How Many People In The Garden?

[Bennie Winter]

Thanks for the opportunity to coment!

   As to the number in the Garden during Adam's creation, we cannot question other than a plurality present.

Genesis 1:26 clearly states a plurality in the "us, our, and them' in scriptural account. By the way, as author, in The

Great Deception, I laid out the dimensions of Heaven and Earth, to within a foot in all directions. Additionally, Eden encompassed these same boundaries. To the East in Eden, could be anywhere east of central Heaven and Earth.

Guess where that would place the Garden? No, not along the Euphrates! Donald possesses the map.

   Hope this might stir some interest and discussion.

Ben Winter

 

 

 

 

c

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Rivers:

With regard to heaven or heavens, I cannot dispute your correct though limited application of 'sky'; apparenty you prefer the evanescent visualization in your definition; however, we cannot limit the definition to such pointedly traditional desideratum and 'as as ascendant medium to an indefinable destination for the residue of particular religious personalities. Here, my sense of biblical intent balks at attempts to impress draconican traditionalisms. The word 'heaven,' in the last thousand years of Temple worshi,p (which was also required of Christian advocates, in a last generation projection) was referant to the Inner Sanctum; no matter how much we resist that clear distinction, the definition sticks. Another, more general definition for 'heaven' was up -- from anywhere you looked toward the Temple and its Inner Sanctum, it was 'up.'   This inclusive definition covers any and all definitions -- even futurist ascension desideratum. For that matter, 'sky' lay directly on top the Temple mound. And as to your Genesis references, I have no problem with the up-ness inherent in those expressions. But please keep in mind the specific language used to describe deity residence and where Jesus was to sit on his throne, during his rule. This site was directly atop the mercy seat, between the cherubs installed at each end the Arc of the Covenant. The Inner Sanctum is the Heaven where God lived, the Hebrew God, where Jesus sit alongside on his throne. From anywhere in Jerusalem, the holy site was up, into heaven, to the Temple. We have this evidence: Why contest it? And to what purpose? Christiandom can have its cake and eat it too! No harm done!  However, Do they follow the first century example. If they look for Parousia, Are they not obligated to the New Testament example. Do they observe feast days, Temple rituals, and keep the Sabbath? Is there a unilateral effort. The modernist conception of righteous, unilateral agreement, is a joke. How many can identify their own millennial commitment?

But to the point: Heaven was up; that much we must agree on.

Thanks for participating and Best Regards.

Ben

[RiversOfEden]

Hi Ben,

 

With regard to "heaven" or "heaven(s)" ... wouldn't we just accept the common usage in the Hebrew language?   The word simply referred to the "sky."  This is how God Himself defined it (Genesis 1:8).   From that geocentric perspective of ancient Hebrew, the "skies" (heavens) included "the sun, moon, and stars" (Genesis 1:14) and where the "winged creatures" flew (Genesis 1:21).

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

 

 

 

 

[Bennie Winter]

Donald and any other that might be curious:

The below URL carries a rather weighty article on the place of

Jesus' crucifixion.  http://www.gci.org/jesus/golgotha Apparently,

we will never know for absolute certainty where the event took

place. Too, I disagree with Archaology's compilation of A.D. 33

as the time of crucifixion. We know only that Jesus 'began to be

30 years of age' and can only speculate on or add to these matters.

But on the location, a point of reference might involve the place of

imprisonment  and street taken toward the crucifixion site as a determinant

on direction taken to the place of execution. Personally, I do not find it

important enough to spend the time necessary for such investigation. I do

not think it Mount of Olives, it being a rather steep and arduous climb up

from Kidron in those early times.

Regards,

Ben

 

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Donald:

Re: your recent comment and reference

Eusibius, Jonathan, and other futurist writers, speculated a lot. Eusibius himself looked for Parousia, even some 300 years after the fact. What kind of credence can we give this fellow, and others, who speculate a short trip for Temple Deity occupants from the Inner Sanctum to Mount of Olives: Why Mount of Olives? Especially, when such speculation indicates a move from Heaven, to Mount of Olives, and then to another Heaven nowhere mentioned in the legal-historicisms handed down from those days. And where did you say Jesus was crucified?

Any mention of 'angels,' in scripture or the New Testament, carries an indication of messengers, whether it be clouds of dust, smoke, vapor, Messiah, disciples, Apostles, light as 'from' an unsheathed sword, an epistle, or any other indication of words, intent, signs, portends, visions, dreams. or other mental impressions, are but an inclusive use of the word 'angels.' How can we prove me wrong? By what incidence of 'proof' can we determine angel definition to be other than the allowable definition? And if the Hebrew God ascended to Heaven, I want to know where it is. Of course, there is no such place, because the Heaven sanctuary was destroyed in A.D. 70. Heaven definition has never been fully defined by tradition but in synecdochic desideratum -- and with just about that same degree of vagueness. Therefore, who can state the case over Bible vagueness?

Someone prove to me a supersensory occurrence of angel, other than a physical sign and I'll eat my hat -- just allow me a little salt and pepper. lol

Best Regards,

Ben

Ben Winter

Author of: THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

[Donald]

Ben,

 

There were some historical records about the armies of angels in the sky as Jesus and the apostles say so. We can't deny that. I've added a few more information in http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/historical-records-w...

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Rivers:

    Will try to state my case a little more clearly. I have been out of town; so, I am a little late

with my response.

    Let us use Daniel and John as an example: two prophets, messengers, or Angels with very

similar styles though treating the Ages concept somewhat differently.  John clearly had a vision

and told his message in a physical presentation and in writing. Daniel also physically recorded

angels in his writings and as objects appearing in dreams or visions. These angels, Michael

and Gabriel, formed a remembrance  in Daniel's subconscious as we would recall dream upon

awakening (Michael rather a role player withing the message delivered to Daniel as he lay

asleep in his Babylon bed -- and dreaming of himself several miles to his southeast on a

river (Olai [Chopes {sic}] in Elam) overlooking Babylonia to the west.The message bearer did not

appear to Daniel except as a figment of his mental capacity. He did not understand and required

another visit from Gabriel (and still yet did not fullyunderstand).

    Of course, we cannot reason the entire biblical intent in the confines of a small blog; to be sure,

understanding requires a much deeper probe of symbols and numbers; for, if you remember,

Daniel is told by the messenger to go his way because the message was not to be understood

until Parousia. This should present a problem to those who think Parousia is still future. Be that

as it may, any messenger can qualify as angel in daylight or dark, in wakefulness or in dream,

on our feet or in bed.

    Actually, John nor Daniel had physical contact with their messengers but reported their visions and

thus became angels in their own important message delivery. I did make reference to Mohammed and his stated encounter with Gabriel in a mountain cave near Mecca. Such inclusion was not to extoll Islam (not

by any means) but to correspond the two accounts as pure fantasy. Exegetes cannot linguistically accommodate an ideation of supernatural correspondence without violating the limits of language

definition.

    We can think anything we want (like Daniel and John); but when we write it down, its description

will be limited to the language defining our intent.

    To answer your question: the only contact we can have with 'angels' is in a physical  or humanist

form; any nonphysical 'angel' can be experienced only second-hand. At the least, yours truly finds

no reason to expect any supersensory revelation or message in either physical or visionary form. All

such expedience is past. 

Regards,

Ben 

[RiversOfEden]

Hi Ben,

 

Thanks for responding again.  I don't think I understand enough about your views to figure out what you are getting at.

 

Do you think that all "angels" in scripture were human beings?

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Bennie Winter]

Rivers:

Thanks for your response.

I'm taking the liberty of pasting your entire response into this medium so as not to bypass any or your thoughts and conceptions. I know I am taking up extra room by this maneuver, but I better attend the points of discussion by this method. My response will be in bold type.

 

                Comment by RiversOfEden3 hours ago           Delete Comment

Hi Ben,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I don't think you can sustain your idea that "angels" was referring to "the apostles" in Hebrews because the writer (i.e. Luke) seems to differentiate between the two groups in Hebrews 2:2-3.  Please notice that "the word spoken through angels" is contrasted with "the salvation first spoken through the Lord (Jesus) and confirmed to us (the saints) by those who heard (Apostles)". I cannot hope to exclude the Apostles from 'angles' definition but rather find them exactly meeting such definition. How can they be defined differently?

The Hebrews writer also drew a contrast between "the world subject to angels" and "the world to come" (Hebrews 2:5).   The "world to come" was to be subject to "the saints" (1 Corinthians 6:2) who would "judge the angels" (1 Corinthians 6:3). Could not the saints be messengers (angels) also. (There were fallen ones also, you know.) The 'world' here used defines as 'land or earth'; however, there was no land or earth 'to come'; therefore, we must take a little liberty to make the expression make sense to our twenty-first century interception of language. The Hebrews writer lived during the Messianic Kingdom and shortly before Parousia. If you are in disagreement with this time frame, then why? Paul, at II Timothy 1:9-:10 was living within the 'world to come,' a part of our discussion, at Hebrews 2:5. I think you perceive a quality in angels that I cannot intercept. At I Corinthians 6:3, in a letter to Crinthians worshipping in the Corinth synagogue, Paul used the 'editorial,' we, to involve not only himself but the Corinth leadership; they would judge the world, angels (those to be condemned to 'tartaros' , the third definition of 'the grave' (hades, gehenna, and tartaros), messenger, or by whatever shade of meaning one can address of those to be judged. An angel must by definition be restricted to message carrying capacity, regardless our perception of supernatural, physical, or some other evanescent 'will of the wisp conception. But then again, realistically, who would have the capacity to judge a willof the wisp in a physical capacity? It was Messiah and the saints who would judge Israel at Parousia -- whether they be receivers of the message or message giver (angels). These message givers (angels) were also subject to judgment (Tartarus -- a place of punishment for messengers (angels) who forsake the ministry or preached a false gospel). It was the same as gehenna, only more sure. It is imperative one know the distinction between grave, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. It is also imperative one make distinction between this world and world to come (in an ages sense). Finally, make a time distinction between I Timothy 6:14 and II Timothy 1:10 (three years between writings). And one must realize why this time distinction is important. It has everything to do with timeframe for angels, saints, and tribespeoples inneractions.

    Let me add, also, for greater depth to the Paul (Apostles), saints, and angels relativity as their efforts must comingle to judge the seed line world in its last Age: Israel was judged on its past deeds in a present environment -- the judges judged in absentia. No one was to sit on a visible throne and wield a gavel. It was a vendication of those things violated by an unreceptive society, not only for those present but those ancients who also violated the ordinances (heaped on the head of those living the the last days.

Again, I think you are oversimplifying things and not taking all of the evidence into account.  It doesn't make any sense to have the "apostles" delivering messages to two contrasting "worlds" and then "judging" themselves. The apostles did deliver messages to the two worlds (Ages), but only John survived the terrible ordeal. He alone was promised to do so, in John's closing chapter. Actually, most of those who experienced the transition from one world to the other could not tell the difference. (II Tim. 2:18). Hymaneus and Philetus were turned over to synogogue authorities for punishment because they misled some about time frame for the 'world to come.'

Thanks for considering my conclusions. I have spent a lot of time chasing false notions, pursuing false teachings, researching traditional adoptions, and searching for validation through the two witness provision. The Bible is a simple document -- made difficult only through symbol and number codes, parables, and otherwise vague instructions to a splintered society.

Ben Winter

Author of:

THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

[Bennie Winter]

                Comment by RiversOfEden3 hours ago           Delete Comment

Hi Ben,

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I don't think you can sustain your idea that "angels" was referring to "the apostles" in Hebrews because the writer (i.e. Luke) seems to differentiate between the two groups in Hebrews 2:2-3.  Please notice that "the word spoken through angels" is contrasted with "the salvation first spoken through the Lord (Jesus) and confirmed to us (the saints) by those who heard (Apostles)".

The Hebrews writer also drew a contrast between "the world subject to angels" and "the world to come" (Hebrews 2:5).   The "world to come" was to be subject to "the saints" (1 Corinthians 6:2) who would "judge the angels" (1 Corinthians 6:3).

Again, I think you are oversimplifying things and not taking all of the evidence into account.  It doesn't make any sense to have the "apostles" delivering messages to two contrasting "worlds" and then "judging" themselves.

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Rivers:

In your reference to the Hebrews letter (1:14) and 'host of heaven,' as the plurality present in Genesis 1, at the making of Adam and Taffy's remark 'ONLY reason angels appeared in the "form" of "men'": I would make a comment about the Hebrew letter as it treated the subject of angels. The 'host of heaven' is hardly representative of anyone other than seed line peoples or children of Israel.

In the Hebrew first chapter, almost casually, Paul mentioned 'angels' in the same breath with: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" Who were these 'angels'? It was the apostolic selected charged with soteriological responsibility, of course! Can we escape this conclusion? If we can, then we are in disagreement of the language written. Let us debate the meaning of angels in Hebrews One. We can discuss other occurrences later. But we must come to an unequivocable position on this example first (since we have already entered it into discussion).

By the way, are you (River) and Taffy both full preterists? I must confess to being neither preterist (in the modern sense of partial Parousia) nor premillennialist -- millennial wise, I am postmillennial. Actually, I call myself a meta-deist -- that is, I believe as did the great philosopher, Kant: "No man has the intellect to deny another man's god." Again: I can invent a god as omnipotent and omniscient as any one else can, and so can you. Our problem is in proving the omnipotence and omniscience. lol

Regards,

Ben