You’ve said the HOW could be agency. We’ve both said that that is speculation in the case of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
How is it that you cannot see?
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You’ve said the HOW could be agency. We’ve both said that that is speculation in the case of the creation of the heavens and the earth.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I agree YHWH alone is the Creator but deny he said he did it by himself. What verse says that?
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. In what way is 'the word' -literal?
The word and the light are synonymous and both are figurative terms referencing spiritual concepts. When 'the word' of God comes to a person as seen throughout scripture, they speak that word, and we consider them to be prophets- spokesmen for God. From the spiritual perspective, the process is spiritual.... messengers carry and deliver God's word to men-- some call them angels, or angelic beings, or we might simply say- by the spirit of God, men speak His word.
Regarding the light- as introduced in the Genesis story- it is the spirit of God moving over the waters and it is His word- by which all things are created... spoken into existence as a coined term, but what is it that he speaks that begins the process? 'Let there be light.' It's the beginning of the beginning-- the first thing spoken.
John makes the connection-
The word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.
John goes on, with specific detail regarding who John the Baptist was, and his role--differentiating JTB from this 'light' being. In other words-- JTB had seen the light. He was a witness to it, and he was testifying about what he had seen, prepping the soil for the Sower who was to come. And John emphasizes again, that this light that was coming was the same light that was there, in the beginning at creation.
A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.
Finally, Jesus himself makes the claim--
Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world! The one who follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”
And long before John or Jesus made the connection, the Psalmist put it perfectly--- associating the word of God with the light of men...
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.
A marvellous point of agreement that I want to publicly acknowledge.
Earlier in our conversation I put forth Isaiah 44:24 as an example.
There is an organization which says that we are both mistaken about the concept of agency being speculation in regard to the creation of the heavens and the earth. The organization uses Proverbs 8 to support its belief that the concept of agency in the Genesis creation is a fact, not speculation. How do you handle their rejection of your / our contention that the application of the concept of agency to the Genesis creation narrative is only speculation?
You are trolling. Playing wanna-be Moderator and likely whining to the real ones.
Just leave the thread if you don't like it. Others are trying to have a real discussion.
LOL!
Climb down off that high horse . . .
If I'm rubbing you the wrong way you can put me on ignore . . .
Is it a real discussion when you are making things up in your head about others? I don't think so, myself.
Not to worry, I've lost interest.
Much love!
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not knowing who this denomination is, what their actual argument is and knowing that Proverbs 8 is about wisdom not Creation by Elohim, I cannot answer your question.
I will say that you, more than most, acknoledge YHWH's council, other heavenly beings playing a roll in YHWH's plan.
In the last several years, I've been alerted to certain generic terms that Christendom hold as sacred specifics. This is an error. How this error is most commonly seen is the use/abuse of capitalization. The most common examples are "god" and "lord," which are synonymous titles. There are several dozen 'lords' in the Bible.
Lebron James is sometimes referred to as the god of Basketball. And I'm sure you recognize the Bible calls Satan the god of this world. Yet, there is only one all-mighty, supreme being and god, YHWH. This is what is meant in calling him the only true god. See my thread on REAL-lowercase gods.
Hope this helps.
"Heaven's armies" would be a good example of other elohim. A better example might be found in Ezekiel 28. In that account, while decreeing that God is the only God-- the point is made the same way that it is made in Isaiah. Which is, among gods (elohim) God has no equal. No peer. Ezekiel makes it clear that the King of Tyre is not an equal elohim when compared to God, but he is an elohim by nature- as one who was in Eden, the garden of elohim.
The organization is the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. The Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Good stuff.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Also in the use of definite articles.
With 3 dozens lords or gods running around Scripture, we can get confused who is being referred to when we say "the" lord or god said such and such. Context is needed but does not push aside the pattern of certain generic terms that Christendom hold as sacred specifics.
The translators could/would have done a great service by not using the generic term "God" where scripture uses the specific term "elohim' or 'el' -- why did they feel compelled to do this over and over while not consistently in their treatment?
Why not write it (in English) as it was written (in Hebrew)? For example Deut 5--
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.
Should be--- I, Yahweh your elohim, am a jealous el.
And if there are no other elohim.... what would He have to be jealous about, or say---
“You must not have any other elohim besides me.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Mainly because 'el' and 'elohim' are not English words AND there is no (single) word for word transliteration. Consider the one thing you put on bread to make a sandwich that consists of the 3 words: butter, nut and pea.
I believe you pointed out the fallacy of putting too much importance on "literal" translations. I think it should be translated I, Yahweh your creator, am a jealous god.
Neither is there an English word for Yahweh, so they substitute LORD fast and loose. Yet we recognize the association as well as the distinction that the reference is to the One and not some lessor — rather than doing this with el and elohim they are very sloppy and inconsistent.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
At least YHWH is a proper noun. So, there should be no substitute.
IMO, replacing YHWH is worse than sloppy. Imagine writing a book, where your name is removed 7,000 times? No author would be happy with having their name removed from their book.
Many would disagree, but technically it’s not “His book” at all, but man’s book and in reality a collection of man’s writings, composed and compiled by men for men.
That’s the reality.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Sure, disagree but what are the reasons and facts supporting taking out YHWH's name 7,000 times from Scripture?
Regarding it being his book or man's book, that brings us back to agency.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Logic more than textual criticism. Well, most people identify it as God's book because it contains the words of YHWH. Prophets speak and write God's word, by definition. Consider Isaiah 45, Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus ...I’d be happy to examine any scripture where God calls the Bible His book.
No one values the works of the prophets because they document their thoughts. The writings of the prophets are revered because they capture God's words. If this does not make it God's book, then what would?
Last edited:
It's more of the same kind of confusion.... People stomp and say it's "God's Word" without even a nod to John 1 where we get a glimpse of what that means. It has nothing to do with a book that people bound together. From there the errors in thinking gets compounded to the degree that people assign also God's attributes to "God's book" and they say it's infallible, all-powerful, all-encompassing and final... etc.
It's none of these. Nor is it literal. It's a book assembled by men. You can disagree, but that's what it is.
Similar threads
