first-born of all creation

[Muffled]

Colossians was not written by Jesus, this concept is a mythological invention of the clergy/Church. There is no significance of this term.

Regards

I believe Colossians was written by Paul whowas full of the Holy Spirit so it is significant. There is no evidence of church tampering.

 

[Muffled]

Read it in context. The next verse (Col 1:16) implies, the firstborn of all creation (vs 15)--the first being ever created (Christ)-- created everything visible and invisible (angels/spirit beings). Who or what else but a "created" spirit being has the ability and power to create other spirit beings?

I believe Isa 43:10-11 is very explicit, once we dig into its grammar:

"You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [H410 ”EL”-singular] formed,[H3335-yatsar-nifal stem] Nor shall there be after Me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.​

The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means someone other than the subject/author (Christ) as the producer of the action (created).

The nifal stem in this passage gives the verb a nuance of its subject being created, which would give the verb a passive form, making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. Putting the pieces together begins to form a most surprising picture that many Christian commentators refuse to accept and have come up with all sorts of illogical and incontextual interpretations in order to uphold their belief Christ was not created.

The subject (EL/Christ), through the prophet, is telling us someone other than Himself (third person-The Father) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He (The Father) create One like Him (Christ) in the future! In other words, Christ was created/formed as one of a kind God! That Christ was a created spirit being is implicated by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Heb 3:2) and other scriptures.



There are several passages that I believe have been misinterpreted by sincere, well-meaning but biased theologians. I believe I have thoroughly studied all of them. When interpreted through the lens of the original languages and their context, not one implicitly, much less explicitly, state He (Christ) has always existed. But perhaps I missed one. Please provide your best reference.

I believe these two phrases are not equivalent. We all know what a firstborn is. It is the first child. Jesus was born so He was a child that was first. the phrase "of all creation" indicates the group that he was a first born in. There are only two creations in the Bible before Jesus, the first one where man and woman were created and the second one where Adam and Eve were created and in both cases those creations were not born. That makes Jesus the first one.

As I understand it from the Bible God does that and He is not a created being.

I believe there is no Christ in these verses which negates all the foolishness about grammar.

I believe you qualify as one of them.

 

[james2ko]

I believe these two phrases are not equivalent. We all know what a firstborn is. It is the first child. Jesus was born so He was a child that was first. the phrase "of all creation" indicates the group that he was a first born in. There are only two creations in the Bible before Jesus, the first one where man and woman were created and the second one where Adam and Eve were created and in both cases those creations were not born. That makes Jesus the first one.

As I understand it from the Bible God does that and He is not a created being.

I believe there is no Christ in these verses which negates all the foolishness about grammar.

I believe you qualify as one of them.

Beliefs are like belly buttons. Everyone has them. When it comes to biblical textual criticism, what you believe and what you can prove are separated by a huge chasm.. If you are labeling the grammar as foolish, surely you have expertise or at least some basic understanding of Hebrew grammar. Instead of ridiculing the grammatical evidence and insulting my intelligence, why don't you address the grammar by explaining how or why it is incorrect or foolish?

 

[Muffled]

Beliefs are like belly buttons. Everyone has them. When it comes to biblical textual criticism, what you believe and what you can prove are separated by a huge chasm.. If you are labeling the grammar as foolish, surely you have expertise or at least some basic understanding of Hebrew grammar. Instead of ridiculing the grammatical evidence and insulting my intelligence, why don't you address the grammar by explaining how or why it is incorrect or foolish?

I believe they should have foundations and not be based on fantasy or conjecture.

I believe this is your opinion and that it is lacking a basis.

I don't need to know the grammar because you provided it for me, I just believe hanging a belief on grammar is foolish and particularly so if one has not proven the grammar means anything.

I believe foolishness is not a lack of intelligengce. I already explained why but I will again. The word Christ is not in the text nor does the text make any direct reference to a messianic figure.

I don't criticize what God has given as text but I do interpet. my interpetation of "god formed" does not mean that God is formed but that there may be many gods formed of wood and stone etc.

 

[james2ko]

I believe they should have foundations and not be based on fantasy or conjecture.I believe this is your opinion and that it is lacking a basis. I don't need to know the grammar because you provided it for me,

1. It lacks basis to you because it destroys the foundation of your belief. Denial, ridicule, and dismissal are common defense mechanisms practiced by those experiencing cognitive dissonance.

I just believe hanging a belief on grammar is foolish and particularly so if one has not proven the grammar means anything.

2. Grammar is one of many interpretive methods I use. It sometimes--not always--provides that one missing clue that makes or breaks a doctrine or belief. Its boring and tedious, but it will open a whole new door to understanding God's word. You should try and learn it sometime.

I believe foolishness is not a lack of intelligengce. I already explained why but I will again. The word Christ is not in the text nor does the text make any direct reference to a messianic figure.

3. But lack of intelligence can lead to foolish interpretations. Intelligence would require one learn and apply all exegetical aspects of the text-- its grammar, its immediate and broader context, among others--before coming to a sound conclusion. You obviously lack intelligence in grammar. Instead of swallowing your pride and just learning from the example, you dismiss it as foolish to protect your ego. How unfortunate.

I don't criticize what God has given as text but I do interpet. my interpretation of "god formed" does not mean that God is formed

but that there may be many gods [plural] formed of wood and stone etc.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [EL-singular] formed, Nor shall there be after Me.
​

4. The passage in question contains the singular term "el". The term is used in every instance, in which it appears in scripture, to identify one singular entity. Yet you interpret the passage as referring to multiple "gods" or "elohim"? And you want me to believe your interpretation of Isa 43:10 is the correct one?

 

[Muffled]

1. It lacks basis to you because it destroys the foundation of your belief. Denial, ridicule, and dismissal are common defense mechanisms practiced by those experiencing cognitive dissonance.

I believe you are attributing things to me without any evidence. I expect your opinion to have some evidence supporting it and that seems like a reasonable request to me.

2. Grammar is one of many interpretive methods I use. It sometimes--not always--provides that one missing clue that makes or breaks a doctrine or belief. Its boring and tedious, but it will open a whole new door to understanding God's word. You should try and learn it sometime.

3. But lack of intelligence can lead to foolish interpretations. Intelligence would require one learn and apply all exegetical aspects of the text-- its grammar, its immediate and broader context, among others--before coming to a sound conclusion. You obviously lack intelligence in grammar. Instead of swallowing your pride and just learning from the example, you dismiss it as foolish to protect your ego. How unfortunate.

I believe I do not lack intellgence in grammar. I lack knowledge and thereby rely on your knowledge. which is a reasonable thing to do. Are you saying that you are less intelligent because your interpretation is foolish? I believe I do not follow pride; I folow Jesus. I beleive I am promouncing something as foolish because it is and have no need to protect ego.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [EL-singular] formed, Nor shall there be after Me.
​

4. The passage in question contains the singular term "el". The term is used in every instance, in which it appears in scripture, to identify one singular entity. Yet you interpret the passage as referring to multiple "gods" or "elohim"? And you want me to believe your interpretation of Isa 43:10 is the correct one?

 

[Harikrish]

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

Jesus lived long before Abraham did. This proves that being 'the firstborn of all creation' really does refer to his 'existence' and not to some spiritual awakening.

Adam was also created before Abraham.

 

[Muffled]

Adam was also created before Abraham.

A multitude of people lived before Abraham but that is not what Jesus is talking about. He is saying that the spirit in Him has existed before Abraham.

 

[Mark La Buda]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation, but when we look at the term 'firstborn', and 'created beings', in the light of the context of the whole Bible, it does not really indicate literally the firstborn of creation of the world, No!, It is only in the sense of being the first in His Age who was born among the spiritually dead people. These verses makes it clear:

"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" Colossians 1:18

The term 'dead' in above verse has a spiritual signification, similar to:

"Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14

According to this concept that by coming of Jesus revelation a 'new man' was created, that caused the 'dead' to rise from their spiritual sleep, Jesus Himself is considered to be the Firstborn among all those who were created new. This concept is seen from the following verse:


"and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" Colossians 3:10

I do not agree and the scriptures support that Jesus was created first before any other parts of creation. Genesis 1:26, 27; Proverbs 8:20; John 1:3; 17:5; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not agree and the scriptures support that Jesus was created first before any other parts of creation. Genesis 1:26, 27; Proverbs 8:20; John 1:3; 17:5; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14.

Saint Augustine's interpretation of Genesis in his Last Confession is very interesting. In case you haven't read it, I recommend it.

 

[Soapy]

1. That would contradict Gen 1:1--"in the beginning God created....".



2. Not that far fetched. For a while, David was anointed king yet had no kingdom.



3. One becomes a driver when one starts driving. In like manner, He became a "Creator" when He finally decided to start "creating". What God did before He started creating is none of our business.

4. A symbolic interpretation like this one is like an item sold at the dollar store. Take it for what it's worth.

The symbolic thing is incredibly valuable. But the interpretation (the valuation) from the poster you replied to, seriously undervalued the symbolism.

I wouldn’t credit him with being a good auctioneer!

 

[Soapy]

Israel is called God's firstborn.. You can take that literally, or not so much.

The term ‘First Born’ is not the same term as ‘Firstborn’.

The term, ‘First Born’, notice the two separate words, means ‘First to exit the womb’.

The term, ‘Firstborn’, notice no space… one word, means: ‘Most Beloved of the Father’.

You can see from scriptures that the FIRST BORN (male) from the womb is ALSO THE FIRSTBORN…. (Please check every first birthed child of the patriarchs…!)

However, in checking, you will find that the FIRST BORN ALWAYS SINS…. (Check it out.. really!!!)

Therefore, the Father chooses ANOTHER born child as his FIRSTBORN: Most loved… check it out, please!!!

This, first born sins, and another is brought up to replace him, is lost on Trinitarians. It is emblazoned in bright lights in scriptures but they close they eyes and block their ears to the revelation.

Yes, Adam, first born man, first ‘Human Son of God… made in the image of God’, sins… loses his place as ‘MOST LOVED’ (Firstborn).

Cain… first born from the womb of Eve: ‘I have created a man child’, says Eve, in glorification. But Cain sins …kills Abel… SETH is born and becomes the firstborn to God; the most beloved to God.

But even Seth is born in sin from Adam —- time above time ….
Jesus is born, sinless… Son of God, holy, righteous in all his ways: The last Adam - the last to be created by means of the spirit of God! (There’s too much else to say here!!)

So, Jesus, the last Adam, is, the MOST BELOVED, the FIRSTBORN OF GOD.

Yes, the thread said:

• “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Col 1:15)

Yes, Jesus is the MOST BELOVED OF ALL THAT GOD EVER CREATED because he so exactly mimics the Father: God… because he ‘always does exactly what the Father commands him to do’… and isn’t that the essence of a good son??:

• “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.” (John 10:17)
• “… do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (John 14:31)
  

It seems the scriptures is written with several words of similar spelling which easily confuse (or CONVENIENTLY OBFUSCATE) the truth. But it is not THE GOD (the one worshipped deity) of the Jews) who confuses or obfuscates… it is the scripture translators who had an agenda set towards creating proofs of a three-person (Trinity) God.

There are words like ‘Lord’ and ‘LORD’, which have completely different meanings but can be conveniently used to make a claim that is false:
How many Trinitarians have claimed that Jesus Christ is God because God is called ‘LORD’ and Jesus is called ‘Lord’ (they may even recapitalise the NAME, ‘LORD’ down to ‘Lord’ to try to falsely make their claim!

But in actual reality they do know that ‘LORD’ is a NAME - THE NAME the Jewish deity gave to the people to call Him… an eternal name.

And they know that ‘Lord’ is a TITLE which ANY NUMBER OF PERSONS or entities can have applied to them!

There is also (should this be in a completely different thread??) ‘Worship’ and ‘Obeisance’. Trinity always claims the worship of Jesus when in fact the true translation is obeisance. But the truth comes out when anyone other than Jesus is ‘worshipped’!! The word, ‘Obeisance’ (or similar) is then used since it would betray the misuse in the case of Jesus Christ. Notable is on the Old Testament where many kings are said to be ‘worshipped’… Trinitarians do not claim this is illegal since they are the translators and likely translate the word as ‘bow down to’ - but even if they translate it as ‘worship’ they dismiss the point that it shows that there was no attempt at ‘God worship!’. So, they CHOOSE when to claim Godly worship and when to claim bowing before a human personage! Inconsistency for the sake of trinity ideology! Remember this: The Jews saw the so-called ‘worship’ of Jesus but even though seeking ways to arrest Jesus for blasphemy, they did nothing … why!? Simple, because the act was not Godly worship but simply acknowledging a person of great importance like a master, a priest, a king, a ‘Lord’. Do we not bow before a king, a judge, a magistrate? Is that godly worship… further, Godly worship always involves a sacrifice (check it out!). Where was the sacrifice for bowing before Jesus Christ? None… because it wasn’t Godly worship!

There is also ‘Word’… ‘word of God’… as a term. Jesus Christ, in a prophesy in Heaven, long after he died and was raised up again, and towards the Great War at the end of time, is seen in vision on a white horse with the name, ‘Word of God’ on his thigh… Trinitarians claim that this name - An emphatic TITLE is the same ‘word of God’ who created all things!!! But there is no emphatic title in John 1:1 where the simple usage of ‘word of God’ is used to show that GOD CREATED ALL THINGS BEGINNING WITH HIS UTTERANCE OF:

• ‘Let there be light!!’

And also that:

• Salvation will come by means of the seed of a woman’ (meaning: a pure born human!!)

And, indeed, over lengths of time, God finally made his word to come to fruition:

• ‘To Put Flesh on the Bones of His word’

Trinitarians refuse to acknowledge the term by saying that Jesus WAS THE WORD OF GOD, rather than Jesus was the FLESH on the bones of God’s word! It’s easy to see how this realisation can be manipulated for trinitarian purposes but is in fact, utterly wrong and blasphemous since trinity then claims that Jesus IS GOD despite the absurdity that there was ‘GOD’ and God’s WORD, and these two are GOD… but you do notice that there is no - and never ever mentioned - THIRD GOD??!

But, moreover, an apostles wrote:
‘For us there is only one God: the Father BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED…’

But trinity says that’s a lie… they say it was Jesus, the Son, who created all things!!

Trinity claims that the Father lied that He… ‘…and He alone, created all things!’

So, in reality, n truth, it is as was said in Genesis, it was God’s Spirit… which was the awesome, the majestic, the monumental, the irresistible, the ruling, masterful, almighty UTTERANCE (word) that created all things.

And, guess what the definition of ‘God’ is:

• “the awesome, the majestic, the monumental, the irresistible, the ruling, masterful, almighty one”

So, where John writes:

• ‘In the beginning was the word’

It means God’s monumental all powerful utterance.

• ‘And the word was with God’

It means that this majestic word was ‘with utter rulership’, ‘with irresistibility’, ‘with all power’.

• ‘And the word was God’

Means, God’s utterance was (see definition above!)

In all that is spoken and written whether in Genesis or John 1:1, there is only TWO entities: God and His Glorious and Almighty spirit!

 

[Soapy]

A multitude of people lived before Abraham but that is not what Jesus is talking about. He is saying that the spirit in Him has existed before Abraham.

No! He is saying that he IS greater than Abraham.

He says that Abraham FORESAW his day… and was glad!

Abraham glorified God in that God showed him the promised messiah would come from his loins. Abraham was pleased that such a GREATER SOUL should be from himself - what greater honour can there be!

Note the qualification for ‘BEFORE’… it exactly means, ‘GREATER THAN’…and “AHEAD OF”… ‘SUPERIOR TO…’ It is not meaning ‘in time’ but ‘in POWER and authority’.

The same theme is seen concerning John the Baptist:
“After me comes one who GREATER THAN ME because he is BEFORE ME’. But we know that John was six months older than Jesus - That’s why that story is told in the scriptures - it’s not an accident or frivolous addition! As Abraham, who was a mighty forefather, is obviously older than the messiah he will sire in effect from his loins, so John was claimed as a mighty prophet yet older than Jesus and ‘foresaw’ the appearance of the messiah: ‘He who comes AFTER ME is GREATER THAN ME’.

ASK yourself again: ‘What exactly was the questions the Jews asked Jesus?’:

• ‘Are you greater than our ancestor, Abraham?’

Ask yourself exactly what Jesus answered them:

• “Yes, I am GREATER THAN Abraham!:
  • “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

So, truly, Jesus’ great day of glory was a future event as foreseen by Abraham… If Jesus was the pre-existent creator then there could be no future ‘great day’ … what greater ‘day’ would there have been than the creation of the world. But thag was GOD’s great day… Jesus had HIS GREAT DAY mapped out from before the time of Abraham.

Trinity tries to teach that Jesus said, ‘Before Abraham was BORN’… but you know that Jesus DID NOT SAY ‘[before Abraham was] Born‘… Jesus says:

• “Before Abraham I am.”
• “I Am GREATER THAN Abraham.”

Why did trinity feel the need to add to the scriptures… exactly what Jesus warns would happen and warned of the punishment that would come to those who add or remove from the scriptures!

Now, concerning the Jews wanting to stone Jesus … It is exactly BECAUSE Jesus told them he WAS GREATER than Abraham, their mighty beloved ancestor, that they wanted to stone him. It was nothing to do with claiming a pre-existence!! That’s only what trinity wants it’s protagonists to believe…

 

[Soapy]

A multitude of people lived before Abraham but that is not what Jesus is talking about. He is saying that the spirit in Him has existed before Abraham.

Wrong again, Muffled!

How many other people were created before the beginning of time? Do you know?

Did you know there were many people n existent with Jesus from the beginning?

Really? You didn’t know that?

Well, the disciples were written in the book of life before creation - did you know that?

And Jesus even said to his disciples:

• “And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:27)

So these disciples were also God, then?

 

[Soapy]

Read it in context. The next verse (Col 1:16) implies, the firstborn of all creation (vs 15)--the first being ever created (Christ)-- created everything visible and invisible (angels/spirit beings). Who or what else but a "created" spirit being has the ability and power to create other spirit beings?



I believe Isa 43:10-11 is very explicit, once we dig into its grammar:

"You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God [H410 ”EL”-singular] formed,[H3335-yatsar-nifal stem] Nor shall there be after Me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.​

The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means someone other than the subject/author (Christ) as the producer of the action (created).

The nifal stem in this passage gives the verb a nuance of its subject being created, which would give the verb a passive form, making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. Putting the pieces together begins to form a most surprising picture that many Christian commentators refuse to accept and have come up with all sorts of illogical and incontextual interpretations in order to uphold their belief Christ was not created.

The subject (EL/Christ), through the prophet, is telling us someone other than Himself (third person-The Father) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He (The Father) create One like Him (Christ) in the future! In other words, Christ was created/formed as one of a kind God! That Christ was a created spirit being is implicated by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Heb 3:2) and other scriptures.



There are several passages that I believe have been misinterpreted by sincere, well-meaning but biased theologians. I believe I have thoroughly studied all of them. When interpreted through the lens of the original languages and their context, not one implicitly, much less explicitly, state He (Christ) has always existed. But perhaps I missed one. Please provide your best reference.

James2ko, please see my new thread on ‘First Born’ bs ‘Firstborn’.

The two are not the same thing.

‘First Born’, is Chronological… the first to exit the womb.

‘Firstborn’, is Positional… the first in place of love - the most loved.

(We have to accept that the references pertain to male child only!)

And yes, the first born is, at least initially, also the firstborn.

A great (secondary!) example is Abraham’s first born son. Ishmael was the first born of Abraham and also his greatest love (Firstborn)…. Then Isaac is born but Ishmael becomes a bully towards Isaac. An incident then occurs between Sarah and the slave mother-of-Ishmael which results in Abraham conceding and sending Ishmael and his mother away so that Isaac (though not the First Born) now becomes the FIRST BORN - the greatest lie of Abraham… so much so that it is later says that Isaac is the ‘Only Son’ of Abraham … (though we know that he went on to have other sons)… perhaps because the context is properly stated as ‘only son of the covenant between God and Abraham (and Sarah) - of which Sarah died so any other sons are not part of the covenant.

The gist of the story is that the first loved Son sins and another is brought up in positional love of the father to replace him. How many other times is this illustrated in the scriptures?

Test the scriptures to see:

1. Adam … Jesus
2. Cain … Abel
3. Cain … Seth
4. Ishmael … Isaac
5. Esau … Jacob
6. Joseph
7. David
8. Solomon

And not only to Sons but to nations:

• God says: ‘Ephraim is my firstborn’

So, again, Jesus Christ is the ‘Firstborn’ of those in humanity - the most beloved of humanity who will rule over creation.

 

[Muffled]

Adam was also created before Abraham.

I believe Adam was not born when he was created.

 

[Soapy]

I believe Adam was not born when he was created.

Where do you read that in scriptures?

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
Addressing the OP only, haven't read all of the replies. you had the correct verse to explain this Firstborn question. Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

the term head here is the "FIRST", metaphorically speaking, of the authority or direction of God, the Lord Jesus, as husband in relation to his bride, (the Church). Which is backed up by the two words "beginning", and "preeminence."

beginning, it is the Greek word,
G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule
Root(s): G756

this same word is used in John 1:1 concering the Word.

notice definition #2. concretely, the same one person who is the "FIRST" in the Old Creation, (the Ordinal First, the LORD Jesus, title Father) is now concretely,in Flesh, whereas in the OT, he was ABSTRACT, Spirit, now manifested in flesh CONCRETE. and this Manifesting concretely, happen in John 1:1 when he entered into his CREATION as a child. Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, (there is your FIRSTBORN), unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
and this FIRSTBORN has as Colossians 1:18 states, "preeminence".

and preeminence, in the Greek means,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

There it is again, "to be FIRST" in RANK. just as the word and definition that it was taken from G4413.
G4413 πρῶτος protos (prō'-tos) adj.
foremost (in time, place, order or importance).
[contracted superlative of G4253]
KJV: before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former
Root(s): G4253

and the term "foremost" when used as an Adverb, Before anything else. (BINGO). there is GOD Almighty, before David, before Abraham, before Adam, God, the LORD JESUS, now in Flesh concrete, Lord, the FIRST and the LAST,

101G.

 

[Muffled]

Where do you read that in scriptures?

I believe this is it: Gen, 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature

 

[Soapy]

I believe this is it: Gen, 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature

How does that relate to being born?