The fact you use the term godly proves how blind he and you are.
ECT Understand the Fall of Adam according to Covenant
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
The fact you use the term godly proves how blind he and you are.
PS I don't object to your gender, but I do object to your taking or least attempting to take authority over me. Everything you have ever been given and have is to one end. To harden you unto judgement just as Pharaoh was hardened. You have been set in a slippery place and your foot shall slide with dreadful suddenness.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Indeed.
There are only 2 options here.
1. Throw out the biblical method of interpretation; scripture must be allowed to interpret scripture. In this case עוֹרʻôwr, ore; can refer to anything one chooses from A to Z.
2. Allow the biblical meaning of the word to apply; the skin of humans or animals. I think its pretty clear there were no other humans at the time.
But those who have an axe to grind will often deny the clear teaching of God's Word to prop up their false beliefs.
ROFL!
The problem is that you do not have a dot of scripture anywhere saying that the skins GOD covered Adam's nakedness with was from an animal that GOD killed.
Neither you, nor Nang, nor anyone else has been able to show a single place in scripture where the skins GOD covered Adam with are referred to as a blood sacrifice for Adam's sin.
ROFL!
Original sin does not hinge on the skins made to cover Adam being a bloody sacrifice.
You can still have your original sin even though GOD did not make a bloody animal sacrifice to cover Adam's nakedness.
I do have a zeal of discrediting what is not in scripture when folks present their assumptions as some sort of scriptural fact.
Scripture does not say that GOD sacrificed an animal to cover Adam's nakedness.
Scripture does not say that GOD needed to sacrifice an animal to cover Adam, or forgive Adam.
There is not any legitimate doctrine of scripture that hinges on the skins HAVING to be a bloody animal sacrifice made by GOD.
Why you keep insisting that it has to be that way is beyond me, especially when you are unable to find any scripture that says the skins were from a bloody animal sacrifice made by GOD.
If only you would stop adding to it, and stop trying to force it to say something it does not.
There is no scripture that says the skins used to cover Adam were gotten from a bloody animal sacrifice made by GOD.
Let me put it this way .......... if the skins used to cover Adam's nakedness were NOT from a bloody animal sacrifice, would it make any of the rest of scripture untrue?
No.
So why would anyone want to force it into the story of Adam being covered with skins GOD provided them?
The RCC has a bunch of "historic teaching" too.
"Historic teaching" does not equate to scriptural truth.
Paul tells us where to go for scriptural truth ---- scripture.
And there has not been a single person that has provided any scripture saying that the skins used to cover Adam's nakedness were from a bloody animal sacrifice made by GOD.
Not a single one.
dodge
New member
:dunce:
dodge
New member
What you just said is accept your UN-scriptural opinion which has zero scriptural support. No thanks I will stay with scripture and reject your opinion.
The only thing that is UN-scriptural is what you keep adding to scripture what scripture does not say.
And you still have not provided a single scripture that says the skins GOD covered Adam's nakedness with was from a bloody animal sacrifice that GOD killed and skinned.
You build your theology on the assumptions of men added to scripture.
Shame shame.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Not true.
3. God could have simply said, "Let there be skins to cover the man and woman."
glorydaz
Well-known member
So man could help God in the writing of Scripture?
Man is forever trying to add to what God has provided.
They add their own works to salvation.
They add their own words to Scripture.
They even add their own doctrines which change the truth that's been given.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Why would you add "bloody" or "sacrifice" to embellish your argument?
Is it possible you instinctively recognize the predictive nature of this act of God in foreshadowing the establishment of the sacrificial system and the final bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross? Can you be uncovering the gospel in Genesis as it was preached to Adam and Eve in seed form?
Yes there is a verse that says the skins were from an animal - Gen 3:21KJV
Where the Word does not specifically lead us to believe otherwise, the natural, face-value interpretation is to be accepted. Especially if the passage is historical narrative.
For example: notice that Genesis specifically leads us away from interpreting the word "day" as a long age of time by the use of qualifiers like "morning and evening" and "first day, second day, etc." Also notice the absence of qualifiers surrounding this verse about "coats of skins".
All scripture is true. Even this verse that talks about animal skins. The Lord began teaching that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" even to the recently fallen Adam and Eve. Had He not preached to them, and given them the promise of a Saviour (Gen 3:15KJV), they would have had no opportunity to be saved or to pass hope on to their children. And, as we all know, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." All who are saved are saved by the blood of Christ. (Whether Adam was saved or not, we are not told)
1Ti 2:5KJV, Heb 9:26KJV, Col 1:23KJV, Act 10:43KJV, Psa 45:17KJV
It is you who want to force OUT the clear teaching of Christ's sacrifice to all of fallen mankind. You would have some men climb over the wall of the Kingdom another way rather than enter in at the gate.
The best reason to accept the clear and simple explanation of animal skins is that God chose to show Adam that his best attempts were inadequate but that He, Himself, would provide a covering suited to him in His plan of Redemption as it would unfold. If it were anything else, we would have no clue as to what it would be and this verse, and its eternal meaning, would be lost to us.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Amen.
The Gospel message, in all its power to save, is effected by wrong teaching of this event.
Denial of this first blood atonement, offered through The Eternal Priest, who is also Sovereign Ruler over all His Creation, takes away from the Scriptural revelations of Christ forever bearing His offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.
Nah, that goes away from the very character of God's requirement of blood to atone for sin. If we are going to guess, I ain't going for your lame intellectually dishonest guess. Come on honeygirl! Why would He say "let skins be cuvrun" God is consistent which is why we can deduce the fact that animal blood was shed, death for the first time entered into the creation.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
True.
At the same time, Adam's remission of sin, as well as remission of sin throughout Scripture prior to the Cross, had been a passing over of their sin through the forebearance of God, as He looked at the Son's coming Cross.
In contrast, this side of the Cross, the remission is not a passing over, it is a forgiveness.
The same word but two different meanings - one before the Cross, one after.
This two-fold meaning is put forth both in Romans (the forgiveness the Cross accomplishes for the Body) and in Hebrews (the forgiveness the Cross accomplishes for Believing Israelites).
The Body being comprised of formerly lost Jews and Gentiles this side of Unbelieving Israel's fall and temporary setting aside.
Believing Israelites prior to Unbelieving Israel's fall and temporary setting aside, having been the "remnant according to the election of grace" - those of the nation Israel who, having believed that Jesus was their Prophesied Christ; were sealed by God, after which He concluded the rest in unbelief.
By the way, I do not hold to two gospels, I hold to one gospel; two aspects.
Each aspect comprised of various parts.
Christ as Prophesied: and all that encompasses, being one aspect; and Christ according to the revelation of the Mystery or secret: and all that encompasses - two aspects of the gospel of Christ.
Hebrews being the one aspect (Prophesied aspect), and Romans being the other aspect (Mystery, or Kept Secret aspect.
But anyway, remission of sins before the Cross was a temporary passing over of sins.
Remission of sins after the Cross is a complete forgiveness of sins.
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes, atonement was an annual obligation in the tabernacle/temple ordinances that had to be repeated over and over, to cover the sins of God's people.
But the Atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross, was a once-and-for-all offering of His blood that worked eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:6-14
She is TOO literal in her sense of some passages, and not literal ENOUGH in her sense of other passages.
It's that Hybrid she and hers hold to - their every departure is from that kind of Too Literal Here/Not Literal Enough There.
Thing is, despite their ever finger pointing at all but one another - ever - nevertheless they all easily take great offence to having this pointed out to them.
Even ribbing them is taken TOO literally by them :chuckle:
One cannot reason with such.
The Lord Himself failed with such.
It is...what it is.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Have to disagree here.
Its the same blood, the same sacrifice, the same Redeemer.
The only difference is that OT saints who were saved looked forward to the cross by faith.
We look back in history to the same cross by faith.
Participating in the sacrificial system of the OT was an act of faith by grace which spoke of the one sacrifice for all.
Last edited:
ME embellishing????
Have you not been keeping up with the discussion in this thread?
I am not the one saying the skins used to cover Adam were from a bloody sacrificed animal; others are.
I am the one that has been saying that the story in Genesis says no such thing.
It does not say there was an animal slain.
It does not say there was blood.
It does not say it was a sacrifice.
It does not say it was for forgiveness of sin.
But some here are saying the story includes all those things!
I see the story as written. I believe the story as written. I see grace in the story as it is written. I don't need to embellish the story at all by adding stuff like sacrifice, blood, or forgiveness to see that GOD provided them skins to cover them, period.
No one is denying GOD provided them with skins. The story actually DOES says that.
What the story does not say is that GOD killed an animal, spilled it's blood for forgiveness, and skinned it in order to cover them.
This is a slanderous bald-faced lie.
I can tell by your slanderous statement that you have no idea who believers are around here.
I believe GOD provided everything for eternal life, and that man provided nothing for eternal life.
And GOD did not have to kill and sacrifice an animal for it's blood to accomplish that for Adam.
The story beautifully tells that GOD provided all Adam needed without others embellishing the story with assumptions.
The story is perfect as is.