RSS

About Me

My name is Edward L. Bromfield; Ed or Eddie to most folks; I’m really not a very formal person. I am married to a wonderful woman for 40 years, have two beautiful daughters and two wonderful grandchildren. Both my daughters are married to wonderful husbands, and it pleases me to have lived long enough to see both of them fulfilling their lifelong dreams while walking with the Lord.

I enjoy living in central, eastern Pennsylvania in an old farm house in the Blue Mountains. Among my favorite past-times are enjoying my grandchildren, discussing things about Jesus with folks who enjoy such discussions, and simply enjoying my family and the times we are together.

I attend a Bible believing church. I’d rather not point out its denomination, because it may not necessarily endorse all of what I claim here, although we would agree upon all we are willing to die for. I am a Sunday school teacher and really enjoy sharing Christ in this way.

I am over 65 and getting older, but I’m fine with that; I have learned to appreciate each stage of my life, from youth to the present. Looking back I am surprised with the brevity, disappointed with how much I’ve really learned, amused with how serious I have taken myself, and glad for Jesus in my life. I am a husband, a father, a grandfather and a Christian, and I’m still learning how to to be good at what I am. I like to read, but I appreciate most reading about things that concern my faith. I suppose I am focused, but probably not as retentive as I would like to be.

I take full responsibility for the studies on this website. I don’t seek to be different but some of my studies have a different point of view than that usually found elsewhere on Christian websites. Being different doesn’t make me correct. I may be wrong, so be careful when reading what I conclude. I don’t believe what I say in my studies is wrong; if I did, why would I post it publicly for all to see? I hate being wrong, and it is embarrassing to be corrected, so I try to be careful in what I say, and make an effort to support my understanding with appropriate Scriptures, sometimes pointing out why I believe the popular belief is wrong.

I am also the administrator of other blogs: New Testament Musings; Coffehouse Apologetics; Ten Minutes A Day with Jesus; Things Paul and Luke; and Jesus Prophecies. I have found it easier to take content from here to specific blogs devoted to certain categories rather than try to place all the material here in menus at the top of the page.

..

.
.
What’s a Smoodock?

You already know, but you probably didn’t know it had a name! As nearly as I am able to tell, my uncle Frank coined the name. Anyway, a “smoodock” is something used to get one’s attention. One does it by holding back one’s index finger with one’s thumb. It looks similar to the position one’s fingers take when making the OK sign. The difference is pressure is placed upon the thumb with the index finger. Next, one places one’s hand about two inches from the head of the person whose attention one desires to have. The thumb acts like a trigger and releases the index finger whose constant pressure against the thumb now causes it to come crashing against the head of the one who has not been paying attention.

My uncle Frank used this on me quite often when I was acting up. It was never meant to hurt, but it sure was effective in getting me to listen up.

This blog is not written to hurt anyone who reads it. It is not my intention to cause anyone any pain. However, I believe some of the things I have come to understand in the Bible over the years at times take a different approach to understanding God or what he has said than what I had been taught in traditional circles, or by most modern day authors. It was like a “smoodock” for me. Perhaps what I have to say will affect you in a similar fashion.

God be with you all, and may his word richly bless you.

Eddie (Email address: locator32@gmail.com)

Visit me on FACEBOOK

Advertisements
 

65 responses to “About Me

  1. Nancy

    September 29, 2017 at 15:00

    You mentioned the Sabbath frequently in this blog. I thought you might be from my church, the Seventh-Day Adventist church, by what you were saying. However, I looked up your information and you stated that you teach Sunday school. Since we call it Sabbath school, you are probably going to a Sunday keeping church. Am I right?

     
    • Eddie

      September 29, 2017 at 22:21

      Hi Nancy. Thank you for reading my studies and for your question. I used to keep the Sabbath and what is known as the Jewish Holy Days (Leviticus 23). However, I no longer believe this is necessary. I am not against Sabbath keeping in the sense that Sunday is the ‘real’ Lord’s day. Every day is the Lord’s day. It is just that the church I attend keeps Sunday, and I’m not opposed to keeping that day as a day of worship either. I was never a Seventh Day Adventist, but my brother was. I have met several other Seventh Day Adventists, and I have found each one to be kind, friendly and a joy to be with.

      Anyway, may the Lord bless you and your family in all you do for Him.

       
  2. Gabriel

    February 6, 2017 at 21:41

    Hello Ed. It’s 2.30am U.K time, and I’ve been studying my Bible whilst the winter wind hurls rain at the windows. As a University Theology student, I am thrilled to have found your site. Look forward to engaging with you. God bless, love Gabriel

     
    • Eddie

      February 7, 2017 at 07:24

      Good Morning Gabriel, and blessings to you, too. Thank you for reading my blog and especially for your encouraging remark. I always look forward to discussions with others who love the Lord and his word. Keep in mind we may not always agree, but that’s okay. The Holy Spirit will guide us both in the truth and that’s what’s important. Lord bless you in your studies and in your walk with him. Love to you in Christ, Ed

       
  3. Vladislav Valentinov

    December 10, 2015 at 08:39

    Hello Eddie, sorry I wasn’t able to keep up with the reading of your blog, but I do care about your opinions, and glad you make them available to everyone. Recently I have been listening to “Jewish War” by Josephus, and thought to ask you about anything I should be paying attention from his writings. I’m planning to listen to his “Antiquities of Jews” as well.
    Also, I’ve read the paper yesterday about genetic confirmation of the Khazarian hypothesis of the origin of European Jews (gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.full.pdf+html). Do you have any take on that? Thank you.
    – Vlad

     
    • Eddie

      December 10, 2015 at 21:41

      Greetings, Vlad. It has been awhile since we “talked” — but I have been thinking of you lately.

      Concerning Josephus, I do study his works, but only what I find applicable for background support of my Biblical studies. I believe I have read his ‘books’ 13 through 20 of “Antiquities” at least once and 17 to 20 many times, because they have more to do with Biblical issues I am interested in. I have found some very interesting support for my studies in his works. For example, Antiquities 17.2.4 seems to point to what “might” have occurred after Jesus’ birth and the shepherds spread the news about the new born Messiah. The timeline fits very well with Augustus’ demand for an empire-wide census and Herod’s local demand for David’s family to register at Bethlehem/Jerusalem (to keep an eye on Messianic hopefuls). I have found a number of links from Josephus to the New Testament. Of course, some interpretation is needed, because Josephus was not a fan, so what was written would be hidden.

      Some Biblical critics see a similarity between some of what Josephus writes and what Luke says in his Gospel and in Acts. They, therefore, conclude that Luke and Acts must have been written late in the century and copied from Josephus. The problem is they cannot reasonably put a copy of Josephus’ works in Luke’s hands, but I am able, through reasonable argument, to put copies of Luke’s Gospel and Acts into Josephus’ hands, thus accounting for at least some of the similarity between him and Luke.

      Concerning the Khazarian hupothesis, your link is the first I’ve ever heard of this study. The writing is pretty much above my comprehension. I’ve read three pages and part of the fourth, and I know I will have to read it several times before it begins to makes sense to me. I don’t know if I’ll have an opinion one way or another after I’m done. Is there a special interest you have with this study?

      Sorry I can’t be of more help on this at present, but I’ll pray about it and perhaps God will guide me to see something of interest to you that I can contribute.

      Lord bless you, Vlad, and don’t give it a thought about not reading my blog. God has you doing something for him that requires your time. We shall have to settle for times like this to keep in touch.

      Eddie

       
  4. Manasseh

    August 11, 2014 at 06:52

    Shalom!
    I visited your web site which is enlightening me about 70 Weeks PROPHECY.
    I am willing to share about it deeply.
    Please reply me
    Thank you,
    Manasseh, Evangelist and Astronomer.
    abrahamissacyacob@gmail.com
    http://www.yhwhscalendarformula49.com

     
    • Eddie

      August 11, 2014 at 11:56

      Shalom Manasseh! Thank you for reading my blog and taking the time to want to comment. Do you wish to carry on a discussion here, on my blog or through email? My email address is locator32@gmail.com. I’m looking forward to discussing this subject with you however you like. Lord bless you.

       
  5. Purnimodo

    December 13, 2012 at 04:28

    Lovely blog! Came here through Robert-preneur! I think I might be spending a bit too much time here reading ;)

     
  6. Ted Torreson

    November 27, 2012 at 11:58

    Eddie, Thanks for visiting my blog and liking my post, “Please Don’t Teach Your Children About Santa Claus”. Great blog you’ve got here. Keep it up.

    Blessings,

    Ted

     
    • Eddie

      November 27, 2012 at 12:33

      Pastor Ted, thank you for stopping by and for your kind encouragement. I appreciate that very much.

      Lord bless you and your efforts in raising up a church in your community,

      Eddie

       
  7. Vlad

    July 3, 2012 at 03:54

    Hello Ed. Partially because of you I made my own blog (http://valentinovvlad.wordpress.com/). I’m going to post material there to influence Russian speaking Christians from theological, scientific and moral point of views. I do this because socialistic block of the formal USSR didn’t allow so much information to pass to people there, and as a result most Christians today are deprived of basics. I mean, they believe, but often they don’t know in what.
    You wouldn’t be able to read my blog (it’s in Russian), I just wanted to say thank you. So… here it is… Thank you.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      July 3, 2012 at 09:51

      Vlad, I am so honored in knowing you are doing this in part because of our discussions. Thank you for telling me this. Your blog may begin slowly, but don’t get discouraged if it does. God is great and will build up your audience. On the other hand, you may be a great success from the beginning–who can tell what God will do? Whatever takes place let him be the One who inspires your writing; let him be the One who moves your heart. I think what you are doing is a wonderful God-honoring labor. May the Lord bless you in it all.

      Eddie

       
  8. Vlad

    May 4, 2012 at 00:47

    Hello Eddie. I’d like to ask your opinion on the state of our ‘mind’ after the death of our bodies. I came to preterism position and believe that we live when Jesus, and not Adam, is a prince of this world, and that His Kingdom (where we are His subjects) is established.
    Here is what I’m still unsure about (and the literature about is so difficult to find): people before Jesus would fall asleep (die), but after Jesus they were resurrected (spiritualy). We, on the other hand, don’t fall asleep, but are taken to God right after the death of our bodies. And that is how we will always be. I can’t find anything in the Bible about the part of our life where we are not in our natural body anymore.
    I hope you understand what I’m trying to figure out.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      May 4, 2012 at 07:50

      Hi Vlad, and I am so glad to hear from you. Often I would think of you and wonder how things are with you.

      I think I understand your question. You will find your answer in 2Corinthians 5:1-8. Jesus also spoke of this in parable in Matthew 22:1-14. John also spoke of it in John 3:1-2. There may be other places, but these are what I remember at present.

      Lord bless you Vlad,

      Eddie

       
      • Vlad

        May 4, 2012 at 23:26

        2Corinthians5:1-8 and 1John3:1-2 are good sources of information about afterlife state, but not as informative as I would like it to be. Oh, well… I guess the rest I’ll know later.
        Did OT stated anything like it? What people before Jesus had their hope for? I understand they were waiting for new David/Solomon king, they wanted Israel to be the Greatest Kingdom on Earth, and as many chirtians today, didn’t realize that the Kingdom of God isn’t material thing. But what they were hoping for after death?
        I don’t think Matthew22:1-14 is about life after death but about New Testament Order of things which happened after Jesus’ victory.
        Anyway… one more thing… People ask me sometimes if we will remain our conscience/memories/knowledge after death, when we are in our new “house not made with hands”. I think our identity will be preserved, but it is logical assumption and nor Scriptural. Do we have anything in the Scripture to support my assumption?
        Thank you Eddie for being eager to answer my questions. I appreciate it a lot. All is good with me. I moved to New Jersey, can’t find church but acquiring new friends among neighbors.

         
        • Ed Bromfield

          May 5, 2012 at 07:53

          Greetings Vlad! It is my pleasure to hear from you again and fellowship in the word of God with you.
          Concerning our afterlife, I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to put it all into words that any man could properly understand. Paul says in 2Corinthians 12:4 that he knew a man (I presume it is John concerning the book of Revelation—but most folks believe Paul is speaking of himself) who was caught up to paradise and heard words that he could not adequately put into words. In other words, I believe Paul is saying this person who was caught up to paradise understood what he saw and heard, but found our language ill equipped to utter whatever he saw and heard. So it is for us who try to imagine what life will be like with God. There is enough understanding to cause us to reach out in hope, but we fail to be able to adequately express even what we see in our own hearts.

          Paul says in Philippians 3:8-10 that he counts everything in this life unworthy to be compared with what he conceives what life will be like when we are conformed to Jesus. Because of this he continues to reach out to apprehend that which has taken hold of him, hoping to know Christ in his death and resurrection, and in doing such he, himself, is conformed little by little to be like Jesus (cp. Philippians 3:21). Again in 2Corinthians 3:18 Paul speaks of our being changed more and more into someone like Christ, as we seek to know him. I believe this is to be understood in line with Philippians 3:3-10 in that as we act like Christ, enduring the suffering that that brings us from the world, and practice the fruits of the Spirit among those who hate us, we begin to look through a glass darkly, knowing him in his death (what the world did to him) and in his resurrection (knowing what the Father did for him) and in this way we can perceive the work of God in us, recreating us to conform to the mold of Christ.

          Will we be recognized, i.e. will we maintain our identity? Yes, I believe we shall. Jesus was known to the disciples after his resurrection, although, at times he had to do something familiar or to speak their name etc. How did the Apostles know that it was Moses and Elijah who spoke with Jesus in the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:3)? Many things are not fully known at this time, but we are confident that we will be more than satisfied with what God does for us. Personally, I think there aren’t words in any of men’s languages to describe it adequately for us today. How would you describe a new color which no man had ever seen before? Are there words to describe such a thing? Much is subjective. That is, as we purposefully act like Christ, we begin to understand what we will be like, because in acting like him we become like him (cp. 2Corinthians 3:18 and 1John 3:2). So, the more we act like him in this world, the more we are able to “see” or understand what we shall appear to be beyond this life.

           
  9. superlew

    November 18, 2011 at 11:16

    Thanks for the thumbs up, Mr. Bromfield!

    americanparser.wordpress.com

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      November 18, 2011 at 21:07

      It was my pleasure. I liked what I read. You are a very clear thinker, and you made me want to read more. Lord bless you,

      Eddie

       
  10. Vlad

    November 13, 2011 at 15:44

    Hello Ed! I have a question:
    I understand that Kingdom of Jesus was established at about 70AD. When Jesus said to have ‘eucharist’ in remembrance of Him till He comes, it doesn’t apply to us, living 2000 years later. It is not to say that we don’t have to do it at all. As I researched this topic I realized that we do have to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance, thanksgiving and Gospel proclamation to others. Now… due to some circumstances I don’t attend any church for a year now; probably nothing will change for another year or so. Starting today I introduced ‘eucharist’ into my family; my wife and I had a part in it, while my kids were witnessing it after receiving explanation for this event (they didn’t take part in it as they aren’t baptized yet, they are too small to have conscious decision in this regard). I never was taught what to do and how to do it. So my question is, if you had a situation similar to mine, how would you do it, how often would you do it, what wine and bread would you choose, how much would you drink and eat of it?
    Thank you.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      November 13, 2011 at 20:23

      Hey Vlad, it is good to hear from you again. I was just thinking of you the other day and hoping all was well with you and your family.

      The example Jesus gave us is that all drank from the same cup, so it was just a sip. It is not meant to satisfy thirst or hunger. It was a matter of partaking in order to remember. The same is true with the bread. If I were to do this at home, I would probably choose a red wine unless someone else objected. It is supposed to symbolize the blood of Jesus and blood is red! :-)

      As for bread, the bread Jesus and the disciples ate together was unleavened. I would use a matzo. They can be purchased at a grocery store easy enough. However, I have eaten a piece of regular white bread. I don’t think it matters all that much, but the symbol is unleavened bread, which symbolizes sinlessness. Leaven is usually used in Scripture to signify sin. Jesus was sinless, so this would be my first choice. Nevertheless, as I said I have partaken with brethren who used regular bread and grape juice.

      Both the bread and the wine is a very small portion. The Apostles all would have broken a piece off the bread handed them by Jesus and passed it on (the wine, same thing, drinking from the same cup or glass). It was supposed to symbolize we are one Body of Christ.

      I think it is wonderful that you are doing this with your family, but I hope you haven’t had trouble with fitting into a church. I hope your reason for not attending has to do with work or some other circumstance rather than trouble with brethren. That is always a sad thing. — How often, we are not told. I have worshiped with churches that did it every week and could do it daily if you attended daily. I have worshiped with some who did it about once a month. I have also done it once a year–during the Passover season. Every church has its reason for doing it as they do, and I cannot fault any. The point is that you do it as often as you think it should be done–what is most meaningful for you and your family? I would go with that. It should be a very meaningful practice that brings Jesus and what he has done for us to mind.

      Hope this helps, Lord bless you.

      Eddie

       
      • Vlad

        November 13, 2011 at 21:43

        Thank you Eddie, it does help.
        You don’t have to keep this on your blog but here are some answers to questions you asked:
        • Yes, everything is wonderful in my family, the reason I haven’t been able to visit your blog is college I decided to go trough in order to get my BS degree (in architectural technology). It kept me unusually busy this semester.
        • The reason I stopped attending church is a sad one. After going to church (Russian church in Brooklyn, NY) for 4 years I realized that nothing was fulfilling my desire of knowledge. But it wasn’t my intention to be passive listener in the first place, I wanted to serve my brethren. I was helping in quire, Sunday school, and other productions (this is a fun video we did: youtube.com/watch?v=D5z7jK_c8vM, where we substituted roles of musicians and singers, I was cameraman, director and producer). Unfortunately, I realized that it wasn’t in demand. After having a flew for two weeks, when nobody from the church called us, we decided not to go there anymore. It was almost year ago, still no one called. But I must say that it wasn’t totally their fault: New York (especially for immigrants) is crazy place which creates an environment of isolation and such a high pace that people have no time on interactions. Well… anyway… I’m moving to New Jersey in two month. I hope we will be blessed to find community of christians to have meaningful relations with.

         
        • Ed Bromfield

          November 13, 2011 at 22:53

          I watched about 6 of your you tube videos. I think you have a wonderful talent. Each one held my interest and all were very enjoyable. When I have time this week, I hope to view them all. I especially liked “Fall 2011”. Your worship video was beautiful–I didn’t have to understand the words.

          I’m glad all is well with your family. It is sad about the Russian (Orthodox ?) Church. I used to be Roman Catholic. I can still appreciate the traditional ceremony. It is all very meaningful, but if you are looking to be more active I have found evangelical churches to be helpful. Sometimes, however, they can be so “helpful” that one no longer has time for family and solitude! Somewhere there is a balance. :-)

          I hope New Jersey is a welcome place for you, and that you find a good church fellowship. I’ll be praying for you in this regard.

          Lord bless,

          Eddie

           
  11. Vlad

    June 11, 2011 at 11:17

    Off the record:
    I didn’t mean for you to write anything about “surly” part. I just think it would be great to see the issue explained, and not compared to any other.

     
  12. Vlad

    June 11, 2011 at 01:47

    I didn’t like his “tone of voice” either; I didn’t even finish reading his article. But to me, for now, “surly” part makes sense. Your understanding is difficult to grasp, so I’ll try harder to get it, I need time for my brain to rewire itself. By the way, it would be awesome if you decide to write an article about it it your blog.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 11, 2011 at 08:41

      Well, as I said above, the word “surely” isn’t in the Hebrew. It is a translator’s word used to express his own interpretation of the text. I’m sorry that I haven’t written clearly enough, but it is best I can do. As for writing on this subject in my own blog, maybe I will later but not in the near future. If I do, I will not reference his website, because he didn’t come here challenging me and seeking to preach his opinions on my blog. As far as I can see, he is just a brother who needs to grow in understanding of God’s word. He certainly doesn’t need me to publicly embarrass him. So, if I ever write about this subject matter, it will be in such a way that no one would be able to see that I wish to challenge him. It will simply be similar subject matter approached in a different manner.

       
  13. Vlad

    June 10, 2011 at 18:03

    I just found another variable to the story. It is a phrase “surly”. Basically Adam and Eve were created mortal but with a chance to eat the fruit of life. But they got to another tree faster and by disobeying God’s command they then lost that chance to live forever and continued dying. http://7times.org/newsletter/adamandeve.shtml

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 10, 2011 at 21:27

      I believe Adam and Eve were not immortal, but neither were they mortal in the sense they aged and decayed like the young do as they move into middle age and finally to old age. The Scriptures conclude that Adam’s rebellion brought death into his species (Romans 5). If ‘death’ was brought in, it did not exist prior to Adam’s bringing it in through rebellion—at least it didn’t exist in the realm of mankind.

      I read what the gentleman had to say on his website, and I don’t agree with many of his conclusions. For example, in the paragraph entitled “Mortal or Immortal?” he says:

      “…they were created to live within a certain range of years and as they lived, they would do as all of us do… they would get older and eventually die.”

      He uses absolutely no authority to come to this conclusion. He doesn’t support what he says with Scripture. We all have imaginations, and left to ourselves, we can conclude many different things. The Scriptures conclude that death which includes aging, wearing down etc., was not a product introduced into the human race by God but by Adam. Adam and Eve existed in the state in which they were in temporarily, until they decided whether or not God was trustworthy. The “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” represented an independent path apart from God—mankind deciding for themselves how to live. The “Tree of Life” represented a path in which man and God walked together. It was a path of trust and a path where man yielded to God’s direction.

      Later the gentleman tries to make a point about Adam’s “eventually” and “surely” dying. The fact of the matter is, however, the word “surely” isn’t in the Hebrew. The word for “death” is used twice and is a Hebraism meaning “in dying you shall die.” In other words, they would age, and die sooner or later. If death didn’t come by sickness, accident or murder, they would die of old age.

      In the “Failsafe” section of his website, he seems to be saying God is literally reproducing sons and daughters i.e. we would eventually be members of the God-kind. Perhaps I have misunderstood his meaning, but we are not, nor shall we ever be divine. We shall participate in divine nature as Peter concludes in his letter, but we are not becoming God. We are his family by adoption, not by reproduction or creation.

      Later in the “Immortal Sinners” section of his study he seems to indicate that there is a difference in our knowledge of “good and evil” and God’s. I’ll admit that some of us do call ‘good’ evil and ‘evil” good, but the Scriptures conclude we really do know what we are doing, and by seeking to deceive others we eventually begin to believe our own lies. However, basically we know what is good and evil, just as God knows. The only problem I see is that we are unable to always choose the good and/or cause good to come out of evil circumstances. God knows good and evil and is able to rule the outcome. For example, from the beginning it was God’s will for man to succeed, trusting and walking with God. The problem is: man rebelled and didn’t want to obey God, but man’s will cannot prevent the will of God from occurring (viz. man’s rebellion + Jesus’ sacrifice = God’s will for mankind). Man is unable to do that. It is a God ‘thing’. :-)

      A flag went up as I read this gentleman’s website and came to: “…those who were teaching me and trying to lead me into their fold…” under the “Man’s Great Potential” section of his study. He seems to have a basic distrust for those who don’t believe as he does and at least toyed with the proposition that others were trying to deceive him purposely. I don’t know him or the circumstance that have led him to this possible conclusion, but I hesitate to doubt the sincerity of anyone that Scripture calls the Bride of Christ, merely because I disagree with them, or they disagree with me. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the gentleman whose study you found at this website, but I do believe many of the things he has to say are not supported in Scripture. More than that, I cannot say.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  14. Vlad

    June 10, 2011 at 17:35

    Thank you Eddie, but I can’t wrap my mind around it. I would agree with you but when I look at the passages that describe “Adam taken from the earth”, “Eve from the flesh”, “male and female”, “be fruitful and multiply”, “fruits and herbs for food” and some more, I see Adam and Eve as physical entities. After eating the fruit I see them understanding specific concept of being naked; this understanding might be a property of the mind (just like logic, emotions, sorrow, joy, which can be eliminated by chemical or physical intervention). God told (presumably to other angelic beings) that they’ve become like them. So they gained some new mental capacity (by rebellion), loosing immortality (presumably spiritual) as a result. I have a problem with it as well as it doesn’t fit in with my other concepts. There are so much to balance… I think it isn’t time for me yet.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 10, 2011 at 21:27

      Hi Vlad. Well, each of us must decide for ourselves what seems to be the clear truth.

      When the LORD visited Abraham with two angels, they ate the food Abraham prepared for them, even though they were not physical beings. The resurrected Jesus, after he walked through a door, was able to be handled by the men in the room, and he ate fish. There are many things that aren’t crystal clear in the Scriptures, but there is enough there to help us see what may have occurred. Certainly, there is enough there to show us many things that cannot be true. Nevertheless, the important things are very clear. We don’t need to ‘guess’ about what Jesus did at the cross or about our salvation. In what state Adam and Eve existed prior to their rebellion is not all that important a matter, which is why very little is said about it.

      In my opinion the Scripture 2Corinthians 5:1-4 is key to understanding in what way Adam and Eve were naked. We may speculate about it, of course, but I don’t believe it is logically sound to conclude Adam and Eve didn’t realize they had no clothes. A mere child know whether or not he has clothes on. After their rebellion, God clothed them in ‘skin’ (Genesis 3:21). It is believed by most that God clothed their naked bodies with animal skins, but this is not what the Scriptures say. Job, speaking to the LORD says that he (God) clothed him with skin and flesh (Job 10:11). If we permit our imagination to define the word of God for us, then we will take to ourselves all sorts of teaching. However, if we allow God to define what he says, he will often make it pretty clear. For me, it is clear that Adam and Eve had no physical bodies before the rebellion. God later clothed them with skin (physical bodies) and in doing so their lives took on great physical limitations. They would eventually die (physically) and would no longer be able to participate in this world as they were able to do before dying.

      I admit my understanding isn’t orthodox, but even if it is not totally correct, I think it must be closer to the truth than the orthodox viewpoint, simply because it (at least for me) answers more questions about what happened. The Scriptures seem to support it—or at least as much as I can see. :-)

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  15. Vlad

    June 10, 2011 at 13:05

    I have another dilemma I can not solve.
    Did God create Adam and Eve immortal? Spiritually or bodily?
    How did they die when they ate first fruit? Spiritually or bodily?
    In which way they would live forever if they have eaten second fruit? Spiritually or bodily?

    Example: They weren’t created bodily nor spiritually immortal. After eating “knowledge” fruit they gained spiritual life and became like God (1Jn3:2), but still bodily mortal. If they have eaten “life” fruit they would get eternal body, but that would contradict God’s will for people to get “life” from Him (rather than by their own strive).

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 10, 2011 at 14:14

      Hi Vlad, I will offer my opinion—based upon the Scriptures.

      The only thing that works for me when considering Eden before the rebellion is that Adam and Eve had no physical bodies. In this way they were naked (Genesis 3:7). When we compare this with what Paul says in 2Corinthians 5:1-4 we see that we have an eternal body waiting for us in heaven when we die (when this tabernacle is dissolved). Paul mentions that he has a desire to be out of this body, not to be “naked” before the Lord, but to be clothed with his eternal body. This seems to be the sense of what took place in Eden. When Adam and Eve were created, they were “naked” and had no bodies at all. They didn’t realize this until they ate the forbidden fruit.

      Now, to reply specifically to your questions: God didn’t create Adam and Eve immortal spiritually or physically, but they had (as Scripture testifies we have) immortal bodies waiting to cloth them—if they ate of the Tree of Life (Jesus). Our spirits live as long as our bodies live. Once our bodies die, our spirits have no means of survival and return to God who gave them (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

      When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they died physically in that God clothed them with mortal bodies. They also died spiritually to God. 1Corinthians 2 speaks about two spirits, the human spirit (which helps us to understand human matters such as science, politics, commercialism etc.) and the gift of the Holy Spirit that gives believers the ability to understand spiritual truth, and through it we are able to communicate with God. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they severed contact with God. This contact is restored in Christ when we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. So, in Christ we are made alive in the Spirit. Later, we shall receive our eternal bodies kept in heaven for us upon our death here.

      Had Adam and Eve eaten of the Tree of Live (Jesus), they would have given evidence of their willingness to submit to God and would have been given their spirit bodies and lived forever. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge expressed rebellion. They wanted to know truth without the help of God. They didn’t trust him. When they ate of this fruit, it didn’t give them the kind of knowledge that was like God’s, except that they knew good and evil. God knows good and evil, but he can bring out the good no matter how much evil is present. Mankind is unable to separate the good from the evil and live properly thereby. He was never given authority over good and evil, only over the physical things God had created. Therefore, his knowledge of ‘good AND evil’ is not beneficial.

      Eating of the Tree of Life has to do with receiving life from God, through submission to him in Christ. God wanted mankind to trust him—he still does. Nothing has changed as far as God is concerned. We have sinned, but he intends to bring about his original purpose no matter what the cost to him (viz. the cross). He is willing to pay the price to see his original plan brought to fruition.

      I hope this helps. Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  16. Vlad

    June 10, 2011 at 01:21

    Thank you. So, as I understand, if you would translate Luke11:2 you’d have “…let Your Kingdom prevail” instead of “…let Your Kingdom come. And 11:20 states that the battle of the Kingdom starts from the moment Jesus started His ministry. Do you think that His Kingdom and so called millennium Kingdom are the same thing? If so, do we live in the period before or after the battle of Gog&Magog? I suppose that the battle of Gog&Magog passed around 70AD and expression of last two chapters of Rev simply expresses the end of each human individual. Each one of us (to be more specific, our spirit), after death meets eternity.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 10, 2011 at 11:22

      Thank you. So, as I understand, if you would translate Luke11:2 you’d have “…let Your Kingdom prevail” instead of “…let Your Kingdom come.

      I am hesitant to change the wording of Scripture. The Greek word has the meaning of “coming” and is so translated in most of the places where it is used in the NT. Yes, we want God’s Kingdom to “prevail” but each new submission to God is a new appearance of the Kingdom. It is not like we “conquer” anyone but others willingly submit to God—so there is a new and additional “appearance” or “coming” of the Kingdom.

      And 11:20 states that the battle of the Kingdom starts from the moment Jesus started His ministry.

      Yes, Jesus is the King of the Kingdom of God. His appearance gave the Kingdom its first representation on earth.

      Do you think that His Kingdom and so called millennium Kingdom are the same thing? If so, do we live in the period before or after the battle of Gog&Magog? I suppose that the battle of Gog&Magog passed around 70AD and expression of last two chapters of Rev simply expresses the end of each human individual. Each one of us (to be more specific, our spirit), after death meets eternity.

      I believe the Millennial Kingdom of God is greatly misunderstood by folks today. The Millennium does not represent a literal 1000 years but an indefinite period of time while Christ “appears” to be away. It is the same as the period of time in which we live.

      The battle of Gog and Magog has yet to occur. It occurs “after” the so-called Millennial period is over. Satan / Adam who was put into prison (death) at the beginning of the Millennium (approx. 70 AD) is to be released (cp. Revelation 20:1-3 and Revelation 20:7). The final chapters of Revelation have yet to be fulfilled in my opinion. I’ve tried to fit them into the present, but I cannot honestly do so.

       
  17. Vlad

    June 9, 2011 at 13:43

    I got a question again that I’m not sure how to answer:
    In luke11:2 we read “Thy kingdom come”. In Luke11:20 we read “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” So what exactly 11:2 implies, “let Your Kingdom come” or “Your Kingdom came”?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 9, 2011 at 19:29

      Hi Vlad. The Kingdom of God concerns all that he rules. He doesn’t rule this evil world; rather he makes war against it. The Jews thought the Kingdom of God was a kingdom in the midst of other kingdoms and from God’s kingdom Messiah would rule. This is partially true, but the error is in the fact they looked for a kingdom similar to those of this world.

      We are told in Luke 11:2 to pray for the rule of God or the Kingdom of God to increase. That is, for the Gospel to be believed and that men would submit their lives to Jesus. This is something that is continually taking place. The Gospel is God’s method of warfare. As people receive Jesus and submit their lives to God, the world loses those people—i.e. they no longer live according to its ways, but rather the ways of God.

      In Luke 11:20 Jesus was replying to the Jewish authorities’ accusation that he cast out demons by Beelzebub. The Jewish argument was illogical. If the enemy was losing control over the lives of the people he ruled and tormented, then the evidence points to the fact that the Kingdom of God was beginning to destroy the realm of the enemy. Jesus (the Messiah) is the King of the Kingdom of God. This being so, the war against evil had begun and his casting out demons is the evidence of it. We need to pray for this Kingdom to continue to defeat the world, because God has willed not to make war all by himself, but to work through us. We need to pray for the success of the coming Kingdom, and we need to pray for God to call men and women into the fields to preach the Gospel etc., in order that the Kingdom of God would advance.

      Hope this helps. Blessing to you and your family,

      Eddie

       
  18. Vladislav

    March 22, 2011 at 09:54

    It is good explanation. Thank you.
    The site I was referring to is http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/voiceOfReason/archives.php They post all their archived programs there. If I have nothing else to listen to, or read, then I go there and download some to listen on the road. I started listening to them when I heard their explanations about demons which similar as yours (as well as some other points). I guess for these reasons they are not popular :o)
    You don’t have to post this reply.

     
  19. Vladislav

    March 22, 2011 at 00:22

    Some time ago we were talking about fallen angels issue (when we discussed Adam-satan hypothesis). From time to time I’m downloading radio broadcast from “The Voice of Reason” (Genesis Communication Network) and herd them proposing that fallen angels from Jud1:6 are Adam and Eve.I think it makes sense. What do you think?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 22, 2011 at 09:18

      Greetings Vlad,

      In my opinion, ‘the angels that kept not their first estate’ were men from the righteous line who began to mix with the line of Cain. There seems to have bee a general and universal rebellion and only Noah had been considered still righteous. Noah’s father was killed in the flood, or at least this is the implication of the text. There is a lot we don’t know about that age, so it is difficult to make a lot of definitive judgments.

      I went onto The Voice of Reason website but couldn’t find the reference you were speaking about so I cannot offer a specific opinion about what he is saying. Sorry I cannot be more informative.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  20. Vladislav

    March 12, 2011 at 01:34

    Yes, I understand this. What I can’t see are the promises in the Scripture. I see prophesies of Messiah but anyone living back than might think: “So what, why should I care, I’ll die anyway”? I suspect that they knew about potential for human body to live forever and that coming Messiah would make it happen. But where the Scripture point this out and promises resurrection?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 12, 2011 at 10:28

      Jesus told the Sadducees that they should have been able to pick up on the implications of the resurrection in Genesis where God says to Moses that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The fathers were long dead, but God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Therefore, it is implied that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be resurrected. Job said that he knew his Redeemer lived even in his day, but long after he was dead and buried, he would see God out of his flesh (Job 19:24-25). See also what he says in Job 14:14-15. The teaching is there and it was expected that God’s people would search it out. It is to God’s glory to hide a matter, but it to man’s honor to seek the matter out (Proverbs 25:2).

      Lord bless, my friend,

      Ed

       
  21. Vladislav

    March 11, 2011 at 11:55

    Hi again, I’ve got another problem I can’t figure out. I hope (pretty much confident) you could help me.
    We, the people, living after New Testament was given to us has good sense of what to expect in the future (after we die our spirit goes to God, after spirit is return to our bodies we will live again forever in new uncorrupted bodies). But how people of Old Testament times were comforted, did they have promises which we have? I may miss something reading Old Testament but surly the promises we have today weren’t vivid before.
    Thank you brother Ed.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      March 11, 2011 at 20:59

      Greetings Vald, and welcome.

      God’s will for mankind has never changed since creation. After Adam rebelled, we had to be brought back to God, but God’s desire for us has remained the same throughout the ages. In the fullness of time Christ arrived and saved us. The gift of his sacrifice stretches from Eden to the very end of our civilization (whenever that may be). Romans chapter 5 reveals to us that we were God’s enemies when he saved us, and Jesus’ sacrifice far outweighs the damage Adam did when he led mankind away from God. So, those living under the Old Testament times benefit from Christ’s sacrifice, but they couldn’t participate–that is receive their reward–until after his death and resurrection. The ending verses of Matthew 27 show that a resurrection took place sometime during the 1st century before the destruction of Jerusalem. Most folks believe it occurred immediately after Jesus’ resurrection. I don’t. I think it took place much later and just before Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem under Felix and Festus (the Roman governors. In my opinion, this is when the Old Testament people began to receive their reward–plus the New Testament people like Stephen and James who were martyred for their faith. Old and New benefited together. Anyway that is how I see it in the Scriptures. In any case, we can trust the Lord to be more than fair and very gracious to us, no matter when we happened to live. I hope this answers your question, but if not, don’t hesitate to say so.

      Lord bless,

      (brother) Ed :-)

       
  22. Vlad

    February 21, 2011 at 12:40

    Thank you for your answers, I really appreciate it. I’d like to clarify thing:
    *Baptism is a public testimony of what has already occurred within.*
    – I realize this. The question is, who can perform act of baptism if there are no pastor around? I presume that some one else must be present. Can a person, who is not a pastor, do it?

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      February 21, 2011 at 12:54

      I presume, because thousands were baptized in a single day on several occasions in Scripture, that someone other than the apostles/pastors were helping out. I would think a public testimony can be made with the benefit of anyone. The Scriptures are not specific, so if there is no prescription we can do whatever we believe honors God. I think he left the interpretation up to us.

      Lord Bless.

       
  23. Vlad

    February 21, 2011 at 02:17

    I’ve got another question, if I may.
    Imagine my situation. I live in isolation from pastors, teachers and such people. Many years ago I was baptized. I’m quite strong in my educated determination to be a Christian and can survive alone. On the other hand, many people around me, who may potentially be born again, have no means to be baptized. What can they do? What suggestion I can offer to them if asked? Who can baptize them?
    Another question about 1Cor11:24-26. On one hand, that was a commandment (like baptism) to witness power of body and blood of Jesus as His sacrifice and a new testament. I realize that the way it was done before isn’t as we do today in most churches. Today we kind of like copying catholic tradition and I suspect we don’t do it wright. How do you think it should be done, who can do it? Can it be done in a family setting (mother and father, excluding both kids as they weren’t baptized yet, they too young)? On the other hand, if in 1Cor11:26 “till He comes” means His coming as in Mat24:30 then what now? Do we continue, on what grounds?
    Since I started about alcoholic beverages let me ask your opinion. Every time I’m asked by Christians why I don’t drink alcohol I say that according to Lev10:9 priests couldn’t drink going into the temple (tabernacle). We are priests in Christ and our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit which makes it double-logical to conclude that Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol. The question is why then Jesus did? I think because He wasn’t what we are. My thoughts are mixed on this topic. Can you help me?
    Thank you.

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      February 21, 2011 at 11:14

      Greetings Vlad,

      I’ve got another question, if I may.

      You and your questions are always welcome here. :-)

      Imagine my situation. I live in isolation from pastors, teachers and such people. Many years ago I was baptized. I’m quite strong in my educated determination to be a Christian and can survive alone. On the other hand, many people around me, who may potentially be born again, have no means to be baptized. What can they do? What suggestion I can offer to them if asked? Who can baptize them?

      Cornelius, his family and friends were accepted by God **without** baptism. Peter then asked if water could be refused anyone whom God had accepted. Baptism is a public testimony of what has already occurred within. It can be done with sprinkling. I presume, since people are alive they have some water. If there is only enough to survive, then the Spirit will lead them to make a public testimony in another manner. Baptism has no power of and by itself. It is what the act or ceremony represents that has significance.

      Another question about 1Cor11:24-26… I realize that the way it was done before isn’t as we do today in most churches. Today we kind of like copying catholic tradition and I suspect we don’t do it wright. How do you think it should be done, who can do it?

      The purpose of the ceremony is to remember Jesus. If we did it exactly as it was done on the Passover day in the 1st century, the bread and cup would be passed around at least three times. This was done once a year, but the apostles seemed to perform the ceremony of “remembering Jesus” as often as they came together to break bread. In the beginning a meal was also taken, as Jesus did with the apostles, but Paul shows us that only the partaking of the bread and wine (fruit of the vine) are important. I don’t believe one can say “THIS is how it should be done.” The reason being is, it had been modified by the apostles on at least two occasions, according to the NT. So, if one is partaking of the bread and the wine/juice (fruit of the vine) together with the purpose of remembering Jesus and what he has done, then it is done properly.

      Can it be done in a family setting (mother and father, excluding both kids as they weren’t baptized yet, they too young)? On the other hand, if in 1Cor11:26 “till He comes” means His coming as in Mat24:30 then what now? Do we continue, on what grounds?

      I believe it can be done in a family gathering even if one has friends in the Lord as guests. I would not exclude children. I believe the ceremony is an excellent way to teach children about the Lord and what he has done. Some denominations may frown upon children partaking publicly, but within the family setting, I don’t see anything wrong with children partaking of the Lord’s Supper. We are told in the Scriptures to bring up a child in the way he should go. If we teach our children the value of remembering what the Lord has done for them, I think we are fulfilling the spirit of the Scriptures.

      Concerning Matthew 24:30, I believe the spirit of Jesus’ request to remember him is that we do this until his second coming to this earth. If we are not careful, it would be easy to forget that Jesus is ruling this world. Too much evil is occurring around us for us to naturally assume Jesus is in control. We are physical beings and need a physical ceremony to help us remember the spiritual matters are important. We cannot always see the work of the Spirit, but remembering Jesus helps us to keep things in focus.

      Since I started about alcoholic beverages let me ask your opinion. Every time I’m asked by Christians why I don’t drink alcohol I say that according to Lev10:9 priests couldn’t drink going into the temple (tabernacle). We are priests in Christ and our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit which makes it double-logical to conclude that Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol. The question is why then Jesus did? I think because He wasn’t what we are. My thoughts are mixed on this topic. Can you help me?

      There are many folks who believe Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol, and can point to Scripture to show it shouldn’t be done. Still there are others who can also point to Scripture to show it is permissible as long as one does not overindulge. I worship with a denomination that does not drink alcohol as a rule. Some do, but in the beginning of the denomination the rule was enforced. Ordinarily, I don’t drink. I haven’t had a beer in years. However, from time to time, at a family gathering I might have a beer with my brothers and brothers-in-law. Some of them will overindulge on such occasions, but if I have a beer with them, I noticed when I change to coffee, so will they. So the “witness” is how one uses it, in my opinion.

      As far as priests not using alcohol is concerned, I believe that was in respect of performing their duties. The incident concerning Nadab and Abihu may have been the result of negligence due to overindulging in alcohol. The Scriptures are “silent,” but there is a Jewish tradition that claims it was due to overindulging in wine that the fire went out, and Aaron’s sons lit it by themselves to cover up their negligence, hence the reason for Leviticus 10:9. The “going into the Tabernacle…” had to do with the performance of their specific duties. If no wine was ever taken by any priest, they couldn’t partake properly of the Passover which demands the passing of the bread and the wine. Grapes were harvested in the fall. There was no means back then to preserve the fruit of the vine without it fermenting. Passover was in the spring. The fruit of the vine by that time would have to have been wine.

      I hope this satisfies your inquiries, but if it does not, or if you have other questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  24. Vlad

    February 6, 2011 at 17:43

    Eddie, hello again. I have a problem understanding Acts19:11-12. It looks quite superstitious to me, like catholic’s tears from statues and shroud of turin. It doesn’t fit God’s character,- He doesn’t act like this now (as far as I know). He doesn’t make people believe in Him by means of unnatural appeal.
    God did miracles like this in Old Testament times (for instance when Elisha healed a child), but that was done with people who knew God and not to make people know Him.
    What do you think?
    Thank you.

     
    • Eddie

      February 6, 2011 at 19:36

      Hey Vlad, greetings and welcome back; I’m glad to write to you once more.
      Concerning the napkins and aprons, it is a matter of faith. I understand your concern, but really, there was no power in Paul to heal either, except that which the Lord gave him. Couldn’t the Lord work through a napkin or an apron? Paul couldn’t be everywhere at once, so people carrying something of Paul’s would also carry the authority or power of God to those who were sick. At this time Paul was in the heart of the stronghold of Artemis the goddess of the Ephesians. This power, even in a piece of cloth or leather from Paul, pointed to the power vested in the Gospel of Christ. If one looks upon this as mere superstition, what does one do with the woman with the issue of blood who was healed by touching the tassel at the end of Jesus’ robe (Matthew 9:20-22)? Was there any inherent power in the Lord’s spittle or the mud he made of clay to anoint the eyes of the blind man (John 9:6)? We are a people of flesh, and often we need to see a process in the acts of the man of God before our faith can be stirred. It all has to do with the mercy of God who meet us where we are. Remember, he came to earth where we live; he didn’t require us to come to him where he is. He knows we are weak, and he begins where we are and builds our faith from there. We are cautioned not to despise the day of little things (Zechariah 4:10) when the work of God seems small, and we shouldn’t judge those of little faith (Matthew 18:10) who need something to “see” before their faith can be stirred. God is for us, not against us, and he will meet us where we are.

      Lord bless, my friend.

      Eddie

       
  25. Vlad

    January 18, 2011 at 15:48

    *I don’t understand how a belief in a “no death” doctrine would do the same.*
    In the same way as belief in 10000 years rather then billions. Compromise isn’t right solution. I think that concept of ‘an example as not a requirement for obedience’ should serve well.
    *why I believe they ate meat, I simply believe that as we see them today is how they tended to behave from creation*
    I see that as a shifting foundation. Darwin thought that creation can’t be good if there is death in it, so he gave up. So rather than facing the same dilemma you change the concept of good. The question is could original creation exist without death? Could lions live without killing? Sorry, but I’m tempted to offer you another resource, it’s a free video “Creation to Restoration”: amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/10/106-232K

    You can remove the next paragraph:
    Sorry Eddie, I don’t mean disrespect in anyway. Only feeling I have from our dialog is curiosity. I just want to know your opinion as I value your experience (see, I don’t have anyone to talk about these things, everyone I know are lukewarm). It’s just I don’t see enough reasons to take your position (at least yet). And I totally agree that such topics are not important enough to separate brethren.

     
    • Eddie

      January 18, 2011 at 18:32

      Vlad,

      I said “I don’t understand how a belief in a “no death” doctrine would do the same.”

      In the same way as belief in 10000 years rather then billions. Compromise isn’t right solution. I think that concept of ‘an example as not a requirement for obedience’ should serve well.

      I am not certain what you mean by compromise. Are you saying I am compromising in some manner? I don’t understand.

      I said: “…why I believe they ate meat, I simply believe that as we see them today is how they tended to behave from creation”

      I see that as a shifting foundation. Darwin thought that creation can’t be good if there is death in it, so he gave up. So rather than facing the same dilemma you change the concept of good. The question is could original creation exist without death? Could lions live without killing? Sorry, but I’m tempted to offer you another resource, it’s a free video “Creation to Restoration”: amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/10/106-232K

      What makes Darwin’s opinion of death in creation correct? Could the original creation exist without death? No! Genesis 2 claims in the first creation death had to have existed, because eternal life did not exist for creation unless one partook of the Tree of Life. Mankind was not endowed with eternal life. The fact is, he was driven from the garden so he would NOT eat of the tree of life and live forever. Therefore, if he was not originally created WITH eternal life, death had to have been a part of the first creation in some form.

      Concerning the video… (by the way, thank you for this link I thought he had some very interesting points of view.):

      The preacher/scientist in the video says that every animal ate green herbs for food. From this he concluded that all animals were vegetarians. Yet, even today all animals still eat green herbs. I had a dog a few years ago and he would eat grass as a supplement to his diet. He was a carnivore. He killed mice in the garden, ate meat, but he also ate grass from time to time. He thought lettuce and celery were treats. The point is, just because all animals ate green herbs does not make them vegetarians.

      Secondly, not long afterward, the preacher/scientist concluded there was absolutely no death in Eden. He offered no proof for his conclusion. He merely said there was no death, perhaps concluding that because creation was very good that death could not have been an integral part of the animal kingdom. Yet, nowhere do we find in the Scriptures that animals had or ever will have eternal life. A point you may wish to consider is, if there was no preying of one kind of animal on other animals, wouldn’t that indicate that soon the animal kingdom would overrun humanity. If there was no death, the birth rates of some species would leave no room for mankind to spread out over all the earth. God would have had to also greatly inhibit animal birth rates from the beginning, if animals did not die. At some point the birth rate would have to stop completely, otherwise the earth would become overcrowded. In such a case “death” would be a blessing.

      One needs to realize that when God pronounced creation “very good” it included the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In other words there was nothing “evil” about that tree. It was pronounced “very good.” The point is, just because there was “death” in the world of the animals does not make “death” evil for them. Death was only “evil” for you and me. We were not created for death. We were created to live forever. Nowhere do the Scriptures conclude that animals were created to live eternally.

      Next what the preacher/scientist noted was that he agreed with Darwin that a loving Creator could not be responsible for the animal behavior seen today, including parasites etc. living off other living creatures often using cruel methods of behavior. The problem with this outlook is that it mistakes the main point of God’s love. The world and all that is in it was created for us—you and me. On the other hand, we, you and I, were created for the pleasure of God. The intent of why all living creatures act the way they do is to teach us not to prey on one another (war, and killing is wrong, it destroys and it betrays an arrogance that “I” am better than “you” and deserve what you have – including your life if need be). Parasitic creatures live off other living creatures, and we should understand from this that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and not derive our life from the work and well being of others (stealing and taking advantage of others is wrong).

      Concerning all the biological concepts he spoke of, I can say many things sound quite logical as it pertains to change of diet when food supply also changes. I cannot deny many of the things he speaks about. However, he concludes that “death” in the animal kingdom is “evil” and was not so in the beginning. God said death was a punishment for mankind. He never said it was a punishment that animals would also have to endure, due to our behavior.

      The video also concluded that God created everything perfect from the beginning. This is not true. The perfect creation is the new creation under Christ. In this creation we shall live eternally. If animals would also have eternal life, then there needs be a time when they ceased to procreate in order not to overwhelm creation itself. Nevertheless, eternal life in animals is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures. In Isaiah it is predicted that animal behavior will change so that nothing will destroy in God’s Kingdom, but it doesn’t even say there that animals will be endowed with eternal life—they just won’t destroy one another. They will live off vegetation.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  26. Vlad

    January 18, 2011 at 13:37

    • I see your point, that God didn’t program but rather thought Adam the language. Maybe, why not? But it was God who did it, Adam didn’t invent the speech. But your point that Adam had to observe animals to name it had to take some time. But Bible says that God brought animals to Adam so he would give them names. Sure, it didn’t indicate that he didn’t spend some time observing them before, but that would be another assumption. Given the time required to learn to talk and to find all animals and to observe their behavior, I start to wonder how come he didn’t have any children before he was cast out of Eden? It seems more plausible that Adam knew language as he was made (he wasn’t made as a baby and we don’t because we are not supernaturally created.
    • Animals do indeed use instincts to do everything. So Gods word about their diet wasn’t to them but to Adam, and He didn’t say anything about meat. Why do you think they did eat meat?
    • I think that idea about death in Eden on assumption that Adam had to see it to obey God is not strong enough. I don’t see how God would create bloodsheading just to give an example. I don’t think example is a requirement for obedience.

     
    • Eddie

      January 18, 2011 at 15:02

      Vlad,

      I see your point, that God didn’t program but rather thought Adam the language. Maybe, why not? But it was God who did it, Adam didn’t invent the speech. But your point that Adam had to observe animals to name it had to take some time. But Bible says that God brought animals to Adam so he would give them names. Sure, it didn’t indicate that he didn’t spend some time observing them before, but that would be another assumption. Given the time required to learn to talk and to find all animals and to observe their behavior, I start to wonder how come he didn’t have any children before he was cast out of Eden? It seems more plausible that Adam knew language as he was made (he wasn’t made as a baby and we don’t because we are not supernaturally created.

      Adam lived for over 900 years according to the Scriptures. It was 130 years before he had Seth, the man who took the place of Able. The Scriptures also reveal that Cain took a wife after he killed his brother, so Adam probably had daughters before Seth was born. In any event Seth wasn’t born until 130 years after Adam was created. The Scriptures name Cain and Able as his first two children. How long it took before he bore them is not known, but if the genealogy of Seth is any indication of how long a person lived before he sired his first born, it is not anything like today. They were all 60-100 years old before they had any children. The point is, there is no reason to believe Adam had any children before he rebelled. Cain and Able, no doubt were born about the time Adam was 60 to 100 years old and Adam had daughters and other sons before Seth was born.

      As far as what you believe is more plausible, that is fine; as I said earlier, I am not lord over your faith, and I don’t believe knowing the truth about this matter is all that important. It is certainly not important enough to separate brethren.

      Animals do indeed use instincts to do everything. So Gods word about their diet wasn’t to them but to Adam, and He didn’t say anything about meat. Why do you think they did eat meat?

      I am uncertain whether your question refers to Adam or animals. If to Adam, I think originally he was a vegetarian, except he probably ate things like eggs. Otherwise, I don’t see why a distinction is made between livestock and wild animals. He was domesticating animals for a reason. Later, since the whole world was doing as it pleased, there is no reason to believe that men continued to be vegetarians. Nevertheless, regardless of what we may think occurred after the rebellion, except for enjoying things like eggs, I believe Adam was a vegetarian.

      If your question refers to animals—why I believe they ate meat, I simply believe that as we see them today is how they tended to behave from creation, except that before the Flood, they were not afraid of men, neither did they present a danger to men. That particular change occurred after the Flood and Scripture attests to it.

      I think that idea about death in Eden on assumption that Adam had to see it to obey God is not strong enough. I don’t see how God would create bloodsheading just to give an example. I don’t think example is a requirement for obedience.

      As I said from the beginning, you may believe wherever you please. This certainly is not worth separating brethren over. No matter what one believes about this matter, one must assume something about the Scriptures. They are not all that definitive. The only thing that concerns me is, it would be difficult to show those who don’t believe in God and are enemies of Christianity, that God was just in condemning Adam. I’ve discussed these things with agnostics and atheists on different discussion boards—also with Gnostics who don’t believe the God of the Old Testament was a good God. They think they have an argument that Adam didn’t know anything about death until I tell them about the animal behavior. Considering the fact that they don’t believe animal behavior has changed over the last 10,000 years, they have no recourse but to consent that Adam could have understood death by studying their behavior. What I believe about death in Eden stops the mouths of folks like these. I don’t understand how a belief in a “no death” doctrine would do the same.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  27. Vlad

    January 18, 2011 at 11:15

    • About language. Sight, hearing, smelling, feeling, and tasting doesn’t require learning as it is brain response to a stimulator. Language would require some external source of origin. I guess that it is authors logic. Also, language confusion at time of Babylon, would require some external source to obtain new association to specific sounds (words). It the same manner God programmed Adam speech.
    • About original diet. I see your point that vegetarian diet in the Eden was not necessarily only diet. But that would be an assumption. Bible doesn’t tell what else did they eat. And why would God allowed them to eat plants if they knew what to eat?
    • About livestock. I think that livestock originally wasn’t the same as we understand it today.
    • What are the basis to assume that death was before Adam sinned?

     
    • Eddie

      January 18, 2011 at 12:37

      Vlad,
      About language. Sight, hearing, smelling, feeling, and tasting doesn’t require learning as it is brain response to a stimulator. Language would require some external source of origin. I guess that it is authors logic. Also, language confusion at time of Babylon, would require some external source to obtain new association to specific sounds (words). It the same manner God programmed Adam speech.

      Programming speech is an assumption. The confusion of language is an entirely different phenomenon. First of all, the original language was learned. God “confused” the speaking of the learned language and the hearing of it, so that the different nations couldn’t understand one another. In other words, one group heard, spoke and understood one way, while other groups heard, spoke and understood other ways. It is not the same as programming Adam to already know a language. If Adam did not have to be taught by God, he is the only human that ever existed that didn’t have to “learn”. On the other hand, it seems that God is teaching Adam about everything else—the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, what to do when one gets married etc. Genesis 1 & 2 show mankind had to be taught. I believe that Adam being programmed to already know and understand speech doesn’t fit the context.

      About original diet. I see your point that vegetarian diet in the Eden was not necessarily only diet. But that would be an assumption. Bible doesn’t tell what else did they eat. And why would God allowed them to eat plants if they knew what to eat?

      It is also an assumption to understand that the animals were all vegetarians. Adam was shown what to eat, because he had to be taught what was good and what was not. A baby will put anything in its mouth. Adam had to be taught what food was and what was not food. Animals don’t need to be taught. They rely upon instinct.

      About livestock. I think that livestock originally wasn’t the same as we understand it today.

      That’s your opinion. Do you base it upon anything in Scripture?

      What are the basis to assume that death was before Adam sinned?

      I thought I told you this in our first round of discussion on this topic. I believe I told you that Adam was given the job of naming all the animals. This most likely took years to do. Often scientists study certain animals, observing their behavior as a lifetime vocation and record their findings for antiquity. Each time (of which I am aware) where it is recorded in the Bible that someone gives a place or a person a name, the name is significant. The conclusion is this, that Adam was not pulling names out of a hat. He studied animal behavior and named each animal accordingly, and their names identified the characteristic that was unique to each one. He would have observed a lion, for example, running down a deer or an antelope or some other animal killing it and devouring it to satisfy its hunger. We can observe this today, and the text of Genesis does not preclude Adam observing this same thing at that time in order to assist him in naming the beast. In this manner God would have been teaching Adam about death and many things associated with loss of life, such as sorrow, empathy, mourning, fear, terror, cruelty, innocence, etc.

      The main thing is, God is just, and it is required of justice that a lawbreaker knows both the reason for the law and the penalty for breaking the law. I can tell my child not to play in the street, and for awhile all he needs to know is that he must obey me. Later, when the child can understand danger, he can understand for himself that my command was for his own safety. It would be a senseless tragedy if he disobeyed me and was killed while playing in the street, but although it would still be a tragedy if he lost his life playing in the street as an adult, he would no longer be innocent; his act would have been stupid, careless and foolhardy. There is a difference between the two. The bottom line is God was just in his judgment in Genesis 3. In order for him to be just, Adam would have had to be fully aware of what he was doing. The text does not say he was “programmed” with this understanding. Every indication we can see in Genesis 2 is that God taught Adam.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  28. Vlad

    January 17, 2011 at 23:38

    According to Rom8:20-21 I tend to believe that “it was good” in Gen1 meant that there wasn’t any death at all before the first lamb was slain to dress Adam and Eve.
    Also a life described in Gen1 as “that hath life”, so plants are not considered to be alive. Decay is not an indication of a death of something that used to be alive.
    You probably know this resource: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/02/satan-the-fall-good-evil-could-death-exist-before-sin
    – it makes sense.

     
    • Eddie

      January 18, 2011 at 10:23

      Vlad, greetings once again; it is always good to hear from you.

      “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Romans 8:20-21 KJV)

      All this Scripture says is that man was made subject to death in hope, and he would be delivered from death (the bondage of corruption) into a glorious liberty—as children of God. It mentions nothing about the rest of creation. Salvation has to do with mankind. Jesus did not die for animals or for plant life—he died for us—you and me.

      Concerning your resource, no I’ve never read anything contained on that site before you referred me to him. He makes a great deal of assumptions without supporting his claims. I am not saying he is not a brother, but I am saying he is careless in the conclusions he draws. For example, he says:

      We know that animals and man were not eating meat originally according to Genesis 1:29–30. So, meat-eaters today were all vegetarian originally, which also points to death not being part of the original creation.

      All Genesis 1:29-30 says is that God gave vegetation to man and animals to eat. It doesn’t say either was vegetarian; it merely says they could eat vegetation. If man was a strict vegetarian, why is a distinction made in Genesis 3:14 between “cattle” and the “beast of the field”? In some translations it is “livestock” and “wild animals”. In other words, Adam had domesticated animals for his use. Some would be used to plow fields, but what about the others. What would Adam do with chickens, for example? Perhaps he wasn’t eating their flesh, but were eggs part of his diet? If so, he was not a strict vegetarian. The problem is we do not know the full extent of what “domesticated animals” or “livestock” played in Adam’s life. Nevertheless, the Scriptures make a distinction between them and the beasts of the field. Adam had to have had some use for them.

      He goes on to say:

      So, plants being eaten did not mean death existed before the Fall. One would not expect a God of life to be a god of death. When we look at God’s restoration in Revelation 21–22, there will be no death, pain, or suffering.

      The author here presumes his conclusions. He supports nothing. Merely because plants may be eaten as food does not indicate a certainty that death did not occur in the animal kingdom. The text nowhere draws such a conclusion. Let’s look at his Revelation reference:

      “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” (Revelation 21:1-2 KJV)
      The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic book. The “sea”, for example, is a reference to the nations or the gentiles. There is no more Jew or Gentile in Christ according to the Gospel, so in the Kingdom of God, there is no more “sea.” New Jerusalem has to do with God’s people. It is not a literal city with buildings etc. It refers to those who have believed in Jesus during this lifetime. We are prepared as a “bride” for our husband – Jesus, the new Adam of the new creation, or the Kingdom of God. This has absolutely nothing to say about animals living eternally. If they do live eternally, the text makes no mention of it.

      One more reference:

      God, the author of language, programmed Adam with language when He created him, as they conversed right from the start on Day 6 (see Genesis 2). Since God makes things perfectly, Adam knew what death meant—even if he did not have experiential knowledge of it. In fact, he probably understood it better than any of us because he had a perfect mind, uncorrupted by sin and the Curse.

      Where does the text say God didn’t teach Adam language and how to formulate meaningful speech? Where does the text imply that Adam knew how to speak from the day he was created? Where does the text show Adam was “programmed” for anything? If Adam **knew** language from the start, why don’t we? We don’t need to be taught sight, hearing, smelling, feeling, and tasting. All this comes to us as a “gift” or one might say we are “programmed” to be able to use this five gates of knowledge from birth. We don’t need to be taught how to do these things. They come to us naturally. Not so, language. We need to learn it. Why should it be different for Adam? What in the text would imply that language was any different for Adam than for any of us? Notice how the author uses the word “probably”. He draws a lot of conclusions by using this word.

      Like I said above, I don’t mean to imply this man is not a brother in Christ. However, I don’t accept the conclusions he draws about Genesis and death. He simply does not support his case very well.

      I hope this helps, but if not, don’t hesitate to ask for further clarity. If you simply choose to believe his conclusions about death over mine, that is also okay with me. I am not called to rule over your faith in Christ. As I said before, listen to what the Holy Spirit tells you. Man, all men, will disappoint you.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

       
  29. Vlad

    January 15, 2011 at 18:10

    I’m trying to comment on one post on the site from your suggested blogs: http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/01/was-death-present-in-the-garden-of-eden
    It’s either him or me who’s stuck in ones own logic. I would like to know your opinion, if you are not preoccupied too much. I would appreciate it.
    One more thing, technical one. I’m not getting emails from your blog about follow-up comments. Do you think it is my server which rejects them?

     
    • Eddie

      January 15, 2011 at 19:06

      Vlad, greetings! No problem about discussing this here; I always enjoy our little discussions.

      Perhaps I should explain that just because I like reading someone’s blog does not mean I fully endorse everything its author believes. I merely enjoy his or her point of view. In some cases I enjoy reading an atheist’s or agnostic’s blog not because I enjoy their conclusions, but I enjoy thinking about how they arrive at their conclusions and piecing together how I would respond to them, should I decide to comment.

      In the matter concerning Joel’s blog to which you refer above, I agree with his point of view in your discussion with him. I do believe animals died and connivers often preyed on other animals. I think it was needful for Adam to really know what “death” was before God would be just in his judgment of Adam’s rebellion. In the case of the Law of Moses ignorance was always taken into consideration and a lighter sentence or punishment was given to the ignorant. Therefore, Adam’s **knowledge** of death was imperative for God to be just in his judgment.

      God shows us that he was teaching Adam what death was by charging him with naming the animals in Genesis 2. The Scriptures always indicate that naming something, a person or an object was significant. It showed the character of the person or the place. In the case of Genesis 2, Adam observed the animals like a scientist would and named them according to their behavior. Connivers often preyed upon other animals, and Adam was able to see, first hand, what it meant to die.

      I hope this short explanation helps, but if not, don’t hesitate to ask me to ask me to expand on it. I intend to leave it, because I believe your question would help others who may be curious about the same matter. I’ll eliminate your second comment after a few days.

      Lord bless,

      Eddie

      P.S. Concerning your not receiving emails, I don’t know what the problem might be. I check to make sure that I didn’t inadvertently disallow emails. If so, I’ll allow them, but I don’t remember making any changes in this regard.

       
    • Eddie

      January 15, 2011 at 19:33

      Vlad,

      I went back to Joel’s blog and read his post and then the comments again. I’m not certain, but he may be saying that humans had to die in order for Adam to **know** death, but I am not certain. If he does mean humanity was subject to death from the beginning, I would have to disagree with his point of view. However, I do believe that only in human kind there was no death until after the rebellion. Death entered our race through Adam according to Paul.
      …I left a comment on Joel’s blog. He responded and assured me he was not speaking of human death before the fall. He believes (as I do) that “death” included plant decay and animal death. Nowhere does Scripture imply that animals or plants have eternal life. I hope this helps.

       
  30. Erik Brewer

    December 8, 2010 at 00:32

    Found the answers to some of my questions here, no need to repeat. What about facebook?

     
    • Eddie

      December 8, 2010 at 09:12

      I’m glad we can agree on some things. I believe I just “friended” you on facebook. It is a picture of you and your wife and two small children. If this is you, then we can discuss whatever you like on facebook or just hang out learning about one another. :-)

       
  31. pelagian7

    September 3, 2009 at 11:17

    There are several documents, some in the Old Greek sector of Jerusalem, that are the earliest Christian writings. Letters and an instruction book for new converts to Christianity, written by James and Jude. They were used by most early Christians, including those who led the movement. Historical documents show that from about 33ad to 66ad James (the brother of the lord) was the temple priest. Among the books submitted for canonization, several were viewed as inspired but too repetitive or too elite. Have you researched these?

    The books by James and Jude were considered elite, however, they would never be put in the Bible. They confirmed that Jesus was their brother and they viewed him as lord, but, they also maintained that the Jewish law needed to be maintained. They didn’t call their movement Christian, rather, they saw themselves as reforming Jews and called themselves the Ebionites.

    I didn’t merely accept this as Gospel until I began reading the Early Church fathers, Josephus and a Greek interlinear Bible. In all these sources poor people were said to travel with Jesus, but,the word being translated from Greek was Ebionite (The Poor). This word wasn’t a description of their economics, rather, it described their pious way of life.

    I had wondered about some Biblical scripture meanings. Blessed are the poor in spirit, was one, leaving me confused. It seemed to have been a major theme but why bless those with a poor spirit. I began to wonder if Jesus was talking about the group Ebionites. Then, in the oldest Greek Bibles, I found the word Ebionite used as noun. Blessed are the Ebionites, for in spirit, their’s is the kingdom of heaven. Now that makes more sense.

    Anyway I took a the narrow road, the scary one that few find, and found a deeper faith. I accept that Jesus and his followers were (law) abiding, yet, I see that as cultural and I choose another way to live piously. If you are thinking that Peter and Paul said this or that, you may want to review these early documents.

    I had only wanted to ask you your view on these documents, but, please don’t quote scripture or give me party line answers. I’m more interested in why people don’t invest more, by finding answers for themselves. Paul commended those who listened to him, then went home and researched his claims to see if what he said was true. You see, we can all find scripture that supports our position.

     
    • Smoodock

      September 3, 2009 at 12:31

      It is my understanding that the Ebionites were a group of Jewish believers who understood Jesus was the Messiah, but held a ‘poor’ view of his Deity. That is, they did not believe Jesus was God, hence their viewpoint being ‘poor’ and the name Ebionite.

      I think you will find the manuscripts you think are very old are not as ancient as the earliest Christian manuscripts we have. James was not a priest, but I understand some writings try to say he was. They make no real sense, however, because they have a poor understanding of the duties of a priest. It is more likely the documents originate from an ascetic group seeking to show ‘holiness’ arises out of chastising oneself and/or leading a Spartan existence by rejecting anything that could be enjoyed. I don’t buy this philosophy.

      Concerning the Ebionites, you are correct to conclude they were not poor people, I, too, reject this understanding. There is nothing ‘blessed’ about being poor. One need only ask someone who hasn’t eaten in a few days, or who doesn’t have a home or enough clothing for protection against the elements. Nevertheless, you don’t show how the Ebionite has anything to do with a pious life. Of what pious life are you speaking? Obviously, the name means ‘poor’ in something, so in what, in your opinion, are the Ebionites said to be poor?

      You mention the idea of being ‘poor’ in spirit, but this is something that is opposed to being ‘rich’ in spirit. The rich in spirit are the proud who believe they already know and cannot be instructed. The poor in spirit recognize their own limitations and are willing to listen and eager to learn what can be proved with the word of God. You refer to the Bereans (Acts 17) to whom Paul preached the Gospel. They were ‘poor’ in spirit in that they were willing to listen and eager to learn, because they proved Paul’s testimony by checking it with the Scriptures.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s