=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20Monday=20=86=86=86What=5F=20can=20WASH=20aw?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ay=20=20my=20sin=3F=20=86=86=86=5F=20Hugs=20and=20Smiles,?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=20Bill=20&=20=20Staff?=
errancy@infidels.org errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:29:10 EDT (00930803350, 2639394e.24ac0246@aol.com)
In a message dated 6/30/99 5:45:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jftill@midwest.net writes:
<< At 02:16 PM 6/30/99 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 6/29/99 9:13:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LadyJak97
writes:
>
><< In the beginning Adam and Eve sinned and their sin had to be
covered
> by shed blood.
TILL
Why? Why couldn't it have been cleansed with apple juice? I mean, after
all, an omnipotent deity could make any requirement for forgiveness that he
wanted to, couldn't he? So why couldn't an apple have been required to pay
the supreme price of its life to "cover" someone's sin? Why, this
omnipotent deity could even have been understanding enough just to say that
he would overlook completely the offense. If not, why not?
LADYJAK
> First there has to be confession of sin
TILL
Why?
Could I have an answer that doesn't beg any questions?
LADYJAK
>and then the washing of blood.
TILL
To repeat my question above, why? I'd like an answer that doesn't beg any
questions.
LADYJAK
>Read Genesis three and see the first sin and that it had to be confessed
and paid >for by shed blood.
TILL
I've read Genesis 3, and I can't see where it says this. The words
"confess" and "blood" don't even appear in this chapter.
Let's just suppose that Genesis 3 did actually say, "For the first sin to be
forgiven it had to be confessed and paid for by shed blood." What would
that prove beyond the fact that Genesis 3 says this?
LADYJAK
>Now look at Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,
>Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the
>knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that
thou >eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." We see in Genesis 3:6 that
Adam and Eve >did eat of that tree, sinning in disobeying God. Now in
Genesis 3:11 and 13, God >asked Adam if they had eaten of the tree and in
verses 12 and 13, Adam and Eve >confess that they had disobeyed the Lord.
Now we see in verse 21 that the Lord >God make coats of skins and did clothe
them. Where did the skins come from? >An animal had to shed blood to provide
cover for Adam and Eve's sins.
TILL
Ladyjak assumes that the animals were killed in order to shed blood to
forgive the "sins" of Adam and Eve, but the text in no way implies that the
blood of the animals was shed to "cover" the "sins" of Adam and Eve. This
is something that Ladyjak is reading into the text. Is she unaware that
animals can be killed and skinned without shedding their blood? Even if we
assume that this little yarn is historically accurate, how is she going to
determine that the animals were killed to shed their blood to "cover" the
sins of Adam and Eve? This is just something that she is arbitrarily
reading into the passage.
As long as she is going to beg the question of biblical accuracy, perhaps
she would like to consider Hebrews 10:4, "For it is not possible that the
blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." So according to the NT,
the shedding of animal blood didn't remove sins but only "remembered" them
(v:3).
LADYJAK
> In Genesis 2:17, we see that God told Adam that if he ate of the tree of
> good and evil that he would surely die that day. Over in Genesis 5:5 we
> see that Adam lived 930 years. Did God lie? No, God cannot lie. "In hope
of
> eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world
began"
> (Titus 1:2).
TILL
So Ladyjak again begs the question of biblical accuracy. If she would care
to join this list, I would be glad to show her that her own inspired "word
of God" contradicts itself on this point and shows that Yahweh did on
occasion lie. Those who were on Errancy as recently as a month ago will
remember that we had a biblicist claiming that God cannot lie, but when
confronted with the biblical account of when God did lie, he quibbled for a
few days and then ran for cover. He hasn't been back since. Maybe Ladyjak
thinks she can do a better job than he did.
LADYJAK
"He has given us both His Promise and His Oath, two things we can completely
>count on,
TILL
We can? Well, we can count on it only if we assume biblical accuracy,
which, of course, only a very gullible person would do. Excuse me, if I
don't "count on it."
LADYJAK
>for it is impossible for God to tell a lie" (Hebrews 6:18, Living Bible).
TILL
Ladyjak should see my comments above. I'd be glad to show her that the
Bible is contradictory on this point.
LADYJAK
>Now to answer how Adam died the very day that he ate of the tree of good
and >evil. 2nd Peter 3:8 tells us, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this
one thing,
> that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
> one day." So in God's Timetable Adam died before he was one day old. >>
>
TILL
Ladyjak's explanation here is ridiculous, of course, but I personally do not
think that the statement in Genesis 3 can be pressed to mean that Yahweh was
saying that Adam would die on the very day that he ate the fruit. The
expression "the day that you do such and so" was simply an intensifier that
meant that the consequence specified would surely happen but not necessarily
on the very day an offense was committed. If I should say to a neighborhood
bully, "The day that you hit a kid of mine, you'll regret it." I would
merely be using an expression to emphasize that I would take some kind of
action that would cause him regret if he did hit one of my children. The
action that I would take, however, could happen the next day or the next
week or the next month to bring about the regret I had promised, but it
wouldn't necessarily have to happen the same day for my warning to have
meaning.
There is an example in the Bible to illustrate the usage of this idiom.
When Solomon became king of Israel, he went on a house-cleaning rampage to
kill those who had in any way offended his father. A man named Shimei had
once cursed David and thrown stones at him when he was fleeing Jerusalem
during Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 16:5-8). One of David's men, Abishai,
wanted to kill Shimei for his insolence, but David wouldn't allow it. Upon
becoming king, Solomon called Shimei before him and again spared his life,
but Solomon ordered Shimei to build a house in Jerusalem and "not [to] go
out from there to any place whatever" (1 Kings 2:36). Solomon then warned
him that "on the day you go out, and cross the Brook Kidron, know for
certain that you shall die" (v:37). The next verses explain that after
three years, two of Shimei's slaves ran away to Achish, the king of Gath, and
so "Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek
his servants" (vs:39-40). Shimei found them and brought the slaves back,
but when Solomon heard that Shimei had broken the terms of his house arrest
and crossed the Brook Kidron, Solomon sent for Shimei and said to him, "Did
I not make you swear by Yahweh, and solemnly adjure you, saying, 'Know for
certain that ON THE DAY you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall
die'?" Solomon then ordered Benaiah to kill Shimei, and the sentence was
carried out.
Gath was located in the northeastern area of Philistia, so it was very
unlikely that Shimei left Jerusalem, traveled to Gath, found his slaves,
brought them back, and then appeared before Solomon all on the same day.
The story effectively illustrates that "the day that you do such and such"
was simply an idiomatic intensifier that should not be taken literally.
I urge skeptics not to use this idiom as an example of a biblical
discrepancy in the matter of Adam's and Eve's sin in eating the forbidden
fruit, because I don't think it can be sustained. That, however, does not
excuse Ladyjak for the appalling errors in logic that she made in her
posting.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net
>>
KURT
For the sake of LadyJak's credibility, I have to say that she was not the one
who wrote those outrageous statements above. She is part of a Christian
newsgoup and forwarded the message to me. I "replied" instead of
"forwarding" it to this list, and so left out the address of the original
author. If anyone cares, this is what was attached to the end of the
message.
In His Love and Service,
Bill Dorman (John 13:34-35)
E Mail Chaplain777@hotmail.com
Web site http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/2779/
J.I.A.L. Ministries (Jesus Is Always Lord)
(92-08-17) P O Box 1061
Buffalo, MO 65622-1061
The above name and address in not mentioned to bring any glory to
myself,
but in case you need to write to someone about anything that you need prayer
or advice on. To God be all Praise and Glory now and forever. Any letters
written to myself or any other member of this ministry at the above address
will be read and prayed over.
I don't know where he comes up with his information, and most of what he
sends that I have read so far are "inpirational" stories. I found them
rather boring, and to contain just what the losing-faith Christian out there
wants to hear.