GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Adam & Eve  (Read 4677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #70 on: Mon Jun 04, 2018 - 22:35:48 »
3 Resurrections,

Quote
Soterion, one of the the last points you mentioned in one of your comments above was a list of 3 passages where you believe God is setting up an "authority" in those texts.  He doesn't.  The word translated "rule" in both I Timothy 3:4-5 and I Timothy 5:17 is a mistranslation from the "proistemi" word, which means "to maintain, or to preside over".  It's an "overseer" type of meaning - not an authoritative "rule" or "office".  However, the Greek DOES have a word meaning to rule over with authority.  The word for this is "oikodespoteo", which we would get our word "despot" from - in effect, a "house despot".  This term is found for example in I Timothy 5:14, "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear chidren, guide (oikodespotein) the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."  In all three of these I Timothy verses, the KJV translators intentionally switched the translation of the Greek terms.  They deliberately strengthened the word "proistemi" and translated it to mean an authoritative "rule" for elders and bishops.  Likewise, with the "oikodespoteo" term applied to the married women, they deliberately blurred it to erase any kind of "rule" that these women were to have over their own household by translating the "oikodespoteo" word to simply mean "guide" instead.  I find this problematic, at the very least - if not even deceptive.  But it probably made King James very happy. 

As for the wives being in "subjection" to their husbands, you apparently are still not understanding the connection between the characteristics of the "subjection" of humankind to angels in Heb. 2:5  that is the same type of "subjection" wives have to their husbands.  The "hupotasso"-derived term is used in both places.  (And it is a mutually performed "submitting" for both husband and wife, as Ephesians 5:21 makes very clear.)  Angels did not have "authority" over humankind that was subjected to them.  They were called "ministering spirits", or "Watchers" (similar to being an "overseer") with the function of protectively defending, "confirming" and "strengthening" those under their protection, as Daniel's angel described his own activities in Dan. 10 & 11.  These are all activities which a husband performs in his marriage relationship.  Having "authority" over his wife is not on the list - neither at creation, after the Fall, during the pre-flood conditions, post-flood conditions, or New Covenant Age conditions.  And the sooner this can be acknowledged, the better for all concerned.  I live in a state with an abyssmal rate of domestic violence and homicides, here in the "Buckle of the Bible belt".  I believe this prevailing attitude about the "authority" over the wife that is disseminated from the pulpit has been a major contributing factor to these statistics, unfortunately, and I make no apology for saying so.

Okay, I looked up these Greek words that you mentioned, and I don’t see any problem with how they are being translated in our English Bibles. The Greek word proistemi includes the definitions to set over, to preside over, to rule. It is derived from the noun prostastis which means leader, ruler, director.

As for oikodespoteo, it is found only in 1 Timothy 5:14. The American Standard Version translates it as, “...rule the household...” It may be that some other translations minimize the meaning, so look at other translations and appreciate it if they have the word carry more force.

As for hupotasso, it is used in a lot of different contexts, but with the idea of submission to and/or obedience to another that has the authority. In the case of wives to husbands, the Israelites to God, the church to Christ, the subjection is meant to be voluntary, in response to the will of God.

We may not like this type of arrangement, but since God set it up this way, then it is the best way, and it is beneficial to all involved. Just because we may not necessarily see the benefits, and because some abuse this plan and are unreasonable to the point of actual emotional and physical abuse, does not mean that the plan God put in place is wrong or that it should be changed, or that it should be interpreted in some way as to negate what is actually being said in the passages.

Oh, and Ephesians 5:21 is referencing all the church, not specifically husbands and wives. 5:21 does not negate or minimize 5:22ff. The members of the church are to serve one another inasmuch as they are to love one another. This does not change what follows regarding the relationship between husbands and wives with regard to the husband being the head and the wife being in subjection. Husbands, who may feel some superiority, should realize that the husband should be to this wife as Christ is to the church; self-sacrificial, loving her more than self, cherishing her.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #70 on: Mon Jun 04, 2018 - 22:35:48 »

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Manna: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #71 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:06:29 »
...

Finally, regarding Ezekiel 28, I see verse 1-10 and following to be all one narrative about the King of Tyre, the human king. Throw in some figurative language and, all of a sudden, he becomes Satan. Not to me he doesn't.

Yeah.  That and the stuff in Isa. 14 make fertile ground for speculation and dramatization, but the idea that they refer to a literal and fallen member of the Heavenly Court -- angel, cherub, seraph, whatever -- is a stretch.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #71 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:06:29 »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #72 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:09:57 »
soterion  -  Now that you mention it, I well remember someone else on this forum bringing up an example of one who filled the "prostatis" position in scripture.  It was the woman Phoebe in Romans 16:2, that Paul recommended so highly for her services to himself.  Whatever meaning you are assigning to this "proistemi" term, which is also reflective of the "prostatis" term, as you have mentioned, then you will have to make room for Phoebe to fulfill this as well.  So, you think she was a "leader, ruler, director"?  Perhaps you would rather take it down a notch from the position of a "ruler", since I don't believe Phoebe or any other "prostatis" was "ruling" someone.  Neither do I think the "proistemi" term reflects quite this level of "authority" that you are pushing.   

I do agree that Ephesians 5:21 is referencing ALL the church's interpersonal relationships in that inclusive Eph. 5:21-6:9 section.  It details how each was to interact with each other by voluntarily submitting their own desires in favor of the other's benefit.  Paul goes down the list one after another of addressing  #1) the women's manner of submitting to husbands, #2) the husbands' manner of submitting to their wives' needs, #3) children hearkening to their parents and giving them honor, #4) fathers avoiding discouragement of their children, #4) bondmen giving heed to their masters and giving them willing service, and finally #5) masters having good will toward their servants, and refraining from being overbearing to them.   The entire thrust of this passage echoes Paul's injunction elsewhere in Heb. 10:24 "to consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works."  There's not a sign of the word "authority" anywhere in sight in this text.  No references to "exousia" or "authenteo" terms at all. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #72 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:09:57 »

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #73 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:35:52 »
NorrinRadd  -  If you are skeptical of a type of Heavenly Court set up with angelic members, I'm curious what you do with Daniel's references to the "prince of the kingdom of Persia" resisting and then actually fighting with the angel sent to Daniel.  It would take another angel to be able to fight for 21 days with Daniel's angel - no way this could be a human enemy.  There is also another "prince of Grecia" mentioned there in Dan. 10:20, as well as "Michael, one of the chief princes" that is needed to help with this angelic fighting match.  This shows me that there were both righteous and evil angelic "princes" operating within these nations of Greece and Persia, in opposition to each other.  How is this stretching things to interpret these as members of the "assembly of the gods" mentioned in Psalms 82? 

As for the Isaiah 14 text describing "Lucifer", in this case, it is quite obviously said to be a "man" in Is. 14:16 - the "king of Babylon" in Is. 14:4.  Regardless of this man's lofty notions of exalting himself over the nations and over Mount Zion in the sides of the north, he would be brought down to the grave.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #73 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 00:35:52 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #74 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 01:34:27 »
4WD  -  There's a contradiction in logic for your premise that the "whole of humanity" is being spoken of in Romans 8:23 when it refers to "the whole creation" (or "every creature" as it is found in my KJV margin).  Here's what I mean.  Suppose we made the all-inclusive statement that "every creature in the whole of humanity has to die once", and then followed that statement by saying "and not only will everybody in the whole world die once, but ourselves also have to die once too."  What would be the point of mentioning that "ourselves ALSO have to die once" if we have already stated that there are no exceptions whatever to this fate for everybody in the whole world? 

In the same manner, this category of "the whole creation", or "every creature" has to be a totally SEPARATE category from the other category that follows it. Both categories of people were waiting for the adoption, i.e., the redemption of their bodies.  The first group I believe to be the souls of the dead saints (not the souls of ALL the dead), because they were under "the bondage of corruption" - meaning a physical body which had been corrupted by death.

Not only were these DEAD saints patiently waiting for a redeemed body, but in addition, Paul said that the LIVING saints - "ourselves ALSO" - were waiting for the redemption of their bodies after death.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #74 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 01:34:27 »



Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7234
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #75 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 07:06:30 »
4WD  -  There's a contradiction in logic for your premise that the "whole of humanity" is being spoken of in Romans 8:23 when it refers to "the whole creation" (or "every creature" as it is found in my KJV margin).
There is no contradiction.  When Paul said the "whole creation"  or "every creature" he meant every human being.  Now he anticipated that his readers might think that they would be excluded, just as you apparently have.  Paul said, Not so, even "we ourselves... groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies".

He is simply emphasizing that the believer has not been excluded from that groaning that he is speaking of.  Paul says it is a condition of all mankind, sinner and saint alike.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #75 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 07:06:30 »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #76 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 08:42:27 »
soterion  -  Now that you mention it, I well remember someone else on this forum bringing up an example of one who filled the "prostatis" position in scripture.  It was the woman Phoebe in Romans 16:2, that Paul recommended so highly for her services to himself.  Whatever meaning you are assigning to this "proistemi" term, which is also reflective of the "prostatis" term, as you have mentioned, then you will have to make room for Phoebe to fulfill this as well.  So, you think she was a "leader, ruler, director"?  Perhaps you would rather take it down a notch from the position of a "ruler", since I don't believe Phoebe or any other "prostatis" was "ruling" someone.  Neither do I think the "proistemi" term reflects quite this level of "authority" that you are pushing.   

I do agree that Ephesians 5:21 is referencing ALL the church's interpersonal relationships in that inclusive Eph. 5:21-6:9 section.  It details how each was to interact with each other by voluntarily submitting their own desires in favor of the other's benefit.  Paul goes down the list one after another of addressing  #1) the women's manner of submitting to husbands, #2) the husbands' manner of submitting to their wives' needs, #3) children hearkening to their parents and giving them honor, #4) fathers avoiding discouragement of their children, #4) bondmen giving heed to their masters and giving them willing service, and finally #5) masters having good will toward their servants, and refraining from being overbearing to them.   The entire thrust of this passage echoes Paul's injunction elsewhere in Heb. 10:24 "to consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works."  There's not a sign of the word "authority" anywhere in sight in this text.  No references to "exousia" or "authenteo" terms at all.

Since Phoebe is referred to as prostatis, then the idea of being set over or presiding over applies in her case with regard to the help she offered to many others where she served the Lord. I don't see what the problem is.

I find it interesting that you want the younger women to rule the household with a stronger type of rule than the husbands and fathers. That is what I am getting by how you want to define the Greek words. The men who would be elders are to merely oversee the home, which demonstrates their ability to merely oversee the church, but the younger women are to actually dictate how things are to be regarding the children. If the men do not have any actual final decision power in the home, then neither do the elders in the church?

The Greek words in question can obviously have a variety of applications in scripture, which are defined by the context. Just looking at the root meaning does not define the strict and narrow usage of a word in any and every case. In other words, if a word can mean oversee or manage in one context, this does not grant that it's additional meaning of rule has no application anywhere (and vice-versa). Also, to oversee or manage easily carries the idea of having the authority. To oversee or manage how things are being done includes the authority to make decisions.

As for Ephesians 5, going by your view of 5:21-6:9, then Christ dos not actually have an authority with regard to the church? You described authoritative positions and at the same time denied their existence in those verses. I'll quote you:

#1) the women's manner of submitting to husbands (she submits to her husband as the head, just as the church submits to Christ as the head)
#2) the husbands' manner of submitting to their wives' needs (the position as head includes serving the needs of those presided over, again just as Christ serves the church while having authority over the church)
#3) children hearkening to their parents and giving them honor (if the parents have no "authority" over the children, why do they hearken to them?)
#4) fathers avoiding discouragement of their children (describing how fathers are not to be abusive in their exercise of authority; they serve the needs of their children, but that has to include having authority over them)
#5) bondmen giving heed to their masters and giving them willing service (the bondmen serve the masters as those having the authority over them)
#6) masters having good will toward their servants, and refraining from being overbearing to them (again, not an abusive authority)

I don't see how anybody can strip away the positions of authority found in this context. Again, since God organized things to be this way, then it is the best arrangement for the good of all.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #77 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 09:05:11 »
In response to a question:

The so-called Pseudepigrapy is a large body of literature but not included by versions:

http://www.piney.com/Old-Testament-Pseudepigrap.html

These documents were once used and if not "inspired" they do show the prevailing understanding of Jews and others at various periods of time. The books of Adam and Eve are worth reading.

http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve1.html

http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve2.html

Much of the Scriptures were written as REBUTTAL of the prevailing "theology."  It is pretty hard to understand the ANSWER if you do not know what the question was.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #78 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 10:17:55 »
In response to a question:

The so-called Pseudepigrapy is a large body of literature but not included by versions:

http://www.piney.com/Old-Testament-Pseudepigrap.html

These documents were once used and if not "inspired" they do show the prevailing understanding of Jews and others at various periods of time. The books of Adam and Eve are worth reading.

http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve1.html

http://www.piney.com/ApocAdEve2.html

Much of the Scriptures were written as REBUTTAL of the prevailing "theology."  It is pretty hard to understand the ANSWER if you do not know what the question was.



Why not just post the main point you want to make regarding the subject matter you want to address, instead of trying to get folks to navigate through all that?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #78 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 10:17:55 »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #79 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 10:26:19 »
Genesis 3:16.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Some have said there was no hierarchy with regard to the man over the woman before the fall. The passage above seems to support this. I don't have a BDB or other Hebrew support in front of me, but some here may be very familiar with the passage with regard to the man ruling over the woman.

What difference might there have been in the relationship between the two from before they sinned and afterward?

Offline lea

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #80 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 10:33:33 »
God knew mankind would know the difference between good and evil.
He created the destroyer to show mankind that evil would make us sin against Him.

God knew life for man wouldn't be taken care of as puppets with no free will forever.

Therefore God created the fall of man and nature.

People have been killing each other since the start. And nature has brought mutations even to peaceful people.

Man needed a savior so God could bless them and help them in this fallen world!


Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #81 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 14:12:00 »
Quote
Why not just post the main point you want to make regarding the subject matter you want to address, instead of trying to get folks to navigate through all that?

Firstly, I was asked about these documents and God and the first amendment gave ME TOO the right to blather.

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a SERVANT of the church which is at Cenchrea: Ro.16:1

We know that there was a barbershop in Cenchrea bit there was no CHURCH HOUSE with HIRED HANDS.
Deaconess is a fabricated word which didn't exist.

"In" means near, about, among. shortly. 

The Isthmus of Corinth is the narrow land bridge which connects the Peloponnese peninsula with the rest of the mainland of Greece, near the city of Corinth. In ancient times, there was no waterway for sailors to easily reach Athens if they were traveling to and from Greece’s Ionian coast.  A piece of land, called the Isthmus of Corinth, was “in the way.”


We know of no specific church in Cenchrea and Corinth was so evil that Paul was happy that he had not baptized many of them. There were no deacons or elders and no one with enough spirituality to solve even the basic human relationship problems.

Because her job as 'patroness' would center around the seaport, Phoebe's service would have been there. Her title also means that if an enemy attacked you she would be IN THE FRONT RANKS.

Phoebe's job marks her as a servant of Greece: She was a patroness and especially took care of Christians. If you were a METIC she found you a job, a home, a sponsoring family. If you were a straggler--even claiming to be an apostle--she made certain that you delivered your message and then she sent you out on the other sea port.

the usual METIC  had to have an Athenian sponsor, called a prostatês , and be registered in a deme. He or she was required to pay an annual poll tax called a metoikion. Men were liable to service in the military but in the navy only in times of emergency. They were also required to undertake liturgies. Metics were not permitted to own land unless they had obtained a special grant called an enktêsis. This entitled them either to purchase a home or establish a sanctuary for the worship of a foreign deity

It was through their private cultic associations that metics were able to consort together and retain their distinctive identity. Many such associations also functioned as dining clubs. One of these was devoted to the worship of the Phrygian god Sabazios, an exotic deity whose nocturnal rites included ecstatic dances accompanied by the flute and kettledrum. The cult of Sabazios aroused such animosity when it was first introduced into Athens that it was the butt of humor in no fewer than four comedies by Aristophanes. In one play, Sabazios, together with other foreign deities, is booted out of Athens. In the middle of the fourth century B.C., however, the Athenians received an oracle ordering them to desist from persecuting the followers of Sabazios. This had the desired effect, and in time the Athenians themselves became worshipers of Sabazios. An inscription dated to the very end of the second century B.C. records the names of fifty-one members of the cult, no fewer than thirtysix of whom were Athenian.


The JEWS practiced SABAZIANISM

Females and the effeminate saw EVE as their MEDIATRIX"

"Sabazios [Zagreos] also belongs to the Phrygian group [of ministers and attendants of the sacred rites of Rhea & Dionysos] and in a way is the child of the Mother [Rhea or EVE], since he too transmitted the rites of Dionysos." - Strabo, Geography 10.3.15

That is why Christians needed a PROTECTOR who steered them away from the MAD WOMEN OF CORINTH.

Phoebe was on official BUSINESS--she may have been wealth--in Rome and Paul sent a letter by her.



Offline lea

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #82 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 16:19:55 »
notreligius said,
Quote
    One day in the future Jesus Christ, the Son of the Triune Godhead, will return and will physically reign over his people on this New Earth.  We will be in an eternal state.    Sickness, disease, wars, and death will be gone.  The wolf will lie down with the lamb.   Satan and his minions will have been totally destroyed.

I disagree. The new heavens and earth is the new covenant. Also, false teachers were referred to as "wolves" or "goats." Men are sometimes referred to as "trees" in scripture. It's figurative language.

     "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled". [Matthew 5:17-18]

     This little tract will attempt to answer a few questions about these verses. First, what did Jesus say had to happen before the law could pass away? Second, does the Bible tell us when these requirements would be met? Let us answer the first question.

     Until Heaven and Earth Pass

     Did you notice that Jesus said heaven and earth had to pass away before the law could pass?!? Yes, he really did say it; please, get your Bible right now and read it for yourself! It has been my experience that a LOT OF PEOPLE have never seen those words before! A relative of mine read the verse five times before admitting it actually says this!

     Has the heaven and earth passed away? Well, obviously, physical heaven and earth haven't been destroyed. But read the text again will you? Jesus DID say until heaven and earth pass away the Old Law could not pass. Our choices here are limited.

     If we understand the "heaven and earth" as literal, physical heaven and earth then this means the Old Law is still in effect. Simply put the argument would go like this: If heaven and earth had to pass before the Old Law could pass; and if heaven and earth refers to literal, physical heaven and earth, then, since literal, physical heaven and earth still exist, [have not passed], it must be true that the Old Law has not passed.
~ Eschatology.com

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #83 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 17:26:53 »
soterion  -  It is not *I* that designed the context that is found along with the "oikodespoteo" term in I Tim. 5:14.  If you have never heard any one emphasizing this point before, I can understand why you might think this is only my personal view on display here.  As an honest student of the word of God, please try chewing on this for a while, though.  "The ear trieth words as the mouth tasteth meat" Job 34:3 tells us.  This subject is worthy of a bit of munching.

Now, why do you think Paul used this very strong term "oikodespoteo" that instructed young women to be a masterful type of ruler in their own households, while elders and husbands were given the more simplified instruction to only "oversee" congregations and to "guide" and "preside over" the workings of their households?  Could it be to correct an imbalanced situation that prevailed among Paul's generation?  The times being what they were, with the male of the household holding virtual life or death power over his children and bondservants - there was no need to emphasize or encourage these men to be strong leaders.  There actually was a need for them to TONE DOWN the way they were operating within their homes.  The laws of the times permitted Roman men to order their wives to "expose" unwanted children to the elements, resulting in their death.   Hebrew men of the times had also been taught appalling views regarding the supposed inferior minds and capabilities of wives and daughters.  If you haven't already, I suggest doing a bit of digging into rabbinical statements of opinion on this topic.  It's an eye-opener.

Women growing up in this rather stifling atmosphere needed encouragement to take a firmer stance on running their own households.  Many of them in this I Tim. 5 context had adopted a lax attitude about taking supervision of their households, and were becoming idle busybodies instead.  This, I believe, is the reason that Paul used the very strong term of "oikodespoteo" for young women in I Tim. 5:14, to get things back on track.  "Wait 'till your father gets home" would not have been a very effective policy for back then, and neither is it for today, either.  Correction needs to be on the spot, or it is ineffective for young children.  Women did, and do, need to keep a firm control on the working operations of their own households and children.  They need not wait for their husband's "authorization" to be masterful rulers of their own homes, because God has already given them that directive through Paul's words.  The husband's task as the representative of that home, (just like the angels' original task of the divine council that humanity was once in subjection to), is to "strengthen" and "confirm" his wife.

Any imbalanced state in the running of the home is a direct result of the Fall, which is the main focus of your post, soterion.  The "...he shall rule over thee" prediction given by God in Gen 3:16 is NOT God's command being given - it is God's WARNING that this would be the unfortunate RESULT of sin's effects from then on.  We as children of God under the New Covenant are to work at CORRECTING those sinful results of the Fall - not laboring to continue them as if they were God's desired dictates for all time.   We don't think twice about using fans or air-conditioning to relieve ourselves of "the sweat of our brow" when we work; we don't hesitate to pursue medical intervention to forestall an early death, when we will return to dust again; medical aids to relieve pain in childbirth don't need to be avoided; and fertilizing the fields for greater crop yields and using week killer on our lawns is perfectly okay.  All these methods used to counter the Fall's effects are not condemned, and neither would God condemn us for attempting to restore the joint dominion of male / female over the planet.  Why is this one last point so hotly contested by many?  It is no different than the other means we use to ease the effects of the Fall. 

I am not an anarchist, soterion, with a desire to squelch the representative role of leaders in this world.  What I WOULD like to see taking place is a reduction in the inordinate emphasis on "authority" that I have witnessed for the majority of my time on this earth.  I have encountered altogether too much stress on "who is going to tell who what to do?" within the church and in husband / wife relations within Christian homes.  This was not Christ's main focus point.  At the Last Supper with a towel tied around his waist, He showed us what was the most important thing for ALL interpersonal relationships.  With so much undue emphasis on the "authority" issue, it triggers an obsession in some power-hungry individuals, and distorts the balance of joint dominion for men and women that God intended from the beginning.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #84 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 18:13:54 »
Quote
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets;
        I am not come to destroy, but to FULFILL .
        Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass,
        not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled"
. [Matthew 5:17-18]

JESUS CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW AND PROPHETS. If Jesus didn't FULFILL or SATISFY the Law (Civil-Military-Clergy) and the PROPHETS (Godly Jews who were not abandoned but attended synagogue)

1.  Peter said that Jesus fulfilled or CERTIFIED the Prophets which define the REST OF MESSIAH both inclusively and exclusively.
2.  Peter and other were eye-- and ear--witnesses and left US a memory NOT subject to private interpretation or further expounding or corrupting-selling at retail re Paul.
3. An Assembly of Christ is built upon or EDUCATED by the Prophets and Apostles and NOT by the Law given to those abandoned by God.

Matt. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the LAW, or the PROPHETS:
        I am not come to destroy, BUT FULFIL

TO FULFILL IS:
4137. plhro/w pleroo, play-ro´-o; from 4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or IMBUE, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.: — accomplish, x after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

When the LAW has a penalty and you FULFIL that penalty then the LAW against you is NO LONGER VALID.

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you,
        Till heaven and earth pass,
        one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,
        TILL ALL BE FULFILLED

IF JESUS HAD NOT FULFILLED THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETIC TYPES then He would be a false teacher because Heaven and Earth.  However, JESUS DID satisfy ALL of the demands of the LAW which prescribes PENALTY but never GOOD:

g4134. pleres, play´-race; from 4130; replete, or covered over; by analogy, complete: — full.

Luke 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written
        MUST yet be accomplished IN ME
        And he was reckoned among the transgressors:
        for the things CONCERNING ME have an end.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
        while I was yet with you,
        that all things must be fulfilled,
        which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,     
        CONCERNING ME
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding,
        that they might understand the SCRIPTURES,

Luke 24:46 And said unto them,
        Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
        and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins
        should be preached in his name among all NATIONS, [gentiles]
        beginning at Jerusalem.

    g1484. ethnos, eth´-nos; probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (NON-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan): — Gentile, heathen, nation, people

Mark 9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
        That there be some of them that stand here,
        which shall not taste of death,
        till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

IN ISAIAH 49 JACOB WARNED THE GODLY NOT TO ATTEND THE ASSEMBLIES OF LEVI OR TO ENTER INTO THEIR COVENANT. The only Spiritual Covenant was made with Abraham who was NOT a Semite. Paul in Galatians 3 confirms that prophecy.


Gal. 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but,
        The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
        being made a curse for us: for it is written,
        Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal. 3:14 THAT the blessing of Abraham
        might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;
        that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
« Last Edit: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 18:17:44 by Kenneth Sublett »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #85 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 19:28:58 »
Firstly, I was asked about these documents and God and the first amendment gave ME TOO the right to blather.


 ::noworries::

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #86 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 19:40:40 »

     Until Heaven and Earth Pass

     Did you notice that Jesus said heaven and earth had to pass away before the law could pass?!? Yes, he really did say it; please, get your Bible right now and read it for yourself! It has been my experience that a LOT OF PEOPLE have never seen those words before! A relative of mine read the verse five times before admitting it actually says this!


Actually, Jesus did not say that. Here is what he said:

Matthew 5:18.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

You should reread Jesus words in Matthew 5:18 in light of what the letter to the Hebrews says about the law. You should see that "heaven and earth passing away" is not the deciding factor regarding the law, but rather it is the "all being accomplished" that decides.

Concerning the law, there are no more animal sacrifices, no more circumcision of the flesh, no more levitical priesthood. A whole lot more than just one jot or tittle has passed from the law, because all has been accomplished by Christ, thus that body of law has already passed away.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #87 on: Tue Jun 05, 2018 - 20:01:58 »
soterion  -  It is not *I* that designed the context that is found along with the "oikodespoteo" term in I Tim. 5:14.  If you have never heard any one emphasizing this point before, I can understand why you might think this is only my personal view on display here.  As an honest student of the word of God, please try chewing on this for a while, though.  "The ear trieth words as the mouth tasteth meat" Job 34:3 tells us.  This subject is worthy of a bit of munching.

Now, why do you think Paul used this very strong term "oikodespoteo" that instructed young women to be a masterful type of ruler in their own households, while elders and husbands were given the more simplified instruction to only "oversee" congregations and to "guide" and "preside over" the workings of their households?  Could it be to correct an imbalanced situation that prevailed among Paul's generation?  The times being what they were, with the male of the household holding virtual life or death power over his children and bondservants - there was no need to emphasize or encourage these men to be strong leaders.  There actually was a need for them to TONE DOWN the way they were operating within their homes.  The laws of the times permitted Roman men to order their wives to "expose" unwanted children to the elements, resulting in their death.   Hebrew men of the times had also been taught appalling views regarding the supposed inferior minds and capabilities of wives and daughters.  If you haven't already, I suggest doing a bit of digging into rabbinical statements of opinion on this topic.  It's an eye-opener.

Women growing up in this rather stifling atmosphere needed encouragement to take a firmer stance on running their own households.  Many of them in this I Tim. 5 context had adopted a lax attitude about taking supervision of their households, and were becoming idle busybodies instead.  This, I believe, is the reason that Paul used the very strong term of "oikodespoteo" for young women in I Tim. 5:14, to get things back on track.  "Wait 'till your father gets home" would not have been a very effective policy for back then, and neither is it for today, either.  Correction needs to be on the spot, or it is ineffective for young children.  Women did, and do, need to keep a firm control on the working operations of their own households and children.  They need not wait for their husband's "authorization" to be masterful rulers of their own homes, because God has already given them that directive through Paul's words.  The husband's task as the representative of that home, (just like the angels' original task of the divine council that humanity was once in subjection to), is to "strengthen" and "confirm" his wife.


You're basically saying Paul was social justice warrior fighting for women's rights. I find that very ironic because some people who actually understand what these various passage are saying refer to Paul as a woman-hater. Both extreme views, your's and their's, I believe to be incorrect.

Quote

Any imbalanced state in the running of the home is a direct result of the Fall, which is the main focus of your post, soterion.  The "...he shall rule over thee" prediction given by God in Gen 3:16 is NOT God's command being given - it is God's WARNING that this would be the unfortunate RESULT of sin's effects from then on.  We as children of God under the New Covenant are to work at CORRECTING those sinful results of the Fall - not laboring to continue them as if they were God's desired dictates for all time.   We don't think twice about using fans or air-conditioning to relieve ourselves of "the sweat of our brow" when we work; we don't hesitate to pursue medical intervention to forestall an early death, when we will return to dust again; medical aids to relieve pain in childbirth don't need to be avoided; and fertilizing the fields for greater crop yields and using week killer on our lawns is perfectly okay.  All these methods used to counter the Fall's effects are not condemned, and neither would God condemn us for attempting to restore the joint dominion of male / female over the planet.  Why is this one last point so hotly contested by many?  It is no different than the other means we use to ease the effects of the Fall. 


So, God was not declaring His will regarding how things are to be after they sinned, but rather He was declaring the effects of their sin on mankind, regardless of how He might actually want things to be?

Look at the list in Reply #52. Would you say that same thing about all of those listed consequences of their sin?

How about this: in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul declares a certain function that men are to have and women not to have. The reasons he gave are 1) the order of creation, and 2) the nature of Eve's sin in contrast with Adam's. Is Paul writing God's express will in this case, or this simply the natural consequences of their original sin and we are supposed to oppose it and neutralize it with every effort?

Quote

I am not an anarchist, soterion, with a desire to squelch the representative role of leaders in this world.  What I WOULD like to see taking place is a reduction in the inordinate emphasis on "authority" that I have witnessed for the majority of my time on this earth.  I have encountered altogether too much stress on "who is going to tell who what to do?" within the church and in husband / wife relations within Christian homes.  This was not Christ's main focus point.  At the Last Supper with a towel tied around his waist, He showed us what was the most important thing for ALL interpersonal relationships.  With so much undue emphasis on the "authority" issue, it triggers an obsession in some power-hungry individuals, and distorts the balance of joint dominion for men and women that God intended from the beginning.

Just because there are some things in the word of God that we may not like or agree with, that does not give us permission to interpret those things in such a way as to make them non-relevant or minimized to the point of non-effectiveness. Anything in the Bible can be misunderstood or abused of the sake of personal gain. The response should not be to change the interpretation of that thing so as to take away its power with those who are abusing it. Rather, we maintain the truth and oppose the selfish abuse of those truths.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #88 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 00:09:36 »
soterion  -  We know that Paul received direct instruction from God by revelation after his conversion for the teaching that he passed down through his epistles (Gal. 1:11-12).  I believe that Paul was indeed going against the contemporary flow of common practices very often in what he taught.  You may refer to my comments as making Paul a sort of "social justice warrior" if you will, but in actuality, yes, he WAS that - and not just on behalf of women, either.  The very text you refer to in I Tim 2:11-14 was Paul's correction of another imbalanced situation going on in the Ephesian churches.  This text was not written in a vacuum.  We know that the city of Ephesus was absolutely devoted to the worship of the goddess Diana to an obsessive degree.  Witness the Ephesian riot of Acts 19.  New female converts from this city were still reflecting this city's attitude by being overbearing in their relations with the men of this church, and this needed to be addressed by Paul, which he did, in order to put things back on a level playing field for both men and women. 

The ideal is for NEITHER men NOR women to have domineering attitudes or authority over each other in the assembly.  Ephesus, a city completely dedicated to worshipping a female goddess, just happened to be a church where some of the WOMEN were doing the domineering.  We also have an example of a certain MAN in the church assembly being domineering, who was also reproved for it in III John 9-10.  "...Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.  Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words..." 

It is not sound exegesis to take this isolated example of reproof for some domineering women in the Ephesian church and extrapolate from that a command for all women everywhere in every generation of assemblies to never speak a word to men which would give them any instruction whatever.  You may personally be opposed to learning from a woman, which is your total right to be so inclined, but there are others who are not at all offended by scriptural examples of women prophesying or shepherding church assemblies in their homes.  These others also have scriptural justification to be so inclined.  This is very much like the meat-offered-to-idols issue in scripture - some had a clear conscience about this, and others did not.  Those who had no problem with it were to be sensitive to the weaker brothers who were not yet settled in their minds or consciences concerning this issue.  Ditto for the women-teaching-men issue in our day.   

In your list from reply #52, there are just two statements which have God saying "I WILL " do such-and such as a reaction to the Fall.  Of all the list of unfortunate results of the Fall, only these two statements are God's contribution towards a remedy for the Fall.   First, God says "I WILL put enmity between thee and the woman...", and then goes on to give the proto-evangelium promise - the hope-filled prediction of relief for mankind's fallen condition in the person of Christ, who would crush Satan.   Second, God promises that "I WILL greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;"  Notice a couple things here: the woman was ALREADY capable of conception and sorrow with bringing forth children BEFORE the Fall.  God would not say He was going to MULTIPLY these things if there were not a feature already in place that could be greatly multiplied.  Next, this greatly-multiplied conception was going to be an absolute necessity, because mankind had just become a creature needing replacement because of eventual death.  If A & E had never sinned, they would have never physically died, and thus would not have needed as many children to exercise dominion over the world.  But with the Fall, disease, death, and murder would take their toll on human population rates.  God's decree of greatly-multiplied conception was actually part of the remedy for this - notwithstanding the accompanying multiplied sorrows in childbirth.  The same God who promised greatly-multiplied conception also said later that "the fruit of the womb is His REWARD", and "happy is the man who has his quiver full of them" (Ps. 127:3,5).   

None of the rest of the list of the Fall's effects have God's statement of "I WILL..." attached to them, which tells me that the rest of this list is NOT a declaration of His will as to how things OUGHT to be.   Instead, they were God's warning to be prepared for these unfortunate effects to crop up. 

It is not a matter of my "liking" or disagreeing with scripture's teaching, soterion.  I am not offended by God's words, but with how mankind has misunderstood the original intent of the author, and has passed down traditions based on these beliefs that have veered off-course from the original truth.   

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5363
  • Manna: 304
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #89 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 04:30:51 »
It is not a matter of my "liking" or disagreeing with scripture's teaching, soterion.  I am not offended by God's words, but with how mankind has misunderstood the original intent of the author, and has passed down traditions based on these beliefs that have veered off-course from the original truth.
Greetings to both you and soterion~am following you two and I must say your position surprise me even though I knew you lean that way, just was not sure how far. Brother, I believe you are swinging too far the other way from "JRC" lording over God's flock. Yes, he was a power-hungry individual that love to lord over people, even to a point "his" church after thirty years still does not have deacons, for fear of sharing any authority, and fear of any person even considering another person's position other than his own. I know you regret ever sitting under him for many reasons, some of which are very valid. But, I'm convinced on this point my friend you moving too far away from God's ordained level of authority.

I'm not going to make one or two points to show you why I believe you are wrong, so, for now, I will forbear until I have more time to deal with this subject in detail AFTER you two are finished. I am sorry you experience JRC (I'll keep his name private, you know who am talking about) "love for power"~but my brother, do not throw the baby out with that dirty water!

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7234
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #90 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 06:16:48 »
If A & E had never sinned, they would have never physically died.....
It was not their sin which produced their physical deaths.  Rather it was being ejected from the Garden and no longer having any access to the fruit of the tree of life (Gen 3:22-23).  Nor are we told that "disease, death and murder" are due to the sins of Adam and Eve.
« Last Edit: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 06:20:18 by 4WD »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #91 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 08:56:10 »
soterion  -  We know that Paul received direct instruction from God by revelation after his conversion for the teaching that he passed down through his epistles (Gal. 1:11-12).  I believe that Paul was indeed going against the contemporary flow of common practices very often in what he taught.  You may refer to my comments as making Paul a sort of "social justice warrior" if you will, but in actuality, yes, he WAS that - and not just on behalf of women, either.  The very text you refer to in I Tim 2:11-14 was Paul's correction of another imbalanced situation going on in the Ephesian churches.  This text was not written in a vacuum.  We know that the city of Ephesus was absolutely devoted to the worship of the goddess Diana to an obsessive degree.  Witness the Ephesian riot of Acts 19.  New female converts from this city were still reflecting this city's attitude by being overbearing in their relations with the men of this church, and this needed to be addressed by Paul, which he did, in order to put things back on a level playing field for both men and women. 

The ideal is for NEITHER men NOR women to have domineering attitudes or authority over each other in the assembly.  Ephesus, a city completely dedicated to worshipping a female goddess, just happened to be a church where some of the WOMEN were doing the domineering.  We also have an example of a certain MAN in the church assembly being domineering, who was also reproved for it in III John 9-10.  "...Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.  Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words..." 

It is not sound exegesis to take this isolated example of reproof for some domineering women in the Ephesian church and extrapolate from that a command for all women everywhere in every generation of assemblies to never speak a word to men which would give them any instruction whatever.  You may personally be opposed to learning from a woman, which is your total right to be so inclined, but there are others who are not at all offended by scriptural examples of women prophesying or shepherding church assemblies in their homes.  These others also have scriptural justification to be so inclined.  This is very much like the meat-offered-to-idols issue in scripture - some had a clear conscience about this, and others did not.  Those who had no problem with it were to be sensitive to the weaker brothers who were not yet settled in their minds or consciences concerning this issue.  Ditto for the women-teaching-men issue in our day.   


I just want to point out two things, one on a scriptural level, and the other on a personal level. After that, I will be glad to continue to converse with you on this if you would like, but it does seem like we are just two rams butting horns. ::smile::

First, you make it sound like the instruction given in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 was meant to deal with some local issue in the Ephesian church, and that said instruction was not to be applied universally. I have to question that mainly because Paul's stated reason for the instruction is, 1) Adam being formed first and, 2) the nature of Eve's sin in contrast to Adam's. If Paul was just dealing with a local issue, then the reason for the instruction would be tied into that issue, if the instruction was not meant to have a more universal application.

Second, I agree fully with this statement: The ideal is for NEITHER men NOR women to have domineering attitudes or authority over each other in the assembly. In fact, that is true for the home and the church. I have tried repeatedly to point out that I believe the arrangement by God is best to the serving of the needs of all, with the benefits being reciprocal. Any leadership put in place by God in the home and in the church is to the serving of the whole.

You may personally be opposed to learning from a woman, which is your total right to be so inclined is not my position at all. If it was up to me, I would feel more the way you do, but I am not in charge, God is.

Quote

In your list from reply #52, there are just two statements which have God saying "I WILL " do such-and such as a reaction to the Fall.  Of all the list of unfortunate results of the Fall, only these two statements are God's contribution towards a remedy for the Fall.   First, God says "I WILL put enmity between thee and the woman...", and then goes on to give the proto-evangelium promise - the hope-filled prediction of relief for mankind's fallen condition in the person of Christ, who would crush Satan.   Second, God promises that "I WILL greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;"  Notice a couple things here: the woman was ALREADY capable of conception and sorrow with bringing forth children BEFORE the Fall.  God would not say He was going to MULTIPLY these things if there were not a feature already in place that could be greatly multiplied.  Next, this greatly-multiplied conception was going to be an absolute necessity, because mankind had just become a creature needing replacement because of eventual death.  If A & E had never sinned, they would have never physically died, and thus would not have needed as many children to exercise dominion over the world.  But with the Fall, disease, death, and murder would take their toll on human population rates.  God's decree of greatly-multiplied conception was actually part of the remedy for this - notwithstanding the accompanying multiplied sorrows in childbirth.  The same God who promised greatly-multiplied conception also said later that "the fruit of the womb is His REWARD", and "happy is the man who has his quiver full of them" (Ps. 127:3,5).   

None of the rest of the list of the Fall's effects have God's statement of "I WILL..." attached to them, which tells me that the rest of this list is NOT a declaration of His will as to how things OUGHT to be.   Instead, they were God's warning to be prepared for these unfortunate effects to crop up. 

It is not a matter of my "liking" or disagreeing with scripture's teaching, soterion.  I am not offended by God's words, but with how mankind has misunderstood the original intent of the author, and has passed down traditions based on these beliefs that have veered off-course from the original truth.

I still read God's words to the serpent, the woman, and the man, after their sin, as His dictates regarding His will. The consequence, "...you will surely die." attached to their eating of the fruit is not an "I will..." statement, but I believe it still reflects a purposefully imposed consequence of their disobedience to His command.

Offline lea

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #92 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 14:08:40 »
Actually, Jesus did not say that. Here is what he said:

Matthew 5:18.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

You should reread Jesus words in Matthew 5:18 in light of what the letter to the Hebrews says about the law. You should see that "heaven and earth passing away" is not the deciding factor regarding the law, but rather it is the "all being accomplished" that decides.

Concerning the law, there are no more animal sacrifices, no more circumcision of the flesh, no more levitical priesthood. A whole lot more than just one jot or tittle has passed from the law, because all has been accomplished by Christ, thus that body of law has already passed away.


Matthew 5:17-18 (NKJV) "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.


You said a lot more than a jot or tittle has passed from the Law- And you said was all accomplished
by Christ. BUT God referred to Israel many times "heaven and earth."

Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but fulfill" - The use of the terms "the law" and "the prophets" indicates that what the Lord is speaking of in these verses is the whole of the Old Testament. If you trace these terms through your Bible, you will find that wherever this expression is used it includes the entire Old Testament:

 Luke 24:44 (NKJV) Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

 The "law of Moses", "the prophets", and "the psalms" speak of the entirety of the Old Testament.

 The phrase "till heaven and earth pass away" refers to the duration of the whole Old Testament's authority. So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away.

So did Jesus fail to fulfill the Law?
That heaven and earth passed away. Not the literal ones but the OC heaven and earth.
21 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Rev.21:1) emph. mine.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7234
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #93 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 15:30:53 »
God referred to Israel many times "heaven and earth."
I found "heaven and earth" in 26 instances in the [NASB] Bible.  I do not see that even one of them is speaking about Israel.
« Last Edit: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 15:35:13 by 4WD »

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #94 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 16:23:55 »
Quote
The "law of Moses", "the prophets", and "the psalms" speak of the entirety of the Old Testament.

The phrase "till heaven and earth pass away" refers to the duration of the whole Old Testament's authority. So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away.
 The "law of Moses", "the prophets", and "the psalms" speak of the entirety of the Old Testament.

The phrase "till heaven and earth pass away" refers to the duration of the whole Old Testament's authority. So, Jesus is saying that not a single item of the Law - the Old Testament - will ever be changed until heaven and earth pass away.[

There are other versions: Jesus is EMPHASIZING that the PROPHECIES CONCERNING ME WILL BE FULLFILLED:

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
        he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you,
        that all things must be fulfilled,
        which were written in the law of Moses,
        and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
        CONCERNING ME.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding,
        that they might understand THE SCRIPTURES
Luke 24:46 And said unto them,
        Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
        and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins
        should be preached in his name among all nations,
        beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you:
        but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,
        until ye be endued with power from on high.

NOT ALL of the Law of Moses but the prophecies CONCERNING ME.
The Hebrews or defacto Egyptians REFUSED to listen to God and He made them blind and deaf and sentenced them to captivity and death because of the Mount Sinai idolatry.

Deut. 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
        of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Deut. 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb
         in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God,
         neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
Deut. 18:17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
Deut. 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,
         like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth;
         and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Deut. 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever
         will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

This was fulfilled in Jesus

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers,
        A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
        like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel,
        A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
        like unto me; him shall ye hear.

When the Jews gave something BITTER to drink and He said IT IS FINISHED the Law of Moses which had NOT SPIRITUAL VALUE ceased to ENSLAVE THE PEOPLE.  NEITHER JESUS NOR ANYONE TAUGHT ANYONE TO OBSERVE THE LAW OF MOSES other than not to OFFEND Jews.

« Last Edit: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 17:42:00 by Kenneth Sublett »

Offline lea

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • Manna: 5
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #95 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 16:47:21 »
   
Quote
Quote from: 4WD on Today at 15:30:53

    I found "heaven and earth" in 26 instances in the [NASB] Bible.  I do not see that even one of them is speaking about Israel.
Another example of "heaven and earth" being referent to the Covenant World of Israel and not literal creation is Isaiah 51:16.

     "I have put my word in your mouth and have covered

     you with the shadow of my hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are my people'". [NASV]

 What is the point? Notice that God is speaking to Israel. He says he gave them his law, the Mosaic Covenant, the same law Jesus is speaking about in Matthew 5:17-18, to establish heaven and lay the foundation of the earth! Clearly Jehovah is not saying he gave the Mosaic Covenant to Israel to create literal heaven and earth! Material creation existed long before Israel was ever given the Mosaic Covenant.

     The meaning of the verse is that Jehovah gave his covenant with Israel to CREATE THEIR WORLD--A COVENANT WORLD WITH JEHOVAH!

     God created Israel's "heaven and earth" by giving them his Covenant. Now if he destroyed THAT Old Covenant heaven and earth and gave a NEW COVENANT, would he not thereby be creating a NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH? This is precisely the thought in the NEW COVENANT SCRIPTURES!

     Old Israel's covenant was about to pass away, II Corinthians 3:10ff; Hebrews 8:13; 12:25ff. The New Covenant of Christ was being given, Ephesians 3:3ff; Hebrews 2:1ff. Since the giving of Covenant created "heaven and earth" the New Heaven and Earth of Christ would not be completed until the New Covenant was completely revealed. It therefore follows that if the New Heavens and Earth of Christ has not arrived then CHRIST'S NEW COVENANT HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY REVEALED! If Christ's New Covenant has been fully revealed then the NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH HAS FULLY COME! Consider this carefully in light of II Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22, passages written as the process of revealing the NEW COVENANT was yet incomplete.

     In Isaiah 51:5-6 God predicted the "heaven and earth" would vanish. This is the same "heaven and earth" he had established at Sinai. This is not a prediction of the passing of literal heaven and earth--it is a prediction of the passing of the Old World of Israel so that the New Covenant World of Messiah would be established. We believe this heaven and earth that Isaiah said would perish is the same heaven and earth Jesus said must pass before the Old Law would pass.

     Isaiah 65-66 also predicted the passing of "heaven and earth" but as with the other prophecies noted above it does not refer to the passing of physical creation. In chapter 65 God predicted that Israel would fill the measure of her sin, vs. 7; he would destroy them, vs. 8-15; create a new people with a new name, vs. 15-16; create a new heaven and earth with a new Jerusalem, vs. 17-19. The creation of the new heavens and earth would follow the destruction of the Jews after they had filled the measure of their sins and been destroyed at the coming of the Lord in fire with his angels, Isaiah 66:15ff. The new creation of Isaiah 66 is depicted as a time of evangelism and Jew and Gentile being brought together under the banner of God, vss 19ff.

     Now Isaiah 65 said the new creation would come when Israel had filled the measure of her sin and was destroyed. Do we have any clue as to when this was to happen?

     In Matthew 23:31-39 Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sins IN HIS GENERATION! In chapter 24 he predicted the passing of Israel's heaven and earth at his coming, vs. 29-36. Now notice:

     1.] Isaiah said Israel's old heaven and earth would not be destroyed until Israel had filled her sin;

     2.] The new heaven and earth would not come until Israel's old heaven and earth was destroyed;

     3.] Jesus said Israel would fill up the measure of her sin and be destroyed at his coming in his generation;

     4.] Therefore Israel's "heaven and earth" was destroyed at Jesus' coming against Israel, when the measure of her sin was full, in that generation.

     In Matthew 24 Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This Temple was the very center of the Jewish world. This is where the sacrifices for sin were offered by the genealogically confirmed Levitical priests. For Jesus to predict the utter desolation of this temple was the same as saying their world was about to come crashing down around their ears!

     In graphic detail Jesus chronicled the events to occur before that disaster and the signs indicating its imminence, vss. 14-15. In highly apocalyptic, [symbolic] language he described the fall itself:

     "The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of the sky with power and great glory". ~eschatology.com




Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7234
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #96 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 17:20:45 »
I repeat:  I found "heaven and earth" in 26 instances in the [NASB] Bible.  I do not see that even one of them is speaking about Israel.

I have seen a lot of eisegesis here at the forum on occasion;  Your last post is right up there with the best of them.  I think that you must have been to Ireland recently and took occasion to kiss the Blarney Stone.

Offline Kenneth Sublett

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Manna: 39
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)cheives (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #97 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 17:58:16 »
Jacob commanded that the Abrahamic People (Gentiles) not assemble with the LEVI people nor to enter into a covenant with them:

Gal. 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal. 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Abraham was to be a BLESSING TO ALL. NATIONS: the "Jews" tried to enslave people so that the LAW was given to LEGISLATE FOR THE LAWLESS

Gal. 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
        preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying,
        In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal. 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:
         for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth
         not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident:
        for, The just shall live by faith. [The Gospel]
Gal. 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but,
        The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Gal. 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
        being made a curse for us:
        for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal. 3:14 THAT
         the blessing of Abraham might come on the GENTILES through Jesus Christ;
        that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. [The promise to ABRAHAM]
Gal. 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;
        Though it be but a man’s covenant,
        yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

THE LAW OF MOSES GIVEN AS A CURSE DID NOT CHANGE THE ONLY SPIRITUAL COVENANT MADE TO ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED-JESUS

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.
         He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
         but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant,
         that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law,
         which was four hundred and thirty years after,
         cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal. 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law,
         it is no more of promise:
         but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

The events in the life of JESUS was to fulfill the prophecies "CONDERNING ME."
That would be a signal that the Laded Burdens and BURDEN LADERS would be converted or destroyed.

Jesus commanded that the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM begin in Jerusalem but then was to go to ALL NATIONS or Gentiles. Paul's and others experience was that BLINDNESS came over the JEWS as a nation because GOD IS NO RESPECTOR OF PERSONS: James said that if YOU show partiality as a legalist the WHOLE LAW OF MOSES COMES CRASHING DOWN ON YOU. Why would people want to hang on to the Jews whom God TURNED OVER or Abandoned to worship the starry host. God abandoned ALL national systems which enslaved people under the name of a Righteous God.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #98 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 20:29:45 »
lea,

There is nothing in the words of Jesus to suggest that any passing away of heaven and earth is referring to the Old Covenant or to Israel.

Matthew 5:17-19.
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17.
But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.

I believe Jesus is simply saying that as long as heaven and earth are standing, not one bit of the law will pass way until it is all completely fulfilled, or accomplished. Heaven and earth here is...the physical heaven and earth. Jesus is emphasizing the permanence of the law until such a time when it has been fulfilled as to its purpose. The law here is the law given by God to the Israelites through Moses. Notice what Jesus says in Matthew 5:19 about any who break the least commandment in the law and teaches others to do the same. Yet, the New Testament teaches that the Old Covenant and the law of Moses are no more in Christ.

Like I said, this becomes more clear when one reads the letter to the Hebrews. The New Covenant is fully in place, removing the continual O.C. animal sacrifices in favor of the once for all sacrifice of the Lamb of God, the Levitical priesthood is removed in favor of Jesus as High Priest, the temporal tabernacle/temple is removed in favor of the heavenly tabernacle, etc.

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #99 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 21:24:07 »
soterion  -  A personal note here also - for myself, this has been a most enjoyable exchange, though of course, we are seeing some things from opposing viewpoints.   You've been courteous as well as very direct and to-the-point, which is a style I thoroughly appreciate.  I sense no acrimony from you, and in return feel none towards yourself on my part.

You mention that you believe the I Tim. 2:11-14 text should have a universal application: yes, in a sense, that is true.  The reason Paul was reminding his readers of the woman being deceived in the Fall and of the fact she was formed after Adam's creation was to help instill some humility in those women who were being overbearing to the men of the Ephesian assembly.  Should any church assembly anywhere else encounter a like problem of women teaching men in a DOMINEERING FASHION, the same reminder given in the I Timothy 2 situation should then be brought up again in that situation to restore humility in the teaching method.  This I Timothy 2 reproof was similar to Paul reminding the Gentiles of his day to "not be high-minded, but fear" lest they should be broken off like the natural branches of the Jews. 

A meek and quiet spirit (which is not the equivalent of a silent tongue) is most to be desired in those who are giving instruction to the church.  We know Moses was commended highly for his meek spirit, and in the epistles this same attitude was to be used when correcting anyone or in learning anything.  This meek spirit is not gender-specific to women, as it is listed as part of the fruit of the Spirit for all saints.  The saints were not only to "receive with meekness the engrafted word" (James 1:21), but those who taught it were to be "in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves" (II Tim. 2:25).  These Ephesian women in the church were not displaying this meek and quiet spirit as they taught or received instruction.  Paul's comments in I Tim. 2:11-14 were not intended to stop them teaching altogether, but to correct their domineering teaching METHODS, and to help them receive instruction themselves in a more humble fashion.

As I have mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I believe scripture's IDEAL pattern is that assemblies should be led by a combined man / woman shepherding team as a reflection of the man / woman joint dominion in the original creation.  In this way, a picture of the family unit is illustrated more accurately, and the inherent weaknesses and strengths of both genders stand a better chance of balancing each other out.

A solitary person of either gender is not the IDEAL for raising a family, although it can be done with difficulty.  Neither is a 2-woman unit or a 2-men unit God's original design for raising a family.  God's pattern was a 1-man / 1-woman combo.  For the best results, this same combination of both genders should be duplicated in those that oversee the church assembly.  If it was "NOT GOOD that the man should be alone" before Eve's creation, then it is likewise NOT GOOD that man should be alone without a woman's help in the teaching ministry.  If this man / woman unit overseeing the church is working correctly, then "children" of the faith will be added to the fellowship.  IDEALLY, these "children" grow in maturity.  Once again, IDEALLY, some who have grown enough in maturity in the faith who are gifted with leadership will LEAVE the "home" of that assembly, and begin the whole process all over again with a new independent congregational "family".

This passing of the torch to the succeeding generation of teachers is found in Paul's instructions to Timothy: "...the same commit thou to faithful men" (anthropois - which is a gender-free term for men AND / OR women) "who shall be able to teach others also." (II Tim 2:2)

As for the "you shall surely die" prediction (or "dying, you shall die" for double emphasis, as NorrinRadd's post puts it more clearly), this was also a WARNING of the inevitable, tragic consequences of a single disobedient act.  It was not God's statement of what OUGHT TO BE, or of a desired outcome that He wanted to forever perpetuate.  These consequences were SELF-inflicted by the original pair through their own decision. 

But, even before that tragic day had ended, God had already given advance notice of His plan to OVERTURN these consequences.  Not only would He restore fellowship between God and man through the woman's Seed, but eventualy, the fellowship in the eternal state of glorified bodies for the saints would excel even the originally-created state of innocence.  God always goes above and beyond our expectations.

 

Offline 3 Resurrections

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 421
  • Manna: 7
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #100 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 21:41:09 »
RB  -  Thank you for your words of understanding, since you and I both have seen first-hand how an insatiable lust for authority over others can sabotage a church.  This far down the road from that experience, I can see more clearly the purpose God had for exposing me and my family to that environment.  It's true as you are suggesting - the temptation for most of mankind is to go bouncing off the walls from one extreme to another.  My safety net for preventing this has been to saturate myself with the word of God.  My studies of God's word these past years have led me to the views I have expressed above.  They are not orthodox, but neither was Jesus in the days of His ministry.  I am not on a flaming, rant-filled campaign to convert everybody on sight on this subject - or on any other subject, for that matter - but I do believe these views need to have a voice put to them for the sake of succeeding generations.

There's just one problem with your "baby and the bathwater" analogy, RB.  It's a changeling sitting in that bathwater that someone swapped for the original child.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Manna: 141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #101 on: Wed Jun 06, 2018 - 22:38:26 »
soterion  -  A personal note here also - for myself, this has been a most enjoyable exchange, though of course, we are seeing some things from opposing viewpoints.   You've been courteous as well as very direct and to-the-point, which is a style I thoroughly appreciate.  I sense no acrimony from you, and in return feel none towards yourself on my part.


I most certainly feel the same. This back and forth with you has been awesome. ::smile::

Quote

As for the "you shall surely die" prediction (or "dying, you shall die" for double emphasis, as NorrinRadd's post puts it more clearly), this was also a WARNING of the inevitable, tragic consequences of a single disobedient act.  It was not God's statement of what OUGHT TO BE, or of a desired outcome that He wanted to forever perpetuate.  These consequences were SELF-inflicted by the original pair through their own decision. 

But, even before that tragic day had ended, God had already given advance notice of His plan to OVERTURN these consequences.  Not only would He restore fellowship between God and man through the woman's Seed, but eventualy, the fellowship in the eternal state of glorified bodies for the saints would excel even the originally-created state of innocence.  God always goes above and beyond our expectations.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, I would like to share another thought on this subject.

God designed the creation to function a certain way. When we look at the natural world, we see God's handiwork in how things are designed and in how things function. I see a strong comparison between that and how God created and interacts with man. He created man to have a relationship with him and to set him above the rest of His creation, as those created in His image. Along with all of this includes consequences for both obedience and disobedience. Everything has been put in place by God.

It makes sense to me that whatever consequences are a result of sin, as stated by God to the serpent, to the woman, and to the man, they are designed by Him. God is the one who imposed a death penalty for sin. He could have chosen another consequence rather than death, but that is His choice and making. Just like with the serpent, instead of taking away whatever form of mobility he previously had, God could have chosen something different, but crawling/slithering is what He chose. The same is true for all the other stated punishments.

Regardless of His actually saying, "I will..." when stating a punishment to any of the three, those consequences have all been designed by God and put in place according to how He sees fit. None of it was outside of His design according to His purpose. It can be compared to the "natural order of things" when describing the processes we see in nature; all designed by God and put into place according to His will.

Now, of course, those punishments were brought onto the parties due to their own choices. But while they chose and carried out the sin, God chose and implemented the punishments. The good news is like you said, the seed of the woman will undo the damage, and He brings restoration of Edenic innocence and eventual glory with God.

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Manna: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #102 on: Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 04:29:02 »
This thread has gotten away from me a bit.  I'm going to zip through and comment on a few things here and there.  Hopefully I'll be able to do better later.

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Manna: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #103 on: Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 04:44:30 »
If there is a passage that tells us of a change in men's and women's roles, partly as a result of their sin, it is 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:

The passage tells us that for two reasons there is a difference in this particular role between men and women: 1) the order of creation and, 2) the nature of Eve's sin in contrast to Adam's.

Reading this brings about a question in me. Did God put this in place just for the saints in Christ, and not before?

I don't believe it is proper to isolate this portion from the rest of the passage, nor do I think it is proper to assume it is intended as a general handbook for "church behavior."  I also don't think it is good hermeneutics to assume a NT passage necessarily give THE definitive meaning of an OT passage; after all, Matt. 8:17 applies Isa. 53 physically, while 1 Pet. 2:24 applies it spiritually, and that sort of ad hoc adaptation and application is not uncommon.

If not in this thread, then I'm certain that elsewhere some of the relevant cultural background of Ephesus in particular and Asia Minor in general have been mentioned.

Offline NorrinRadd

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Manna: 49
  • Gender: Male
  • Everybody is somebody's heretic
Re: Adam & Eve
« Reply #104 on: Thu Jun 07, 2018 - 05:13:06 »
So you see the fall resulting in a change in the relationship between a husband and a wife? Going by what 1 Cor 11:3-9 and Ephesians 5:22-25 say, what change(s) do you see between pre-fall and post-fall relationships?...

Since the only mention of "authority" in 1 Cor. 11 is in v. 10, where the woman is said to have "authority over her own head" (assuming one is not using one of the way-too-many translations that insert "sign" or "symbol" where no such thing is present in the Greek), the idea of hierarchy seems dubious there.  As with most or all of the Epistles, I take it as referring primarily to a situation at Corinth.  We are mostly blind to the relevant cultural details:  Veils?  Hoods?  Hairstyles?  Roman practices?  Greek practices?  Jewish practices?  (They all differed as to when heads should be covered, and which sex (or both sexes) should follow the practice.)  What is the implication of "because of the angels"?  Translation issues also exist:  "Head" is used in both literal and metaphorical senses.  Is it talking about "men" and "women" broadly, or "husbands" and "wives" narrowly, or is Paul bouncing back and forth?

Fee notes that most of Paul's arguments are along the lines of "shame," as opposed to core matters of theology.

I tend to see the metaphorical use of "head" as mainly "source."

Witherington (IIRC) believes some of the women were overreaching with their liberty and equality in ways that blurred gender distinctions.  (The idea being that in "proper" Christian culture of that time, men and women had distinct practices with regard to head-coverings when performing specifically "religious" acts such as praying and prophesying.)

I see the domestic codes passage of Colossians as being more supportive of the male-dominated-hierarchy view.  But since it is so closely contemporary and has such strong verbal parallels with "Ephesians" (which several factors suggest was actually more of circular letter to all the churches in that area), and since Ephesians is more detailed, I am comfortable using the latter to interpret the former.  In the bit you cite, I believe Paul is adapting the common domestic codes formula to Christian households.  The beginning (5:21) and end (6:9) of the whole passage show the overall theme of equality, even between "masters" and "slaves" -- not just in theory, but in treatment.  But the portion in between puts the brakes on any radical, disruptive change in social order, and rebuffs the subversive hyper-feminist beliefs of some of the mystery cults that tended to cause consternation to the Roman authorities.

So in a nutshell:

Pre-Fall -- Partners cooperating, equal but not interchangeable.

Post-Fall -- Each always striving to be in charge; in Christ, ideally, this should not be.