.

You did not offend me in any way. No apology needed on my behalf. The wod of God is suppose to be fun and enjoyable a delight to his servants.

This is the inception of the covenant of fruitfulness made with Abraham. And the circumcision was a mark of THAT covenant. So I take it you don't believe Paul and what He said about the circumcision for the believer in Yahshua?

I know Paul made a mistake by telling the gentiles they did not need to be circumcised.

The Lord made a convenant with Abraham and his seed as well as the strangers amongst him.

Paul word cannot supercede the Lord.

why do I say a mistake was made by this powerful apostle?

Moses the man who God knew face to face granted Israel a written divorcement, this divorcement did not come from the Lord.

Jesus said

Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


of these things had to do with those people that did not have a covenant relationship with Elohim. It did not mean that the foreskin in and of itself was unclean. It only provided a proof as to who was counted among His chosen. Since that time the circumcision of the heart has superseded the circumcision of the flesh in terms of covenant relationship.

If these people were circumcised in the heart they would do what the Lord say do.

The would have gotten circumcised.

why?

Deut 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

according to the Lord if a man is not circumcised, he is a reproach to God, he is unclean to God and he shall be cut off from among his people.

Now lets take it a little further. Lets jump to the the resurrection, lets go to Revelation.

If a uncircumcised man is cut off from amongst his people, it means that he will not be in the resurrections.

take a look at these verses.

Rv 21:22: And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23: And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

Rv 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2:In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


we will have nations in New Jersualem like we have here in this world. if the uncircumcised is cutoff from his people in this world, what chace do he have in God's kingdom. None, he is not there.

again Jesus said

Ezekiel 44v5: And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary.
6: And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations,
7: In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
8: And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
9: Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

the uncircumcised cannot come near the Lord or enter into his sanctuary.


Ozell, if you do the same search on the human heart you suggested on the foreskin, you will find that the heart of man is evil continually, but it doesn't mean that Adam was born without one OR that we should have ours removed.

who taught Adam? The Lord!

Ex 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Num 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

was Adam unclean, a reproach before he talked to satan.

if Adam was uncircumcised the Lord could not hve called his Good.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

man was created on the 6th day and it was good and not unclean or a reproach to God

Adam was circumcised because he is not cut off from his people.

watch this

Lk 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jesus lineage includes Adam, so Adam is not cut off from his people. He must be circumcised.

[talmidim]

Shalom Ozell,

To pick and choose which books of scripture to believe is a very slippery slope to start on. To deny the anointed of Yahshua is to deny Yahshua.

Paul's teachings are in complete agreement with the prophets on this matter. But there is much already written on this topic, so I must assume that you have made up your mind on this matter. I pray for your sake that you are right, but I don't think you are.

Be Well,
Phillip

[EricLBess]

Shalom Eric,

Sorry you feel that way. I see that you have made up your mind so I will not pursue this any further either. But I am always amused at atheist trying so hard to prove that Elohim doesn't exist. If atheists truly believed that, they just wouldn't care. I mean, who care about things they think don't exist anyway? :D

i'll let you have the last word, but i just wanted to inform you that i never once addressed the existence or non-existence of god (you did). i only wanted to address your flagrant contradiction, which it seems you have no excuse for. perhaps you mentioned the non-/existence of god because of your own personal incertitude...don't attempt to erroneously and hypocritically impute your doubts to me.

but i have no more time to banter with you. i'll let you be in your own world.

~eric

[ozell]

To pick and choose which books of scripture to believe is a very slippery slope to start on. To deny the anointed of Yahshua is to deny Yahshua.

The Lord told us how to read and understand his word. Any other way lead to confusion.

Isaiah said

Isa28v 9: Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10: For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12: To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13: But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Paul said

2Tm 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I never denied Paul and I never denied Jesus.

Peter warned us about those who read Paul's writing and it very relevant to day.

2Pt 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Paul's teachings are in complete agreement with the prophets on this matter. But there is much already written on this topic, so I must assume that you have made up your mind on this matter. I pray for your sake that you are right, but I don't think you are.

Paul writing is in agreement with Jesus if you undersand Paul's writing.

Jesus said all males must be circumcised Jew
and non Jew.

Adam was not a Israelite nor was Abraham.

Gen 17:27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

keep in mind all that read this thread, the law did not start with Adam, Abraham, Moses or Israel.

The Law has been around forever, God has been around forever.

The Lord cannot give Abraham and Israel something to keep and not have Adam and us not do the same.

then how can he claim to be a Fair God.

Ezek 18:29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

The truth of the matter Adam was circumcised when he was created.

God CANNOT have the first man walk around uncircumcied and then tell Ezekiel no uncircumcised man in heart and flesh will come near him.

again we all want to come near the Lord when he returns and we men must be circumcised for this to happen

Ezekiel said
Ezek 44:7 In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

Ezek 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

I'll close on this

Paul told the gentiles that they don't have to circumcised for a reason. That is another topic.

The prophets said all men must be circumcised.

If the gentiles are not circumcised how will they approach the Lord when He returns and setup his kingdom.

think about what is at stake here.

peace in Jesus mighty name

ozell

[Lulav]

How do you circumcise fruit? Were the trees in the garden of Eden circumcised?

:)

[talmidim]

My dear Brother Ozell,

I have spoken with many like you before and I do not intend to debate you here. You are deceived and your mind is no longer open. You intend to rewrite scripture with your bias. But there is a difference between the law and a covenant. And there is a difference between the circumcision of the heart and a circumcision of the flesh. You can claim anything you like, but it is clear that Elohim gave dispensation throughout the ages to different peoples at different times. This does not take away from the Torah or the promises made to the children of Israel. It simply changes the way of salvation for the Gentiles. Paul taught that too.

But much changed with the sacrifice of Messiah. You think to justify your thinking by saying that Elohim does not change - and you are right in that He does not. But it is the circumstance of His children that He seeks to change. And that is something you choose to ignore. According to your logic, the following scriptures would make no sense and would be a contradiction. But this is impossible. Because there are no contradictions in scripture.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ozell, in a court of law, precedents are set. And any good attorney knows that by presenting certain cases in a certain order and procuring certain rulings, the outcome of a law can be made different from the first reading of the text. It is in effect, modified by adjudication based on circumstance. This concept did not come to man by accident. It was first observed in the scriptures. But it is one sadly lacking in your perspective.

The redemption of Elohim's children and His creation is achieved, not in one fell swoop. If that were the case, scripture would be a short dissertation indeed. But redemption is brought by a progressive series of events and covenants which were enacted under His law. His Word is not static as you seem to think, but dynamic - and living, ever able to respond to the foul intent of the accuser of the brethren!

Do we believe that we are condemned because we cannot participate in the Pesach sacrifice since Mt. Moriah is in enemy hands? No! Of course not. And yet that too is commanded, just as the circumcision. But circumstances have changed and by His doing, not ours. So if you accept the atoning sacrifice of Messiah, then perhaps you should understand, that is not all that changed with Messiah's fulfillment of commandment and prophecy. Much has changed at His hand. Only those commandments written in stone by His hand remain for those that CHOOSE not to be a debtor to all of the statutes, ordinances and precepts of Sinai. It does not make them of none effect, because truly, they still stand. But make no doubt. He gave us a choice.

[Lulav]

According to some Jews the ten commandments do not belong to the Gentiles. ;)

[talmidim]

According to some Jews the ten commandments do not belong to the Gentiles. ;)According to the Jews, neither does salvation. :eek:

[kivi]

According to Jewish Tradition, no, Adom did not need a bris, he was born physically perfect, without a forekskin.

As for how the threat has morphed from the original question, it is part of Jewish thought that 'All of B'nai Israel [the Nation of Israel/the Jews] and the righteous of the Nations [righteous gentiles] have a portion in Olam Habah [the World to Come]. Therefore, both Jew and gentile have a potential for salvation from G-d, defined as 'getting' into Heaven/Olam Habah.

[ElsanRandiMom]

How do you circumcise fruit? Were the trees in the garden of Eden circumcised?

:)
You're just one of my favorite people. :D

(hey... what happened to the laughing smiley?)

[ozell]

My dear Brother Ozell,

I have spoken with many like you before and I do not intend to debate you here. You are deceived and your mind is no longer open. You intend to rewrite scripture with your bias. But there is a difference between the law and a covenant. And there is a difference between the circumcision of the heart and a circumcision of the flesh. You can claim anything you like, but it is clear that Elohim gave dispensation throughout the ages to different peoples at different times. This does not take away from the Torah or the promises made to the children of Israel. It simply changes the way of salvation for the Gentiles. Paul taught that too.

But much changed with the sacrifice of Messiah. You think to justify your thinking by saying that Elohim does not change - and you are right in that He does not. But it is the circumstance of His children that He seeks to change. And that is something you choose to ignore. According to your logic, the following scriptures would make no sense and would be a contradiction. But this is impossible. Because there are no contradictions in scripture.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ozell, in a court of law, precedents are set. And any good attorney knows that by presenting certain cases in a certain order and procuring certain rulings, the outcome of a law can be made different from the first reading of the text. It is in effect, modified by adjudication based on circumstance. This concept did not come to man by accident. It was first observed in the scriptures. But it is one sadly lacking in your perspective.

The redemption of Elohim's children and His creation is achieved, not in one fell swoop. If that were the case, scripture would be a short dissertation indeed. But redemption is brought by a progressive series of events and covenants which were enacted under His law. His Word is not static as you seem to think, but dynamic - and living, ever able to respond to the foul intent of the accuser of the brethren!

Do we believe that we are condemned because we cannot participate in the Pesach sacrifice since Mt. Moriah is in enemy hands? No! Of course not. And yet that too is commanded, just as the circumcision. But circumstances have changed and by His doing, not ours. So if you accept the atoning sacrifice of Messiah, then perhaps you should understand, that is not all that changed with Messiah's fulfillment of commandment and prophecy. Much has changed at His hand. Only those commandments written in stone by His hand remain for those that CHOOSE not to be a debtor to all of the statutes, ordinances and precepts of Sinai. It does not make them of none effect, because truly, they still stand. But make no doubt. He gave us a choice.



change, Jesus has'nt changed

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

God gave us a choice.

here is the choice

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

a man with foreskin chooses death.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Ps 101:8 I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD.

Ezek 28:10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

[talmidim]

My dear brother Ozell,

Listen carefully. I am not saying that Yahshua has changed. I am saying that circumstance has changed. In your world, circumstance can change can't it?

[visionary]

According to some Jews the ten commandments do not belong to the Gentiles. ;)They also know that the ten commandments are the only thing in scripture that converts the soul.. Devious planning... I say.. has worked on the vast majority of christians too.

[kivi]

Originally Posted by stone (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=46681064#post46681064)
Do men have foreskin? Was not Adam the 1st man created?
As far as I know, there is no logical reason for a foreskin. Later when the Lord used it as a covenant mark, it had a purpose. So the first part of my question was did Adam have a foreskin? If so, why? If not, Why again?
__________________
Since the Torah is a finite book expressing the will of an infinite God, many lessons must be derivable from each passage from all the infinite angles.

Kivi’s answer: Adom did not have a foreskin since, as a human, he was created perfect. There have been considerable changes in the human condition since Gan Eden, including a major reduction in life span, a massive increase in sickness and disease, a serious reduction in size, a incredible increase in population, the establishment of different ‘nationalities’, ‘races’ and ‘languages’, etc etc. One of the changes that have occurred is the growth of a foreskin on most all males.

[kivi]

It should be noted that the quotation:

"Ex 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."

and

"Num 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.'

and every other quotation from the Old Testament that uses the phrase: "the stranger that sojourneth among you" is intrinsically inaccurate. The transliteration of the original Hebrew is 'ger' which does not mean a stranger, a person who does not know/is ignorant of the 'ways'/'mitzvahs/customs/practices, but rather a convert, a person who was intitually a non-Jew who has learned and accepted the 613 Mitzvahs of G-d as found in the Torah of Moses and followed the accepted Halachic process of conversion/naturalization into B'nai Israel and, as such, is now a full Jew, not distinguishable from any other native born Jew, in all of the duties, responsiblities and obligations of the Torah of Moses.

[Lulav]

But if they aren't distinguishable then why does HaShem constantly make a distinction by calling them a ger?

You AND the stranger( ger) amoung you.............. why did he not see them all as Am Yisrael?

[kivi]

Lulav says: "But if they aren't distinguishable then why does HaShem constantly make a distinction by calling them a ger?

You AND the stranger( ger) amoung you.............. why did he not see them all as Am Yisrael?"

kivi says: The constant reminder is from G-d to B'nai Israel not to make a distinction. G-d constantly brings it up because He knews that people are status conscience and that it is very easy for native born Jews to insult/put-down/socially discriminate against the ger by making the conversion status a liablity. There is a very big difference between trying to create distinctions and trying to eliminate distinctions. This is clearly a situation in which G-d is trying to eliminate distinctions. There are several prohibitions in Halachah that forbid a native born Jew from even bringing up the status of conversion to the 'ger' so as not to embarass him/her. And of course, Halachahically, there is no difference in obligations, duties and responsiblities between the native born and the naturalized Jew.
__________________

[christianmomof3]

hmm, i thought the question would be "did adam have a belly button?". :scratch:

[ozell]

My dear brother Ozell,

Listen carefully. I am not saying that Yahshua has changed. I am saying that circumstance has changed. In your world, circumstance can change can't it?



the circumstances don't change its the people that changes., but God and his word remains the same.

what is good 4000 years ago is good now.

war, peace, natural disasters, evil, good, love and hate has been with man since his creation, So has God's word.

what circumstances has changed?

as for my world, that's between the Lord Jesus and his servant ozell

my world revovles around Him and His Word.

my circumstances in life has happened to men before me and will happen to those after me.

and again God's word never changes.

Adam was circumcised or had no foreskin and all men of God has to do the same.

there is no exceptions or circumstances in God's word.

[talmidim]

the circumstances don't change Then by your logic, we are still in the garden and there is no curse upon the earth and the evil-one is not evil but still honors the Father. After all, circumstances don't change. Whatever ozell.

[ElsanRandiMom]

you do acknowledge that the things in that time were what was intended though, right? we were to walk with God, face to face, in relationship... we were to eat the fruit of the trees, and to judge others by who they are, not what they do... we were to care for the earth and the animals...

[talmidim]

you do acknowledge that the things in that time were what was intended though, right? we were to walk with God, face to face, in relationship... we were to eat the fruit of the trees, and to judge others by who they are, not what they do... we were to care for the earth and the animals...To whom is your question addressed?

[ElsanRandiMom]

you. :)

[talmidim]

you. :)This conversation has certainly moved sideways from Gal 5. ;) Of course we all look forward to the time when we are restored to a right relationship with Him on an earth freed from the curse. And the circumstances we live in now are not the circumstances we lived in then. But what does that have to do with my point to ozell?

[ElsanRandiMom]

I think I confused your post with ozells (oops). That we have changed and his intent for us is not met, even in keeping of the laws religiously, or in his blood... that we have not yet returned to that from which we came, the real intent on how we should live. We can live in his presence day to day, but the rest is hard.

[talmidim]

I think I confused your post with ozells (oops). That we have changed and his intent for us is not met, even in keeping of the laws religiously, or in his blood... that we have not yet returned to that from which we came, the real intent on how we should live. We can live in his presence day to day, but the rest is hard.No problem Sis. And yes I agree. But I also try to remember that in the midst of all that doing, that we can do nothing without Him. It is only through love and prayer - in His Spirit - that we can accomplish anything of worth.

In His Love,
Phillip

Ps. Time for my nap ;)

[ozell]

Then by your logic, we are still in the garden and there is no curse upon the earth and the evil-one is not evil but still honors the Father. After all, circumstances don't change. Whatever ozell.

what circumstance bought a curse upon the earth?

what circumstance made satan sin against God?

what circumstance made Adam and Eve disobey God?

Satan and Man had a direct order from God.

don't sin!!!

what circumstance brought this disobedience upon satan, man and the earth?

there is none.

it's not whatever ozell

its about dialogue whether we agree or not!!!

[ElsanRandiMom]

they most certainly did not have an order "don't sin". Sin isn't even MENTIONED in the bible until Cain.

[ozell]

I think I confused your post with ozells (oops). That we have changed and his intent for us is not met, even in keeping of the laws religiously, or in his blood... that we have not yet returned to that from which we came, the real intent on how we should live. We can live in his presence day to day, but the rest is hard.


that is my point

peopel change, God word is still the same.

the Lord said if a man

Ezek 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezek 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezek 33:19 But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

Peter said

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

now what do circumstances have to do with it.

1Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

2Tm 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Mt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.


2Thes 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

now by reading these few verses circumstances don't work for servant of God.

sin, iniquity, wickedness and unrighteousness has been around along time.

take a look back at the flood.

Gen6v 5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6: And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7: And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

what was the circumstances during this time period?

surely circumstances could have saved more than 8 people.

8: But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

surely circumstances could have provided grace for more than just Noah.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Noah had grace because he walked before God (had relationship with Him). This is how WE ALL find grace. Through relationship with our Creator.

[ozell]

I think I confused your post with ozells (oops). That we have changed and his intent for us is not met, even in keeping of the laws religiously, or in his blood... that we have not yet returned to that from which we came, the real intent on how we should live. We can live in his presence day to day, but the rest is hard.

hi

is the rest hard?

Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Ti 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Lam 3:26 It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD.

[ElsanRandiMom]

on our own yes, it's impossible

Him doing it in us, for us... piece of cake

most people dont' live there, therefore, religion is a burden and not a benefit

[ozell]

they most certainly did not have an order "don't sin". Sin isn't even MENTIONED in the bible until Cain.

Iniquity which is sin and sin was mentioned before cain.

The Lord found sin in satan.

Ezek 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Ezek 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

[ozell]

Noah had grace because he walked before God (had relationship with Him). This is how WE ALL find grace. Through relationship with our Creator.

and on our walk with the Lord

what circumstance will hinder us?

it still becomes a choice to walk with the Lord or not walk with the Lord. If we walk we have that grace, if we choose not then we wind up like the many who died during the flood.

we are on the same page.

[ElsanRandiMom]

Iniquity which is sin and sin was mentioned before cain.

The Lord found sin in satan.

Ezek 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Ezek 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
sin is not iniquity... sin is missing the mark (far from iniquity which is also wickedness). I.E. sin is not following the best path, iniquity is wickedness or perversion (the twisting of truth)

[ElsanRandiMom]

and on our walk with the Lord

what circumstance will hinder us?

it still becomes a choice to walk with the Lord or not walk with the Lord. If we walk we have that grace, if we choose not then we wind up like the many who died during the flood.

we are on the same page.
I agree we are our own worst enemy. Adam was his own worst enemy when he hid from God willingly. Cain was his own worst enemy when he turned his back on God and dwelt in the land of Nod. We have a history of walking away from God, not the other way around.

[kivi]

To ozell, I don't get it. You throw quotes around like loose change, but the quotes you use have nothing to do with what you are refering to. The Ezek 28:15 and 16 quotes are about the King of Tyre, not about the Devil. So, in effect, you are inventing/manufactoring your own interpertation.

ozell http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=46971522#post46971522)
Iniquity which is sin and sin was mentioned before cain.

The Lord found sin in satan.

Ezek 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Ezek 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

[ozell]

To ozell, I don't get it. You throw quotes around like loose change, but the quotes you use have nothing to do with what you are refering to. The Ezek 28:15 and 16 quotes are about the King of Tyre, not about the Devil. So, in effect, you are inventing/manufactoring your own interpertation.

ozell http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=46971522#post46971522)
Iniquity which is sin and sin was mentioned before cain.

The Lord found sin in satan.

Ezek 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Ezek 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.



Kivi

go back and read the chapter and verse 15 and 16 again.

The chapter refers to a being more perfect and powerful than a man.

This chapter is not referring to the literal king of tyre, vs 15 says he was perfect, no man is perfect


vs 16 says that this being was in the garden of God and this being is called a covering CHERUB.

I don't interpret!

I understrand that there is different levels of understanding

there is a understanding for babes

there is a understand for the very elect.

I am a very elect!!!!

Ezekiel28 is a very simple chapters

a babe in the word of God knows that it cannot be referring to a literal man.

READ IT AGAIN!!!

[Lulav]

kivi, there is a prince of Tyrus and a King. The prince is like his father , the KING in his ways, very prideful for one, but when the L-RD then speaks of the King of Tyrus he is speaking of the father of the prince, the father of all lifted up in pride like this, and he is specific as to who this is.

The prince is a man, the King is not.

Moreover the word of the L-RD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

From Exodus
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

[kivi]

ozell says: "Kivi go back and read the chapter and verse 15 and 16 again.

The chapter refers to a being more perfect and powerful than a man."

kivi says: "No, it does not. It is refering to the King of Tyre and nobody else. The poetry of the piece is using analogy and metaphor, but it is very clear that it is talking about a real human being. Eze 28:11: "The word of HaShem came to me, saying, "Son of Man, take up a lamentation over the King of Tyre, Say of him:". When the verse refers to Adom [verse 12], G-d is telling the King that he is not Adom nor is he as perfect or great as Adom; when the verse refers to Gan Edan [verse 13], it is telling the King that he was not there. The verse is telling the King that if he got special favor, being like a 'cheraub', it was because his father helped build the Temple [verse 14]. Then the verses tells that the King's very success was his down fall and his arrogance and pride [verses 15-19] was the cause of his defeat, including the verse that G-d proclaims that He has destroyed the King [verse 16]. So, while the lament is for a very great king, it is not for a super-natural creature."

ozell says: "vs 16 says that this being was in the garden of God and this being is called a covering CHERUB.

I don't interpret!"

kivi says: "Sorry, the verse does not say that. The verse says that the King of Tyre was not in Gan Edan and it is using metaphor and analogy. Specifically, it said in verse 12 that the King is not as great as Adom. If that is so, then the idea that the King is an angel is absurd And, yes you do. After all, you say later that you are the 'very elect', that you are the best of the levels."

ozell says: "I understrand that there is different levels of understanding

there is a understanding for babes

there is a understand for the very elect."

I am a very elect!!!!"

kivi says: "So, you are claiming to be a 'very elect'. I asked if you were claiming to have a private revelation that you are relying on. So, now you have answered that question. You do claim a private revelation. You are claiming the right of interpertation, plain and simple and multiple !!!!! marks only re-enforce your claim to that right."

ozell says: "Ezekiel28 is a very simple chapters

a babe in the word of God knows that it cannot be referring to a literal man."

kivi says: "Well, you claim to have a private revelation. After all, you are 'the very elect'. Well, thank you for sharing, 'very elect'. But I haven't had your 'private revelation'. I am not of the 'very elect'. So why should I believe you? I can't think of any reason. The text is simple as you claim, but it not as you claim, it shows nothing of the invention of your interpertation. You are adding to the text."

ozell says: "READ IT AGAIN!!!"

kivi says: "Yelling at me does not make me respect you more."

[kivi]

lulav quotes: "from some translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, lulav, you did not give the translation title or the verse numbers, but it seems to be from Eze 28 11 to 15. If I am wrong, lulav, then clue me in. I can not figure out from your text.
Eze 28:11: 'Moreover the word of the L-RD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.'"

kivi says: "I am going to quote from the ArtScroll, English translation:
Eze 28: 11: The word of HaShem came to me saying,
12; "Son of Man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre. Say of him:
Thus said the Lord HaShem/Elohim:
Are you Adom the culmination of perfection,
full of wisdom, perfect in beauty?
13: Were you in Edan, the garden of G-d;
Was your canopy of every precious stone-
Odem, pitedah and yahalom; tarshish, shoham and yashfeh;
sapir, nophech and barkus-and gold?
The work of your drums and wind instruments was in you;
They were established on the day of your creation.
14: you were a great sheltering cherub, and it is I who granted you this;
You were upon the holy mountain of G-d; you walked amoung the fiery stones;
15: Perfect were you in your ways from the day of your creation-until wrongdoing was found in you."

So, lulav, the 1st two quotes about Adom and Gan Edan, in your translation, are like statements: 'you are like Adom', 'you were in Gan Edan'. However, in the Torah Tradition, the two are not statements, but 'sarcastic' analogy/metaphor type of questions: 'So, O King, think you are Adom. Think again. So, O King, think that you are from Gan Edan. Think again." Lulav, I can hear the sarcasim dripping like a flood. The reference of the King being a 'cheruab' is also sarcastic analogy/metaphor. Especially since in verse 15, G-d proclaims that He destroyed the 'cheraub', King of Tyre. This is even more evident when you consider the beginning of Ch 28, when the King of Tyre is claiming to be a 'god' in 'the heart of the seas' and G-d says to the King, 'verse 2: "but you are a man and not a god" and then says [verse 3] "Are you wiser than Daniel?" and then [verse 10] "You will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners,". Ch 28 is very clearly speaking of a mortal human who claims the status of 'god' but is suffering from simple hubris. It is most definitely not talking about a super-natural creature."

[ozell]

ozell says: "Kivi go back and read the chapter and verse 15 and 16 again.

The chapter refers to a being more perfect and powerful than a man."

kivi says: "No, it does not. It is refering to the King of Tyre and nobody else. The poetry of the piece is using analogy and metaphor, but it is very clear that it is talking about a real human being. Eze 28:11: "The word of HaShem came to me, saying, "Son of Man, take up a lamentation over the King of Tyre, Say of him:". When the verse refers to Adom [verse 12], G-d is telling the King that he is not Adom nor is he as perfect or great as Adom; when the verse refers to Gan Edan [verse 13], it is telling the King that he was not there. The verse is telling the King that if he got special favor, being like a 'cheraub', it was because his father helped build the Temple [verse 14]. Then the verses tells that the King's very success was his down fall and his arrogance and pride [verses 15-19] was the cause of his defeat, including the verse that G-d proclaims that He has destroyed the King [verse 16]. So, while the lament is for a very great king, it is not for a super-natural creature."

ozell says: "vs 16 says that this being was in the garden of God and this being is called a covering CHERUB.

I don't interpret!"

kivi says: "Sorry, the verse does not say that. The verse says that the King of Tyre was not in Gan Edan and it is using metaphor and analogy. Specifically, it said in verse 12 that the King is not as great as Adom. If that is so, then the idea that the King is an angel is absurd And, yes you do. After all, you say later that you are the 'very elect', that you are the best of the levels."

ozell says: "I understrand that there is different levels of understanding

there is a understanding for babes

there is a understand for the very elect."

I am a very elect!!!!"

kivi says: "So, you are claiming to be a 'very elect'. I asked if you were claiming to have a private revelation that you are relying on. So, now you have answered that question. You do claim a private revelation. You are claiming the right of interpertation, plain and simple and multiple !!!!! marks only re-enforce your claim to that right."

ozell says: "Ezekiel28 is a very simple chapters

a babe in the word of God knows that it cannot be referring to a literal man."

kivi says: "Well, you claim to have a private revelation. After all, you are 'the very elect'. Well, thank you for sharing, 'very elect'. But I haven't had your 'private revelation'. I am not of the 'very elect'. So why should I believe you? I can't think of any reason. The text is simple as you claim, but it not as you claim, it shows nothing of the invention of your interpertation. You are adding to the text."

ozell says: "READ IT AGAIN!!!"

kivi says: "Yelling at me does not make me respect you more."

Kivi

you don't know me to respect me

then the Lord said respect know man. So you are following his law.

Ezekiel 28 is a very simple chapter to understand.

You have 2 witnesses Lulav and myself letting you know that the chapter deals with a individual who is far greater than a mere man.

one of the key verses deals with the Lord calling this being a cherub.

a cherub is not a man.

the chapter do not need a interpretation, all is needed is understanding

Yes i yelled at you, I wanted you go back and read the chapter, I believe you did.

I did not yell out of frustration or anger it was my attempt for you to go read the chapter again.

the Lord said read his word this way

Isa 28v 9: Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10: For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12: To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13: But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


2Tm 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

now saying this the Lord said

Ezek 28v12: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

when has the king of tyrus been in the Garden of God Eden?

Genesis tells