Adam was made the 3rd Day, Scripturally

[firedragon]

Try "seminary graduate." But we're gutting off track. Suffie to say that, as you affirmed (thank you very much!), elohim =/= "Trinity."

I congratulate you for being a seminary graduate? All respect given. You are d BD or BDiv? Anyway great.

But brother, Elohim is a plural of respect. It is common in our languages but not in English.

Elohei is used as a noun and Elohim is used as a proper name. Do you know what they mean literally?

Also used are Adonai and Shaddai which means My Lords and My Breasts respectfully. It is all used for God and is of plural, but not plural in numbers but of respect.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

I congratulate you for being a seminary graduate? All respect given. You are d BD or BDiv? Anyway great.

But brother, Elohim is a plural of respect. It is common in our languages but not in English.

Elohei is used as a noun and Elohim is used as a proper name. Do you know what they mean literally?

Also used are Adonai and Shaddai which means My Lords and My Breasts respectfully. It is all used for God and is of plural, but not plural in numbers but of respect.

Peace.

Master's degree, actually.

I (and professors who are experts in Hebrew, as well as Hebraic myth) disagree. The origin of Genesis 1 is a polytheistic mythos (Sumerian, Babylonian). The proto-Judaic mythos as the stories were compiled and assimilated was henotheistic. There simply is no clear, consistent theological understanding of Deity in the Genesis creation accounts.

 

[Aman777]

Try reading post #271.

Dear sojourner, I've already refuted that post Scripturally with Post # 278 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[firedragon]

Master's degree, actually.

I (and professors who are experts in Hebrew, as well as Hebraic myth) disagree. The origin of Genesis 1 is a polytheistic mythos (Sumerian, Babylonian). The proto-Judaic mythos as the stories were compiled and assimilated was henotheistic. There simply is no clear, consistent theological understanding of Deity in the Genesis creation accounts.

Masters Degree, well you deserve more respect. Is it MD, MDiv or Masters in Theology?

Anyway, I agree with the contention in your post totally. There are influences of even Greek deities in the old testament.

But that does not negate the language used. It is Hebrew and plural of respect is biblical Hebrew. Otherwise there should be many Gods, in many references to the almighty.

What does Elohim mean?

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner, I've already refuted that post Scripturally with Post # 278 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

No. You haven't, for reasons I've outlined more times than I can count. Fact is, you're gong to continue to eisegete the texts as benefits your agenda and then continue to spout meaningless drivel here and other places on the internet.

I have a kitten that doesn't know any better, who craps all over my back yard, too. :sad: But she'll probably outgrow that tendency...





Just sayin'.

 

[Aman777]

Then WHY did Jesus place Himself on the FIRST Day?

We're not concerned with what Jesus said at this point, because we're dealing solely with the Genesis creation accounts in which Jesus does not appear. I've read Genesis 1 and 2 over and over and over and over again. Jesus does not appear in Genesis. That is a fact, corroborated by physical evidence. You're reading Jesus into the story by way of a much later passage, written in a different part of the world. Exegeting the texts simply doesn't work that way.

Dear sojourner, Why is the name God used exclusively in Gen one and then the name LORD God is used beginning at Gen 2:4? It's because God is used for the invisible Spirit and LORD God is used for the ONLY God ever formed Physically, called YHWH in the Old and Jesus in the New Testament?

Quote:
UnScriptural, since the ONLY way to be born again Spiritually has NOTHING to do with the breath which Jesus gave to Adam to make him a living being.

That's precisely what I'm saying: the concept of being "born again" is not extant in Genesis. You're loading a subsequent and foreign concept onto the texts.

What you are suggesting is that NO one could be born Spiritually until AFTER Jesus died for our sins. That leaves out Adam, Abel, Noah, Moses, David, and ALL of the prophets. Such arrogance is presumed only by those who THINK they know Scripture.
Quote:
Gen 1:26 AND John 14:16

Genesis and John do not correlate. It's like taking the story of 101 Dalmations and mushing it together with Jane Eyre and coming up with some kind of fake synthesis that doesn't really make sense of either story.

FALSE, since both verses show that it takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a New Christian. Are you sure that you have actually studied the Bible, or did you study some ancient view of what some goatherder thought the Bible was saying?

Quote:
To be "created in God's Image" is to be born again Spiritually, in Christ

Again: not according to Genesis.

Read about Adam and Eve's creation Spiritually in Gen 5:1-2, and then TRY to refute me, if you can. I don't think you can.

Quote:
Those who see contradictions in Scripture are admitting that they CANNOT understand what it is teaching.

False. Those who see contradiction in scripture are being realistic about what's actually written there. Those who refuse to see the contradictions are pulling the wool over their own eyes.


Don't scratch your corneas...

Cute, but I've seen NO Scriptural support for any of your religious views.
Quote:
When you claim contradictions, you are claiming that God made a mistake.

No, because I'm claiming that God didn't write the texts. Fallible human beings wrote the texts.

Now, we come to the real problem. You don't believe what God tells us, do you? Do you believe your Religion's view or do you disbelieve because you think you know more than God?

Quote:
More study in indicated.

it certainly is in your case here.

Quote:
Go back and try to support your religious view with actual Scripture

I've been doing that all along.

Sorry, but I've not seen Scriptural support for your views. All I've seen is goobledegoop where you are trying to sound knowledgable, while hiding from trying to refute God's Holy Word....which you have discounted as the words of men.

The real problem here is that you respect your own rationale more than you do the texts, themselves. I have yet to see you take one passage of text and actually exegete it for what it says. You'll quote John and Colossians and call that "scriptural support." It's not real scriptural support, for the reasons I indicated earlier: you can't make 101 Dalmations jibe with Jane Eyre.

Could you speak English and quit trying to make analogies which don't fit?

Quote:
Dear sojourner, Then tell us of a time in the Past when everything "wherein there is Life" has been a Vegetarian. You CANNOT.

That's right. I can't, because it didn't happen. The bible is scientifically WRONG in the creation account. Fact. Genesis is not a "prophecy." Fact. It just isn't that kind of literature.

__________________

I'm sorry that you don't believe what God told us and rely instead on your view that God just made a mistake when He told us about the Creation. Such thinking colors your view of ALL of the rest of the Bible. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

Then WHY did Jesus place Himself on the FIRST Day?

He didn't. He placed himself outside of mortal time into spirit time, or eternity.
Jesus isn't speaking of the Genesis creation myth at this point.

Dear sojourner, Why is the name God used exclusively in Gen one and then the name LORD God is used beginning at Gen 2:4? It's because God is used for the invisible Spirit and LORD God is used for the ONLY God ever formed Physically, called YHWH in the Old and Jesus in the New Testament?

Nope. Yahweh wan't a physical being, either. The explanation must lie in the different traditions out of which the different stories arose.

What you are suggesting is that NO one could be born Spiritually until AFTER Jesus died for our sins.

No. I'm not suggesting a universal spiritual paradigm. I'm pointing to the specific beliefs of those who wrote Genesis.

FALSE, since both verses show that it takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a New Christian.

Again, since there is no "Son" in Genesian theology, nor is there a Holy Spirit in the sense modern Christians usually mean in that text, I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Are you sure that you have actually studied the Bible, or did you study some ancient view of what some goatherder thought the Bible was saying?

Graduated magna cum laude with the most up-to-date scholarship there is.

To be "created in God's Image" is to be born again Spiritually, in Christ

Not according to Genesis.

Read about Adam and Eve's creation Spiritually in Gen 5:1-2, and then TRY to refute me, if you can. I don't think you can.

"This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind,[a] he made them in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind”[c] when they were created."
Sorry, I don't see anything in here that being made in the "likeness of God" is a spiritual birth. It quite simply Does. Not. Say. That.

Done. You're welcome.

Cute, but I've seen NO Scriptural support for any of your religious views.

It's because your corneas have become scratched by the wool you've been pulling over your eyes.

Now, we come to the real problem. You don't believe what God tells us, do you? Do you believe your Religion's view or do you disbelieve because you think you know more than God?

I don't believe God wrote the bible, nor do I believe that the inspiration God lent to the writers was in any way infallible after having passed through their lenses of understanding.
What I believe is what the texts reasonably have to say.
This isn't a contest between me and God.

Go back and try to support your religious view with actual Scripture

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means...

All I've seen is goobledegoop where you are trying to sound knowledgable, while hiding from trying to refute God's Holy Word....which you have discounted as the words of men.

At least I'm trying. What are you wasting our time with? The bible was written by human beings. That's it.

Could you speak English and quit trying to make analogies which don't fit?

I'm sorry... which high school English word don't you understand?

"Analogies which don't fit?" Of course it fits. Genesis and John are two different stories and two different plots. 101 Dalmations and Jane Eyre are two different stories and two different plots.

Sheesh!

The bible is scientifically WRONG in the creation account.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me!!!

I'm sorry that you don't believe what God told us and rely instead on your view that God just made a mistake when He told us about the Creation.

I'm sorry that you can't actually exegete the texts. But for the record (let's clear this up before rumor festers into fact), I don't think "God told us" anything, nor do I think "God made a mistake" in the "telling." Human beings wrote the stories. They clearly did not understand the science behind the cosmos.

 

[sojourner]

Really? No immediate, stock, pat answer? Could it be I've actually reasoned him into silence? I dare not hope!

 

[Aman777]

Then WHY did Jesus place Himself on the FIRST Day?

He didn't. He placed himself outside of mortal time into spirit time, or eternity.
Jesus isn't speaking of the Genesis creation myth at this point.

Dear sojourner, Sure He is since He is speaking of the Physical Glory or Brightness which He had with the Father on the FIRST Day.


Quote:
Dear sojourner, Why is the name God used exclusively in Gen one and then the name LORD God is used beginning at Gen 2:4? It's because God is used for the invisible Spirit and LORD God is used for the ONLY God ever formed Physically, called YHWH in the Old and Jesus in the New Testament?

Nope. Yahweh wan't a physical being, either. The explanation must lie in the different traditions out of which the different stories arose.

No man has ever seen Elohim because He is an invisible Spirit, but many people saw YHWH/Jesus in the Old Testament. Here is Ezekiels description:

Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. (YHWH) And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Did you forget about the above verses? I have many more if you have.

Quote:
What you are suggesting is that NO one could be born Spiritually until AFTER Jesus died for our sins.

No. I'm not suggesting a universal spiritual paradigm. I'm pointing to the specific beliefs of those who wrote Genesis.

Since God, Himself is the Author of Scripture, your confusion is to be expected. Those who change God's Holy Word into Myth, Allegory, and Fiction, are so confused they don't even know what Day it is.

Quote:
FALSE, since both verses show that it takes the AGREEMENT of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to "create" a New Christian.

Again, since there is no "Son" in Genesian theology, nor is there a Holy Spirit in the sense modern Christians usually mean in that text, I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

The Son is Jesus, called YHWH, in the Old Testament. Your refusal to recognize Him tells us a lot about your view. The Theology you seem to follow is the same as those who called for the Crucifixion of Jesus?

Quote:
Are you sure that you have actually studied the Bible, or did you study some ancient view of what some goatherder thought the Bible was saying?

Graduated magna cum laude with the most up-to-date scholarship there is.

Congratulations on your knowledge of ancient men's ideas.

Quote:
To be "created in God's Image" is to be born again Spiritually, in Christ

Not according to Genesis.

False, since Gen 2:4-7 shows that Adam was made the 3rd Day from the dust of the ground, and Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 show that Adam was "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually, in Christ, on the 6th Day. Your study of what ancient men thought about this is incomplete and MUST be accepted by Blind Faith.

Quote:
Read about Adam and Eve's creation Spiritually in Gen 5:1-2, and then TRY to refute me, if you can. I don't think you can.

"This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind,[a] he made them in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind”[c] when they were created."
Sorry, I don't see anything in here that being made in the "likeness of God" is a spiritual birth. It quite simply Does. Not. Say. That.

Done. You're welcome.

You didn't notice that it was God (Elohim) who "created" Adam, instead of LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) who "formed" him of the dust of the ground. The point is that Adam was first made physically, a living soul, and then Later was made an Eternal Spiritual Being, by the agreement of the Invisible Trinity. Here is confirmation:

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is Spiritual.


Quote:
Now, we come to the real problem. You don't believe what God tells us, do you? Do you believe your Religion's view or do you disbelieve because you think you know more than God?

I don't believe God wrote the bible, nor do I believe that the inspiration God lent to the writers was in any way infallible after having passed through their lenses of understanding.
What I believe is what the texts reasonably have to say.
This isn't a contest between me and God.

Have you ever met a Muslim who didn't believe the Koran? How would you ever know that they were Muslims?

Quote:
Go back and try to support your religious view with actual Scripture

You keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means...

I repeat it because you seem to think we should believe you because you CLAIM to have superior knowledge. I am but a man who can read and understand Scripture, but you seem to be living in another world, a world which is impressed by what you have been taught, instead of what is actually written.

Quote:
All I've seen is goobledegoop where you are trying to sound knowledgable, while hiding from trying to refute God's Holy Word....which you have discounted as the words of men.

At least I'm trying. What are you wasting our time with? The bible was written by human beings. That's it.

The Bible was penned by Holy men who were "moved" by the Holy Spirit to write the words. To be inspired, is to be God Breathed from within the person who writes the words. 2Pe 1:21 NO man of the time knew that we live in a Multiverse, nor that the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day and the first Stars didn't light until the 4th Day, but God did. The fact that you don't believe His account is surprising.

Quote:
Could you speak English and quit trying to make analogies which don't fit?
I'm sorry... which high school English word don't you understand?

"Analogies which don't fit?" Of course it fits. Genesis and John are two different stories and two different plots. 101 Dalmations and Jane Eyre are two different stories and two different plots.

Sheesh!

Quote:
The bible is scientifically WRONG in the creation account.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me!!!

I did NOT agree with you. The words you quoted are your own.

Quote:
I'm sorry that you don't believe what God told us and rely instead on your view that God just made a mistake when He told us about the Creation.

I'm sorry that you can't actually exegete the texts. But for the record (let's clear this up before rumor festers into fact), I don't think "God told us" anything, nor do I think "God made a mistake" in the "telling." Human beings wrote the stories. They clearly did not understand the science behind the cosmos.

And yet you take their Theories and make them your own, as you did in the first part of the post. Sorry, but those who speak with forked tongues, lose credibility. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

Really? No immediate, stock, pat answer? Could it be I've actually reasoned him into silence? I dare not hope!

Dear sojourner, You got that right. Your "reasoning" is the same old goatherder view which does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, NOR History, but it is a good definition of Religion. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

I repeat it because you seem to think we should believe you because you CLAIM to have superior knowledge. I am but a man who can read and understand Scripture, but you seem to be living in another world, a world which is impressed by what you have been taught, instead of what is actually written.

This is the only part of your tiresome and vapid post worth repeating, because it's a real good example of what's going on with your posts.

Here we have, O Best Beloved, a classic example of projection.

It's clear that you haven't thought about the subject enough to provide anything but stock answers and rebuttals, which you've probably used in other forums.

Rebut that using scripture.

For myself, I select: Matt. 10:14b, Matt. 6:1-16, and Psalm 141 in dealing with your posts.

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner, You got that right. Your "reasoning" is the same old goatherder view which does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, NOR History, but it is a good definition of Religion. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

A poor example of debate.

Nothing but an epic fail of an ad hominem



Congratulations.

 

[sojourner]

...aaaaand the crickets begin to chirp languidly...

 

[Aman777]

I repeat it because you seem to think we should believe you because you CLAIM to have superior knowledge. I am but a man who can read and understand Scripture, but you seem to be living in another world, a world which is impressed by what you have been taught, instead of what is actually written.

This is the only part of your tiresome and vapid post worth repeating, because it's a real good example of what's going on with your posts.

Here we have, O Best Beloved, a classic example of projection.

It's clear that you haven't thought about the subject enough to provide anything but stock answers and rebuttals, which you've probably used in other forums.

Rebut that using scripture.

For myself, I select: Matt. 10:14b, Matt. 6:1-16, and Psalm 141 in dealing with your posts.

Dear Readers, The above is a good example of how to run and hide instead of actually debating what is written. Claims of superior knowledge of the Bible is typical of those who don't know what Day it is. IF it was as easy to discount the Judgment, these people would be quickly usshered into Heaven because God would be impressed by those who study the ancient views of men whose interpretation does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History, they THINK. God Bless all of you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

Ah! The "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

I am but a man who can read and understand Scripture

(No. You obviously can't.)

you seem to be living in another world, a world which is impressed by what you have been taught, instead of what is actually written.

(You don't know what's "actually written," so I don't know how you make that determination.)

Dear Readers, The above is a good example of how to run and hide instead of actually debating what is written.

Dear Readers: the above is a good example of projection. Also an example of baiting. It won't work.

Claims of superior knowledge of the Bible is typical of those who don't know what Day it is.

Aaaand this ^^^ is the fallacy of "Special Pleading."
Claims of "knowing what Day it is" is typical of those who don't have knowledge of the texts.

IF it was as easy to discount the Judgment, these people would be quickly usshered into Heaven because God would be impressed by those who study the ancient views of men whose interpretation does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History, they THINK.

Red Herring ^^^.

This isn't about what impresses God -- it's about responsible treatment of the texts.

Might I suggest that you have a more impressive working knowledge of fallacy than you do of fact?

 

[Aman777]

I am but a man who can read and understand Scripture

(No. You obviously can't.)

Dear sojourner, Then WHY cannot someone, with your credentials, refute me Scripturally, since I find it EASY to refute your ancient thinking? What year is it according to your goatherder Theology? Has it been 5774 years since the beginning? Do you consider yourself to be a YEC?

Quote:
you seem to be living in another world, a world which is impressed by what you have been taught, instead of what is actually written.

(You don't know what's "actually written," so I don't know how you make that determination.)

You keep CLAIMING such but are really slow on showing us Scripturally of my errors. Is it because you cannot? Of course it is. Otherwise, you would have a rebuttal consisting of supporting Scripture, but alas, you don't. Can you get the money back you spent on your "education"?

Quote:
Dear Readers, The above is a good example of how to run and hide instead of actually debating what is written.

Dear Readers: the above is a good example of projection. Also an example of baiting. It won't work.

I was just trying to get you to support your opinion. Otherwise your view plus $1. will get you a cup of coffee and some fast food places. it's a shame that your "education" doesn't allow you to go beyond the views of ancient men.

Quote:
Claims of superior knowledge of the Bible is typical of those who don't know what Day it is.

Aaaand this ^^^ is the fallacy of "Special Pleading."
Claims of "knowing what Day it is" is typical of those who don't have knowledge of the texts.

No special pleading since I CAN support my views with actual Scripture. Today is the 6th Day since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or In Christ. Gen 1:27 Do you disagree? Are you afraid to tell us that God has already rested from ALL of His work of Creating? God Bless you.

Quote:
IF it was as easy to discount the Judgment, these people would be quickly usshered into Heaven because God would be impressed by those who study the ancient views of men whose interpretation does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History, they THINK.

Red Herring ^^^.

This isn't about what impresses God -- it's about responsible treatment of the texts.

Might I suggest that you have a more impressive working knowledge of fallacy than you do of fact?

It must really be frustrating to have your ideas completely destroyed by what is actually written. It's NOT your fault. It's what has been taught for thousands of years now, ....BUT....it is NOT what Genesis says, but instead, is what the thinking of ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, THOUGHT it said. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[sojourner]

Dear sojourner, Then WHY cannot someone, with your credentials, refute me Scripturally, since I find it EASY to refute your ancient thinking?

Because you're not providing scriptural arguments -- you're providing logical fallacies based upon supposition of facts not in evidence.
You "find it easy" because any kindergartener can use the "yah-huh" argument, heavily laced with a myriad other fallacious arguments.

You keep CLAIMING such but are really slow on showing us Scripturally of my errors. Is it because you cannot? Of course it is.

One doesn't need scripture in order to point out errors of logic and errors of scientific fact.
The reason "no one can refute you scripturally" is because you're presenting non-scripotural arguments camouflaged as such.

Can you get the money back you spent on your "education"?

Can you argue other than with fallacies, such as the ad hominem here?

Dear Readers, The above is a good example of how to run and hide instead of actually debating what is written.

Dear Readers: Back to the projection yet again.

I was just trying to get you to support your opinion.

No, you were trying to bait me.

it's a shame that your "education" doesn't allow you to go beyond the views of ancient men.

Fallacy: ad hominem.

I CAN support my views with actual Scripture.

You haven't done that yet.

Today is the 6th Day since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or In Christ. Gen 1:27 Do you disagree? Are you afraid to tell us that God has already rested from ALL of His work of Creating?

That's not what the text says, though. Yes. I disagree. To the writers of Genesis, God did cease creating on the seventh day.

It must really be frustrating to have your ideas completely destroyed by what is actually written.

More projection.

it is NOT what Genesis says, but instead, is what the thinking of ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, THOUGHT it said.

How do you know what they thought? Were you there?

 

[Aman777]

Today is the 6th Day since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or In Christ. Gen 1:27 Do you disagree? Are you afraid to tell us that God has already rested from ALL of His work of Creating?

That's not what the text says, though. Yes. I disagree. To the writers of Genesis, God did cease creating on the seventh day.

Dear sojourner, Let me be really precise in getting your view of God ceasing to Create on the 7th Day. Is the 7th Day in the Past. Is it History? Has God already rested? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[firedragon]

Today is the 6th Day since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or In Christ. Gen 1:27 Do you disagree? Are you afraid to tell us that God has already rested from ALL of His work of Creating?



Dear sojourner, Let me be really precise in getting your view of God ceasing to Create on the 7th Day. Is the 7th Day in the Past. Is it History? Has God already rested? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

7th day is past. Otherwise the bible would not say "He rested". It will be "He will rest".

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

Today is the 6th Day since God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or In Christ. Gen 1:27 Do you disagree? Are you afraid to tell us that God has already rested from ALL of His work of Creating?



Dear sojourner, Let me be really precise in getting your view of God ceasing to Create on the 7th Day. Is the 7th Day in the Past. Is it History? Has God already rested? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

That was the meaning the writers intended.