Pyramid Structure of Genesis 1, 2 and 3

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The strangest in this whole matter is how - it seems to me - every 'church' has been running after Mrs EG White's 'visions' and doctrines, for I do not find her views as expressed by BobRyan and meekly followed by yourself, dear Ed Sutton, in the rather nice collection of books on my shelves written by the old stalwards of Reformed Protestantism.

(Have you noticed in the few posts how Bobbie reminded you it's actually his bright idea how stupid idea I propose?)

 

[donnA]

You are making scripture say what you want it too, without any true scriptural evidence. You can not make it say what it does not say.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are making scripture say what you want it too, without any true scriptural evidence. You can not make it say what it does not say.

GE
This here above is exactly your very best animadversion to my presentation of purely Scripture! See yourself in your own words, dearie.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Besides, why would I want it to make it say what it does, whether I liked it or no? Because it is a very unflattering picture it - like it stands in Genesis 1-3 -, gives of that man Paul says of, "By one man sin entered into the world"! Paul doesn't even blame the devil; he gives Adam (and Eve) ALL the blame -- and here's my point: For this most tragic, devastating, indescribable, unpardonable but for the grace of God : SIN!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

NOWHERE in Scripture do I find how this man Adam sinless and perfect IN EVERY respect from the hand of his Creator, could open the portals of heaven (so to speak of salvation) an inch wide by future improvement or by accumulated merit. It ALL had to be of GRACE in order to be the salvation of GOD! From day one on.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

It's from the idea salvation and perfection could gradually have been promoted by man in the Garden of Eden that the RCC developed its horrific dogma of Purgatory. And the SDAC its horrific blunder of the 1844 starting 'Investigative Judgment'. And the rest like lambs after the he-goat plundering over the edge into the abyss of ignorance and confusion.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

... of ignorance, confusion ... and blissful self-satisfaction.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

How angry I get! This very Sabbath Day for the umpteenth time I had to endure this Sabbath-desacrating selfgratifying prejudice of Seventh Day Adventism. The camal's back was broken for the hundredth time, their sickening hypocricy! O Generation of vipers, the Pharisees are a nice one! You shout the Law the Law, but far worse, you shout Love Love, but fear with a fear that drives out Love! You say you are rich but as want entered through the front door, love escaped through the back. It's you! It's you who call yourselves Laodecea! You hide God's truth not under a bushel on the table, but under the table itself; you shiver from fear so much your only reliance has become your lying. But your days have come, SDA's and your days have run out altogether. You shall not receive time for respite or contrition; but worse for you as a Church or as individuals: This shall grieve and hurt you most: That you shall be able to extinguish neither Truth nor Pure Doctrine. It shall torment you now, and for all eternity to come you were not able!

 

[EdSutton]

The strangest in this whole matter is how - it seems to me - every 'church' has been running after Mrs EG White's 'visions' and doctrines, for I do not find her views as expressed by BobRyan and meekly followed by yourself, dear Ed Sutton, in the rather nice collection of books on my shelves written by the old stalwards of Reformed Protestantism.

(Have you noticed in the few posts how Bobbie reminded you it's actually his bright idea how stupid idea I propose?)

Incorrect! (Not that that fact is all that unusual!)

BTW, I have no idea what "every 'church' has been running after...", for I am not acquainted with, nor do I try to keep up with, "every 'church'", regardless of 'what seems to you', no matter how strange you happen to find that to be.

I had not read the post of BobRyan when I replied, so had no clue as to what he or anyone else might say.

Also I seldom actually agree with BobRyan, and this merely happened to be happenstance. I have read very little of Mrs. E. G. White, and disagree with much of what little I have read. I have formed no "positive" opinions from her works, having the opinions that I hold, that may or may not agree with her, already in place before, or came to that conclusion afterwards. I can positively state that she is/and/was in no way directly responsible (nor BobRyan, nor Gerhard Ebersoehn) for the source of anything I believe or do not believe. I cannot promise that will always be the case, for either of you (or any other) may say something that causes me to get into the stydying Scripture a bit more in depth, and come to a new conclusion on something. You know, the Berean bit! (Ac. 17:11)

I always read the entire thread, once I get involved, but often respond to posts as I come to them. This was an example, as I stated first to BobRyan and now to Gerhard Ebersoehn, as well.

FTR, I'm pretty sure most of "the old stalwards (sic) of Reformed Protestantism" such as Calvin, Farel, Zwingli, Knox, Melanchthon, Beza, Luther, the Mathers, Edwards,and Whitfield, to name but a few, never even knew who Ellen G. White was, as they were all long since dead before she was even born.

Also, if memory serves, I believe that BobRyan previously asked to not be called "Bobbie", or at least asked that his name be used correctly, but I will admit, I could be wrong on that, and it could have been another poster who made that request.

Nevertheless, that potential perception is why I always use the exact posted name, rather than even a commonly used name by a poster, for another. I sign off as Ed, not EdSutton, and do not care which I am referred to. (Call me whatever you like - Ed, EdSutton, 'Hey You!', 'Dummy!', whatever - just as long as you don't call me late for a meal!) As I do not care what I am called, but some do, I treat all equally, by using full posted names. Another can do as they choose, but I have merely stated my opinion, here.

Ed

 

[donnA]

GE
This here above is exactly your very best animadversion to my presentation of purely Scripture! See yourself in your own words, dearie.

Do not call me dearie, I am not your dear.

 

[donnA]

... of ignorance, confusion ... and blissful self-satisfaction.

yes I agree, thats how I would describe you.

 

[donnA]

every 'church' has been running after Mrs EG White's 'visions' and doctrines

I have no idea, nor do I want to know, who eg white is, so apparently we do not follow whatever it is.
Also, unless you've vistied 'every' church, examined it's doctrines, then this is a false statement meant to slander churches who do follow and beleives your unbiblical trash. Call me names if you must, I do not care, means nothing to me.

 

[EdSutton]

Do not call me dearie, I am not your dear.

Can I call you dearie?? :smilewinkgrin:

Assuming my wife will let me, you understand! :thumbs: :tonofbricks:

Nah, probably not! (Somehow I didn't think my dear would be impressed, even when I said it.)

And I don't like to get hit with bricks without wearing a hard-hat! They hurt! :tear:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

It's from the idea salvation and perfection could gradually have been promoted by man in the Garden of Eden that the RCC developed its horrific dogma of Purgatory. And the SDAC its horrific blunder of the 1844 starting 'Investigative Judgment'. And the rest like lambs after the he-goat plundering over the edge into the abyss of ignorance and confusion.

FTR, there was no "SDAC" in 1844.

Not that facts are particularly deterring you in your conclusions, from what I see posted, as I am assuming you are referring to the Seventh Day Adventist Church. That did not come into existience until 1863.

BTW, I am not any sort of so-called "Adventist", nor Seventh-Day" either, FTR.

Not all "Adventism" or "Millerism", to which you are alluding, was so-called "Seventh-Day".

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

NOWHERE in Scripture do I find how this man Adam sinless and perfect IN EVERY respect from the hand of his Creator, could open the portals of heaven (so to speak of salvation) an inch wide by future improvement or by accumulated merit. It ALL had to be of GRACE in order to be the salvation of GOD! From day one on.

I agree here, but don't know if I can stand the strain. I'm not sure I can. ("Gasp! "Wheeze!")

"'Lizbeth!! (Choke! Cough! Gasp!) It's the big one, honey! I'm a-comin' to join you!"

Signed, "Fred"

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have no idea, nor do I want to know, who eg white is, so apparently we do not follow whatever it is.
Also, unless you've vistied 'every' church, examined it's doctrines, then this is a false statement meant to slander churches who do follow and beleives your unbiblical trash. Call me names if you must, I do not care, means nothing to me.

GE
Is this now an acknowledgement or defense you believe the same as she and they do? If you don't then what I have said should not apply to you; what get upset for? Seems to me the shoe fits!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Technicalities of no matter like names of endearment or frustration are of no consequence to me. If I'm wrong in that respect, I apologise. (I don't want to cause my own cause harm.) If I said with much compassion I should be lying.

Small detail as it happened to be as long as they are Scripture-detail, that's what weighs heavily with me. I have given you the bigger picture. Now consider just this small overlooked fact strategically placed in vers 4: These are developments, origins, generations - HISTORIES - of the heavens and of the earth and all that is in them naturally, :"When they were created"; "In the day", that the LORD made them. Then follows thos histories - with which is included the history of man in that very day, which history is of two developments ONLY: Man's perfect sinless creation "VERY GOOD"; and b, mans very bad fall --- "in that day", "when created".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here's another of those overlooked smaller detail that has bearing on the subject - not like those off-course technicalities of inaccuracies that don't count a point in the actual matter, but Ed Sutton was quick to capitalise on. Another one, I say, piling the 'shreds' of Scripture up one by one, slowly, but surely; giving ample time and opportunity for those brilliant minds so quick to discover my foolishness:- Without a 'shred' of Scripture in between the three first chapters of Genesis telling us of the creation of the world and everything it -- told by God -- "In the cool ('evening breeze') of day, the LORD God walking in the garden ..."

Adam and Eve created: Gn1:26-2:1 and Gn2:7, 15-18, 19b-25. Fall, Gn3:1-7; Then Sabbath beginning, Gn2:2 and Gn3:8-24.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No, I didn't read Paradise Lost before, but only after:

"... ere God had bid the ground be dry
All but within those banks where rivers now
Stream, and perpetual draw their humid train.
The dry earth, and the great reseptical
Of congregated waters he called seas;
And saw that it was good, and said, 'Let th'earth
Put forth the verdant grass, herb yielding seed,
And fruit-tree yielding fruit after her kind,
Whose seed is in herself upon the earth.'
He scarce had said when the bare earth, till then
Desert and bare, unsightly, unadorned,
Brought forth the tender grass, whose verdure clad
Her universal face with pleasant green;
Then herbs of every leaf, that sudden flow'red,
Op'ning their various colours, and made gay
Her bosom, smelling sweet; and these scarce blown,
Forth flourished thick the clust'ring vine, forth crept
The swelling gourd, up stood the corny reed
Embattled in her field; add the humble shrub,
And bush with frizzled hair implicit. Last
Rose as in a dance the stately trees, and spread
Their branches hung with copious fruit, or gemmed
Their blossoms. With high woods the hills were crowned,
With tufts the valleys and each fountain side'
With borders long the rivers; that earth now
Seemed like to heav'n, a seat where gods might dwell,
Or wander with delight, and love to haunt
Her sacred shades; though God had yet not rained
Upon the earth, and man to till the ground
None was, but from the earth a dewy mist
Went up and watered all the ground, and each
Plant of the field, which ere it was in the earth
God made, and every herb, before it grew
On the green stem. God saw that it was good.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The point is?

Look how Milton merges chapters 1 and 2 ...

"... that earth now
Seemed like to heav'n, a seat where gods might dwell,
Or wander with delight, and love to haunt
Her sacred shades; though God had yet not rained
Upon the earth, and man to till the ground
None was ..."

How can't it not?