Re: Lucifer (Was Re: Myth)

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 10:11:25 EST

Michael Roberts wrote:
> There is too much forced interpretation over Lucifer as some Christians have
> Satan on the brain! Further it is hardly a literal interpretation, just a
> confused and irresponsible misuse of Scripture.
> Below is another non-literal gross misuse of scripture from AIG. Can anyone
> tell me where it says in Gen 3 God killed an animal for a sacrifice? Which
> verse?. This is simply fanciful misreading and eisegesis
> Michael
> ****************************************
> >From latest AIG Answersupdate.
> Q: Don't we have to read the New Testament to find out about the gospel of
> Jesus Christ?
> A: In our children's book A is for Adam, we have a picture of
> Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden clothed in lamb's wool. Beside
> them is a slain lamb.
> This drawing is based on the passage in Genesis where we're told that,
> because of sin, God made coats of skins and clothed Adam and Eve. God killed
> an animal to provide the first blood sacrifice because of sin. This is a
> picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, 'the lamb of God who takes away
> the sin of the world.' Because of sin, God brought death into the world.
> The only way for man to come back to God was for a perfect man to
> suffer death and pay the penalty for sin. God sent His only Son to
> become a man so that He could die and be raised from the dead. In that way,
> those who trust in Him will be saved for eternity.
> The shedding of blood and the clothing of Adam and Eve is a picture of the
> gospel. If Christians don't believe Genesis is literal history-then the
> gospel is not to be taken literally either.

Michael et al -
        The inference that God must have killed an animal to provide the "garments of
skins" in v.21 is relatively minor in comparison with AiG's utter failure to understand
its own interpretive method. What they are doing of course is to read Genesis 3 in
light of the NT &, in particular, John 1:29. So the answer to the original question
("Don't we have to read the New Testament to find out about the gospel of Jesus
Christ?") is "Yes" - which doesn't mean that there is no witness to Christ in the NT.
        & of course for whatever value one sees in the (inferred) lamb of Gen.3:21 as a
type of Christ, it proves nothing about the historical character of Genesis.


George L. Murphy
Received on Sat Jan 3 10:14:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 10:14:03 EST