Is it possible to see God's 'face'?

[Redemptionsong]

Good, now the revealing scripture, Hosea 12:10 "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."

101G.

Exactly what is this meant to reveal?

God uses similitudes, or likenesses, to appear to men. Does this mean that God is not in the similitude? Was the LORD not present when Abraham communed with the angel in Mamre?

 

[Redemptionsong]

May I ask you a question. "when you use the term Father as a title, are you using it as a biological tile, or a designation title as in "First", or "CREATOR?"

101G.

l understand God the Father to be the Creator Spirit, author of the Word.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I’m glad you state that it is only what you believe…

It certainly isn’t what scriptures teaches.

Which church do you get indoctrinated by?

So speaks a man who rejects Jesus Christ as worthy of worship!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No one saw God's face. "Seeing God's face" is a figurative expression, called anthropomorphism.

God literally had a picnic with Adam and Eve.

 

[dybmh]

You say that it could have been three angels that went to Sodom. It clearly was not, because in the following chapter only two turn up in Sodom. Where is the third? It is quite reasonable to assume that the third was the LORD, who stayed behind to commune with Abraham. The narrative is unbroken, and three men does not suddenly become two without explanation.

First, I notice you didn't object to any of the points I made about Abraham's prayer not making sense if directed to the angels. Nor to the points I made about the angels asking questions and answering when that would be inappropriate for them to do so. Nor to the point about Sarah's laughter turned to fear. Nor to the point about Abraham using an ambiguous divine name throughout the story.

Instead, you've brought another set of questions, which is fine. But, at some point the questions I raised also need to be answered.

1. If Abraham was referring to one in the group of 3 as the My Lord, why does he say, "don't pass by" when they had already stopped and were waiting for him?
2. If the LORD was part of the group of 3, why did the group answer Abraham's question instead of deferring to their leader?
3. If the LORD was part of the group of 3, why ask about Sarah at all?
4. If the LORD is the "he" who is delivering the message about Isaac, why doesn't Abraham prostrate himself in the same way when the LORD appeared to him in Genesis 17?
5. Same question, if it's clearly the LORD appearing to him, why doesn't Abraham prostrate himself at the end of the story either?
6. If the LORD has appeared to Abraham in a clear and obvious way, why does Abraham use an ambiguous name throughout the story compared to the appearence in Genesis 15?

Now, to answer your question, each angel had a mission. One angel gave the message about Isaac's birth. One angel went to save Lot. One angel went to destory Soddom. It's easy to see this from the story, and nothing is left out. There is an explanation in the text. It's still an unbroken narrative.

Genesis 18 begins with the words, 'And the LORD appeared unto him'. Are we to follow the idea that all 'appearances' of the LORD are unseen by the human eye? A quick survey of the use of the word 'appear' and it becomes evident that to take such a view is problematic.

Please understand, I'm not saying all "appearances" are anything. I'm saying this story is mysterious. We don't really know what Abraham saw. The figures that arrived looked like men. Several elements of the story introduce doubt. And Abraham here uses a non-specific divine name throughout, and other appearances are handled differently than this one.

Did Moses and the 70 elders not see the God of lsrael? Was the writing of God not really visible to the human eye? Did Moses not see God's 'back parts'?

Well, that's a different story of course. Different time, different circumstances, different revelation. You did a good job quoting accurately, it was not the LORD that they saw. Also, please take note of Exodus 24:1, they were instructed to stay "far off". Also, when Moses acended near, he went into a cloud. So we know that the elder's vision was obscured.

Yes, the writing of God was visible. No problem there. Also, it's not the "finger of the LORD" that is credited for this writing. God is revealed in numerous ways with numerous names each describing a type of divine revelation. Each time I read the story, I pay close attention to which name is being used, and it is, to the best of my knowledge, 100% consistent through the entire Tanach.

The episode with the LORD speaking face-to-face as a man speaks to his friend, is not literal. It says this specifically in the text by saying "as a man". That is a simile, poetic, and not literal.

How else do we know this isn't a human form? How many "faces" does the LORD have in this episode? You may not notice this because it's obscured in the translation.

Exo 33:14

וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַֽהֲנִחֹתִי לָֽךְ׃

And he [ the LORD ] said, "Panai" shall go with you, and I will give you rest.
​

That's a "face", but not a literal face. It's translated as presence. Then later Moses askes to see the LORD's glory. But it is denied. The Hebrew here is very important.

Exo 33:20

וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת־פָּנָי כִּי לֹֽא־יִרְאַנִי הָֽאָדָם וָחָֽי׃

And he [ the LORD ] said, You can not see "Es-Panai"; for no man shall see me and live.
​

Literal translation, *this* my face. Es-Panai. If this is literally a human form, the LORD has at least 2 faces, and possibly more.

Finally, no Moses does not see "the back-side" of the LORD. That's not what it says. Also, in verse 22, it's not a literal hand. It's something that looks kind of flat, and kind of hollow. The word for "hand" is "yahd". This is a "cahf". Two totally different words. a "cahf" could be a hand, a palm, a pan, the sole of a foot, socket of the thigh, the branch on a palm tree, the paw of an animal, the hollow of a sling, etc Strong's Hebrew: 3709. כָּף (kaph) -- 193 Occurrences

The word translated as "back-side" is "אֶת־אֲחֹרָ֑י". Es-Achoray. Es? This back-side? This one? There's other ones? How many literal back-sides does a human form have? Just 1 right? How many literal faces does a human form have? Just 1 right?

Also, it's interesting to look back to the aramaic, as a euphemism this word also means to cover. So the glory of the LORD passes, and Moses sees "this covered side". Jastrow, אָחַר 1

So how is this a human form in Exo 33? Answer, it's not.

What does the LORD's glory actually look like? It's described in Exo 24, did you notice it?

17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
​

-------------------------------------------------

What does all of this mean? It means that the LORD doesn't have literal fingers, not literal faces, not literal hands, not literal feet. Not a literal human form. Not in the Hebrew bible.

 

[2ndpillar]

To ‘Show his face’ or ‘Not hide his face’, just means that GOD wing hide His intentions, His plans, the directions He will be taking with the them.

It has nothing to do with any kind of physical vision, visual encounter, or optical effect.

"His intentions, His plans, the direction He will be taking them" is written by the "prophets", such as plainly revealed in Ezekiel 36 & 37, in which the combined Israel will become the sanctuary of God, and they will be the "face" of God, in as they will be his tabernacle (Ezekiel 37:28), as in He will live within them, as now they will keep his Law (Jeremiah 31:31-33). As for the nations/Gentiles who survive the day of the LORD (Joel 2:31-32), they will bow down to the "king" (Zechariah 14:16) in Jerusalem.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And when do you think the rule was invented?

When statues of El fell out of fashion.

 

[101G]

The episode with the LORD speaking face-to-face as a man speaks to his friend, is not literal. It says this specifically in the text by saying "as a man". That is a simile, poetic, and not literal.

How else do we know this isn't a human form? How many "faces" does the LORD have in this episode? You may not notice this because it's obscured in the translation.

Exo 33:14

וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַֽהֲנִחֹתִי לָֽךְ׃

And he [ the LORD ] said, "Panai" shall go with you, and I will give you rest.
That's a "face", but not a literal face. It's translated as presence.

Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"

presence: H6440 פָּנִים paniym (paw-neem') n-m.
פָּנֶה paneh (paw-neh') [singular (but always as plural) of an unused noun]
1. the face (as the part that turns).
2. (with prepositional prefix, as a preposition) before, etc.
{used in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively}
[from H6437]
KJV: + accept, a-(be-)fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront(-part), form(-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him(-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look(-eth) (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them(-selves), through (+ - out), till, time(-s) past, (un-)to(-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with(- in, + -stand), X ye, X you.
Root(s): H6437


H6437 פָּנָה panah (paw-naw') v.
1. to turn.
2. (by implication) to face, i.e. appear, look, etc.
[a primitive root]
KJV: appear, at (even-)tide, behold, cast out, come on, X corner, dawning, empty, go away, lie, look, mark, pass away, prepare, regard, (have) respect (to), (re-)turn (aside, away, back, face, self), X right (early).

APPEAR.

101G

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In Exodus 33:20 it says:
'And he [the LORD] said, Thou [Moses] canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live'.

I wish it could be proven “Moses’” Torah could be dated prior to the monarchy but with paleo-Hebrew dating only back to the monarchy….

 

[dybmh]

Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"

Yes! The word translated as "in the cool". What do you have for it in Hebrew? What does that suggest to you?

Also, the word for "walking"? Maybe compare that to Genesis 2:14 and Genesis 7:18?

There's no arguing about the word presence. My objection is to the literal human form.

I look forward to hearing back from you on these two words. Then, hopefully, we can better understand this verse.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden." Genesis 3:9 "And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"

Figure of speech, specifically anthropomorphisms.

 

[Soapy]

It's a bit presumptuous of you to claim to teach the 'truth', when Jesus tells us that it's the Holy Spirit that guides a person into 'all truth' [John 16:13].

Oh boy!!! Ok., I tell you a truth… today I went to the medical surgery to give blood for a blood test. That’s the truth…

Do you know that the spirit of God was in that statement I just made?

How?

Because what I said was true… and the spirit of God: the spirit of the Father IS the spirit of truth!!

If you believe that Jesus will be called 'Eternal Father' at the judgement seat, why do you reject the deity of Christ (a fundamental belief of trinitarians)?

You are struggling to NOT UNDERSTAND what the TITLE, ‘Eternal Father’, means. You are trying to disguise the fact that you recognise the spirit of truth in what I said to you!

In doing what you are doing you expose the very thing I says about belief in the trinity - that it is a false belief… You yourself have exposed that truth because the spirit of truth is hard to lie to without being exposed!

And where do you see the Holy Spirit fitting into this equation? Is the Holy Spirit not the Spirit of the Father?

You are trying to play the game of prove a negative!

The spirit of God IS the spirit of the Father.
The spirit of the Father is the spirit of truth.
The spirit of the Father is the spirit of God.

God sent His spirit into the hearts of those who are His… He sent His spirit IN FULL into the heart of Jesus because Jesus was sinless. To those - all the others - he sent His sevenfold spirit in partial amounts … and each one received varied amounts of the spirit meaning varied attributes of the spirit : some as teachers; some as healers ; some as reminders ; some as great workers…etc. Seven gifts from the one spirit

How can one accept that the Father is 'above', 'amongst' and 'within' without also accepting 'trinitarianism'?

Because God is not above all things because he created all things.

God is amongst all things because His spirit is amongst all things… Truth is everywhere - even heathens know right from wrong even if they choose to ignore truth.

God is in all things because He created all things. His spirit is all encompassing though it can be defied - to the defers detriment.

 

[101G]

Yes! The word translated as "in the cool". What do you have for it in Hebrew? What does that suggest to you?

Also, the word for "walking"? Maybe compare that to Genesis 2:14 and Genesis 7:18?

There's no arguing about the word presence. My objection is to the literal human form.

I look forward to hearing back from you on these two words. Then, hopefully, we can better understand this verse.

thanks for the reply. I would like to zero in on "WALKING", and "Hearing".
using the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, (AHLB), and the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, the term WALKING here is not figurative as with "heard" in the verse which is the past tense of hear. these are not abstract action, but concrete.

which begs to understand that God is a Spirit. in order to make these concrete action, there had to be some kind of MANIFESTATION. why do 101G say this, because of the past tense word, "hear". what do I mean? Adam and Eve up to now was Spiritually in tune to God. because there was no separation .... NO SIN. so they ..... "heard" God voice before. but now, fallen from grace, they are NAKED BEFORE GOD, NO COVERING VIA the MIND. so now God's presence must be manifested physically for the Mind to cover the actions which are now exposed to the whole, world, (SHAME). these are physical actions.

now, as you said, did God manifest physically in a body? the AHLB states this WALKING here is physical. The pictograph is a picture of shepherd staff. and a picture of the palm of the hand. Combined these mean "staff in the palm". A nomad traveled on foot with a staff in his hand. so we have .... "PHYICAL MOVEMENT".

the bible do not say what was the source or the mechanism of this PHYICAL MOVEMENT, nor will 101G.

I will only say what the bible says .... ONLY, neither add, nor takeaway from his word.

101G.

 

[101G]

Figure of speech, specifically anthropomorphisms.

I don't believe so, see my post above.

but understand this. was not his "OWN ARM", an anthropomorphisms MANIFESTED concretely in flesh? yes, just read Isaiah 63:5 and Isaiah 53 reveals God's OWN ARM.

so with God, an anthropomorphisms of his can be MANIFESTED .... concretely. and it did. THE CHRIST, (GOD, HIMSELF), IN FLESH.

101G.

 

[rational experiences]

I only heard father when I was heavenly attacked. A voice. I knew he loved me. That he was a humoungous body by my feeling and awareness.

He said I belonged to him and was his. He said my name. He knew everything about me.

Science caused the attack who doesn't nor ever owned our heavens mass. The space body does.

When you consciously give fake ownership history by man's control only. As criminal man terms is rich man and scientist exact. Today you still pretend you owned it. As theory by man wanted to own it for his machine conditions.

Theists hence now say if I contact it in any human owned biology I can take it from you giving it to my machine. I want to control interactive causes.

Man never owned nor controlled clouds.

By claim first a human was a cloud. No human was ever a cloud.

A cloud historic is a cloud as a cloud. No says the theist it's your first body before being human.

So we had to argue reason.

Oh my life says my father owned sperm my mother her ovary they had sex. I got born. He doesn't believe it's why he owned life. Man idolator I'm a God type.

So holy men taught Jesus was a non sexual man so he didn't think its his life by bio father. Human sex.

Seeing babies became men who became father's...who did become baby man life sacrificed bodily. To form a world community of fathers memories. Records now an Ai effect in the heavens.

Life of men lost for being scientists who sacrificed biological human owned life themselves.

Lost living water micro biomes given to the clouds. It formed a God like man. We knew it had.

I have to be living given a name be a grown human to be attacked to experience the artificial causes. As it's interactive loss of our bio life in pre holy water conditions.... health given to biology.... back as pressures changed above.

Pressure isn't energy it's a cause. Water cannot enter our bodies to keep it origin bio cell within alive if it's non present as mass of cooled water living microbes. What we know is real.

Why psychics can give accurate whole lived life of a human intricately detailed... as heavens records it. It's not science ...science says it's not science it's causes and effects. Phenomena caused.

I experienced it I know and it's the only way you are ever informed. Healthy humans don't believe they've never experienced it.

Cloud cooling for transmitter type of his invention use was themed my control. Wasn't inventing clouds. It was using their mass presence.

He knew transmitters were evil.

Hence the heavens clouds changed. Why the ground ends up with no cloud history saving in a pretence of man inventing a cloud himself...machines on ground...is minus the cloud.

As blue sky gases belonged to cloud mass history vacuum voiding mass reaction. Once the whole atmosphere mass was in a sun attack that then thinned.

Which no scientist can repeat yet he theories about natural sun to earths history first attack. Huge mass changes.

Huge mass he theories about by his machine. A non reacting machine is first. As machine owns cloud causes inside its mass body. As he used living water to build his earth machine metal already.

Machines the metals never owned the heavens gases. Their owned volcanic type mass pressures were in Infinite cooling was nothing like a heavens history.

So when a sun UFO metal cools in heavens mass you already knew don't touch it. As it took all the heavens to rid it with vacuum void womb. Laws.

Is the teaching.

Man after all live inside the same heavens who built a metal from the dusts only that the sun had already eradicated by a huge mass earth energy body to cause....dusts.

Man already taught I tried to remove earths historic space cooling saving of it's own mass heavens. How I lost a huge pressurised microbiome Living water mass to above as remassed clouds.

Otherwise we'd all be combusted.

Never change heavens again warning.

As dust cooled is first mass attack of mass conversion of mass. With infinity pressures plus waters mass as it's saving.

Water plus cooling plus pressures equalled dusts in laws. The alter term was suns mass removing earths mass as some thoughts. Nothing living whatsoever.

Therefore as I stated above about TH O TH in a review of a man theorising.

He begins with inconsequential thoughts first about earth mass sun history. That he owned no condition in science. Yet the advice is pertinent in why he was wrong.

Instead of just claiming he was wrong he made up stories to con humanity as embarrassed liars do.

We live inside holy water that historic was one reason why a dust as dust existed. That advice says why you don't change earths dusts.

Baby man the theist.

Between mother father's natural history he built a machines body and reaction. Lost his own humans natural memory as particular DNA men life who return by humans healing only.

Only higher mind returned consciousness can thesis science.

Is why they don't use natural common sense.

It's why they tried to claim they bodily inherited gods heavens energy powers.

History said combustion is what he gained as biology.

We dont own the spatial pressures that energies presence does.

Is how an alien phi image by pressures is now on the ground. Originally the image in Cloud being only was a man Jesus image who could speak by mans recorded voice.

As it's true history.

Not any human just an image of man in clouds who became a son of God. As living water biomes we bodily used as biology was carbonised removed...recooled to cause a living spirit.

Only due to earth owning enough water mass to own causes.

As water and living ground microbes was taken up as a huge water mass to reform the clouds.

Why the teaching says no man is God. The loss of all water supported living origin biology on the ground was a horrific attack.

You cannot do it again otherwise Jesus wouldn't exist itself either.

As theists today thinking they can interact its caused history with earths ground machines. Needing the type of cooling to not cause a machine mass to overheat and blow up.

Teaching said the reason the alien images caused by science before us then returned subs star mass is cooling pressures are not yet returned.

Only Satan Jesus had.

As a non alight day atmosphere was involved in Jesus cloud reforming. Has not happened again.

Did I believe before it occurred...no I didn't.

 

[dybmh]

thanks for the reply. I would like to zero in on "WALKING", and "Hearing".
using the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, (AHLB), and the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, the term WALKING here is not figurative as with "heard" in the verse which is the past tense of hear. these are not abstract action, but concrete....

now, as you said, did God manifest physically in a body? the AHLB states this WALKING here is physical. The pictograph is a picture of shepherd staff. and a picture of the palm of the hand. Combined these mean "staff in the palm". A nomad traveled on foot with a staff in his hand. so we have .... "PHYICAL MOVEMENT".

I don't object at all to physical movement. I object to the human form. In the past you have provided the details from the AHLB for individual words. You did so with "Panah" and "Panai". Would you please provide that for the Hebrew word for "walking"?

Also, I referred to two other verses in Genesis which use this same Hebrew word that here is translated as "walking" but neither of them can possibly in any way describe walking.

Genesis 2:14 is a river flowing. Genesis 7:18 is the ark floating.

which begs to understand that God is a Spirit. in order to make these concrete action, there had to be some kind of MANIFESTATION. why do 101G say this, because of the past tense word, "hear". what do I mean? Adam and Eve up to now was Spiritually in tune to God. because there was no separation .... NO SIN. so they ..... "heard" God voice before. but now, fallen from grace, they are NAKED BEFORE GOD, NO COVERING VIA the MIND. so now God's presence must be manifested physically for the Mind to cover the actions which are now exposed to the whole, world, (SHAME). these are physical actions.

I agree with manifestation. I agree with spirit. ( If you do choose to look up the word which is being translated as "in the cool", you'll see this is precisely where I was heading. )

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't believe so, see my post above.

but understand this. was not his "OWN ARM", an anthropomorphisms MANIFESTED concretely in flesh? yes, just read Isaiah 63:5 and Isaiah 53 reveals God's OWN ARM.

so with God, an anthropomorphisms of his can be MANIFESTED .... concretely. and it did. THE CHRIST, (GOD, HIMSELF), IN FLESH.

101G.

the figurative expressions referring to the arm of God are simply metaphors for his might and actions.

 

[Redemptionsong]

First, I notice you didn't object to any of the points I made about Abraham's prayer not making sense if directed to the angels. Nor to the points I made about the angels asking questions and answering when that would be inappropriate for them to do so. Nor to the point about Sarah's laughter turned to fear. Nor to the point about Abraham using an ambiguous divine name throughout the story.

Instead, you've brought another set of questions, which is fine. But, at some point the questions I raised also need to be answered.

1. If Abraham was referring to one in the group of 3 as the My Lord, why does he say, "don't pass by" when they had already stopped and were waiting for him?
2. If the LORD was part of the group of 3, why did the group answer Abraham's question instead of deferring to their leader?
3. If the LORD was part of the group of 3, why ask about Sarah at all?
4. If the LORD is the "he" who is delivering the message about Isaac, why doesn't Abraham prostrate himself in the same way when the LORD appeared to him in Genesis 17?
5. Same question, if it's clearly the LORD appearing to him, why doesn't Abraham prostrate himself at the end of the story either?
6. If the LORD has appeared to Abraham in a clear and obvious way, why does Abraham use an ambiguous name throughout the story compared to the appearence in Genesis 15?

Now, to answer your question, each angel had a mission. One angel gave the message about Isaac's birth. One angel went to save Lot. One angel went to destory Soddom. It's easy to see this from the story, and nothing is left out. There is an explanation in the text. It's still an unbroken narrative.

Please understand, I'm not saying all "appearances" are anything. I'm saying this story is mysterious. We don't really know what Abraham saw. The figures that arrived looked like men. Several elements of the story introduce doubt. And Abraham here uses a non-specific divine name throughout, and other appearances are handled differently than this one.

Well, that's a different story of course. Different time, different circumstances, different revelation. You did a good job quoting accurately, it was not the LORD that they saw. Also, please take note of Exodus 24:1, they were instructed to stay "far off". Also, when Moses acended near, he went into a cloud. So we know that the elder's vision was obscured.

Yes, the writing of God was visible. No problem there. Also, it's not the "finger of the LORD" that is credited for this writing. God is revealed in numerous ways with numerous names each describing a type of divine revelation. Each time I read the story, I pay close attention to which name is being used, and it is, to the best of my knowledge, 100% consistent through the entire Tanach.

The episode with the LORD speaking face-to-face as a man speaks to his friend, is not literal. It says this specifically in the text by saying "as a man". That is a simile, poetic, and not literal.

How else do we know this isn't a human form? How many "faces" does the LORD have in this episode? You may not notice this because it's obscured in the translation.

Exo 33:14

וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַֽהֲנִחֹתִי לָֽךְ׃

And he [ the LORD ] said, "Panai" shall go with you, and I will give you rest.
​

That's a "face", but not a literal face. It's translated as presence. Then later Moses askes to see the LORD's glory. But it is denied. The Hebrew here is very important.

Exo 33:20

וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת־פָּנָי כִּי לֹֽא־יִרְאַנִי הָֽאָדָם וָחָֽי׃

And he [ the LORD ] said, You can not see "Es-Panai"; for no man shall see me and live.
​

Literal translation, *this* my face. Es-Panai. If this is literally a human form, the LORD has at least 2 faces, and possibly more.

Finally, no Moses does not see "the back-side" of the LORD. That's not what it says. Also, in verse 22, it's not a literal hand. It's something that looks kind of flat, and kind of hollow. The word for "hand" is "yahd". This is a "cahf". Two totally different words. a "cahf" could be a hand, a palm, a pan, the sole of a foot, socket of the thigh, the branch on a palm tree, the paw of an animal, the hollow of a sling, etc Strong's Hebrew: 3709. כָּף (kaph) -- 193 Occurrences

The word translated as "back-side" is "אֶת־אֲחֹרָ֑י". Es-Achoray. Es? This back-side? This one? There's other ones? How many literal back-sides does a human form have? Just 1 right? How many literal faces does a human form have? Just 1 right?

Also, it's interesting to look back to the aramaic, as a euphemism this word also means to cover. So the glory of the LORD passes, and Moses sees "this covered side". Jastrow, אָחַר 1

So how is this a human form in Exo 33? Answer, it's not.

What does the LORD's glory actually look like? It's described in Exo 24, did you notice it?

17 And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
​

-------------------------------------------------

What does all of this mean? It means that the LORD doesn't have literal fingers, not literal faces, not literal hands, not literal feet. Not a literal human form. Not in the Hebrew bible.

Let's run with what you hold to be true, and see if it can be applied consistently.

God is Spirit. The Spirit of God does not manifest itself to the eyes of men.

So why does the 'appearance' of the LORD recur in scripture? It happens (using the word 'raah') on numerous occasions, and in Exodus 6:3 God says, 'And l appeared unto Abraham, unto lsaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was l not known to them'.

In Leviticus 16:2, the LORD instructs Moses about the Day of Atonement saying, 'l will appear (raah) in the cloud upon the mercy seat'.

So, the cloud is created by God, and is visible to the eye, and God speaks from the cloud but is not visible. Is that correct?

Why is it not acceptable for the LORD to speak through an angel if he is happy to speak through a cloud, or a flame of fire from a burning bush?

The angel of the LORD that appeared to Manoah [Judges 13] 'ascended in the flame of the altar'. It was then that they knew that the angel was not a man. 'And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die because we have seen God'.

Do you agree that the LORD does speak through an angel, a cloud, a flame of fire, all of which are visible to the eye?

 

[Soapy]

It's a mysterious story. I think the easiest way to address this is go through the story and comment on each part. To summarize, it's unclear what Abraham actually saw. This entire episode could have been the voice of the LORD who was already present before the 3 'men' arrived.

I'll put my line-by-line commentary in a spoiler to save people the effort of scrolling through it.

Spoiler: line-by-line comments

1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

The LORD appeared ( past tense ), where? At the tent door where Abraham sat.
​

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

Notice, he left the entrance to the tent. Also notice, the 3 men stood. They had stopped, they weren't traveling anymore, they were waiting. And, Abraham does not bow to them, he bows to the ground.
​

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

This prayer is not directed to the men. He probably said it in an undertone. Abraham had interrupted his communion in order to be hospitable to the 3 travelers in the heat of the day. Why would he ask them not to pass by, if they had already stopped? Instead it makes more sense that he is praying to the LORD whom was already there before the men had arrived. Abraham is asking the LORD to remain present eventhough he is interrupted with guests.

Also, does it makes sense for him to ask 3 strangers if they have seen him in favor? He doesn't even know these people. The word for "in thy sight" is singular.
​

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: 5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Now Abraham is talking to the men. How do we know? Notice, he says "comfort ye hearts". Hearts is plural. Feet is plural. Previously "in thy sight" is singular. The subject has changed.

"They said" in return "do as thou has said". If these were 2 angels + the LORD, why didn't the LORD answer? It doesn't make sense for the vassals to speak and the monarch to remain silent if they're traveling in a group. If Abraham had been addressing the 3 traveling together, first the leader ( "My Lord if I have found favor..." ), and there was no answer, does it make sense for the vassals to answer "yes please wash our feet and refresh our hearts"?

No. It makes more sense that Abraham's prayer was to the LORD who was not a member of the group.
​

6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

No mystery here. Abraham rushes to perform hospitality for his guests.
​

9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

If the LORD is among the 3, why do they need to ask any questions? It doesn't make sense. The 3 were a distinct group, and the LORD is different. And the same problem as before, why are the vassals asking any questions at all?

For comparisson, consider the story of the burning bush. An angel appeared in the fire, but it didn't speak. Only God spoke to Moses. The vassals deferred to the monarch.
​

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

One of the 3 men makes a prediction. Sarah heard it.
​

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

OK....
​

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

This is very important. Important note: she laughs and is not afraid. Also, she says these things to herself not outloud.
​

13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

Last chapter, Abraham circumcises himself and God promises that Sarah will have a child. But apparently, Abraham didn't tell Sarah. That's an important detail. So what does God do? Sarah receives prophecy. This is not a new idea, Sarah is mentioned in Talmud and Midrash as a great prophetess.

So, these words from the LORD directed to Abraham are also heard by Sarah.
​

15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

Why was Sarah afraid? Because she had just heard the voice of the LORD for the first time. If this was the voice of the men outside the tent, she would not have been afraid. Again, the LORD is distinct from the 'men' who arrived.
​

16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

No mystery here.
​

17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

This is also very important. What is the purpose of this monologue? This distinguishes between the men who arrived and the LORD. Remember, the men asked "where is Sarah?" That group isn't omniscient. Here, it's important to let the reader know that God has already decided, God already knows, God doesn't need to find anything out. This again distinguishes between the men who arrived and the LORD who was present before they came.

If the LORD were part of that group, then these verses would be extraneous. It would make perfect sense for the LORD to go and see about Soddom, in the same way that the men asked about Sarah. But since they are two distinct groups, the men ask and say things, and the LORD does it differently.

In case it's unclear, who is the LORD speaking to here? I think, it's to us, to the reader.
​

20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Now the LORD is speaking to Abraham.
​

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

It doesn't say how many men... It doesn't say they heard. They were headed to Soddom already. It might as well have been the group of 3. And the LORD is seperate from them.
​

And then the story continues, with the dialogue between the LORD and Abraham. As stated, the LORD knew that Abraham would advocate for the inhabitants. The LORD already knew what was happening there. It wasn't really a negotiation.

If you pay close attention, in the entire story Abraham uses an ambiguous name for the LORD. Compare to Genesis 15:2 and Genesis 15:8 where a specific name is used. So, when God appears in a vision in Gen 15 Abraham seems more confident about who he is speaking with. Here, an ambiguous name is used.

The wording in this last narrative is a little peculiar.

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Why doesn't Abraham prostrate himself like he did at the beginning of the story or even in Genesis 17:1-3? This also suggests that what's happening in this story is an indirect revelation.
​

33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

"went his way" is not necessarily a literal physical leaving. "Communing" here is literally "speaking" if one looks at the original Hebrew. So, this could have been an audible encounter.
​

What you say I correct here.

It appears that Trinitarians want to adopt everything that is three as justification for claiming God is three.

Well, should we leave them in that wrongful ideological thought?

Yesterday I heard a pastor tell his congregation that they should not argue of debate with non-believers. Well, if you are not called by God to do so then that is true. But there ARE those who are called to oppose wrongfulness… he didn’t mention that but I asked myself how he learnt HIS truth without facing opposition and ‘overcoming it’ to remain in HIS belief system?

Trinity adopts every ‘Three’ trying to claim it is ‘GOD’… but forget that ‘Three’ can be broken… but I ONE cannot be broken!

This is why they struggle with ‘Jesus died’. If Jesus is God then ‘GOD DIED’!! But of course they cannot accept that (it’s wrong anyway!) but it’s their belief gone wrong! To cover they say, ‘Oh, only his body died!!’. But we know Jesus ‘GAVE UP HIS SPIRIT’ when he died… Trinity doesn’t acknowledge that Jesus gave up his spirit like any other dying man!

“As the Father has life in Him, so he has granted that the son should have life in him also”…
Jesus is to be raised back to life - to have life in him again. Note how Jesus AGONISED the night before his death. He was in fear thinking: “Can the Father really raise me up again??”

If Jesus was Almighty God… why would he doubt even if for a moment… He would not BE DEAD… so why the fear… Yes, again, trinity cannot justify how ‘[trinity] GOD feared dying!’

 

[Soapy]

Let's run with what you hold to be true, and see if it can be applied consistently.

God is Spirit. The Spirit of God does not manifest itself to the eyes of men.

So why does the 'appearance' of the LORD recur in scripture? It happens (using the word 'raah') on numerous occasions, and in Exodus 6:3 God says, 'And l appeared unto Abraham, unto lsaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was l not known to them'.

In Leviticus 16:2, the LORD instructs Moses about the Day of Atonement saying, 'l will appear (raah) in the cloud upon the mercy seat'.

So, the cloud is created by God, and is visible to the eye, and God speaks from the cloud but is not visible. Is that correct?

Why is it not acceptable for the LORD to speak through an angel if he is happy to speak through a cloud, or a flame of fire from a burning bush?

The angel of the LORD that appeared to Manoah [Judges 13] 'ascended in the flame of the altar'. It was then that they knew that the angel was not a man. 'And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die because we have seen God'.

Do you agree that the LORD does speak through an angel, a cloud, a flame of fire, all of which are visible to the eye?

All you said is true!

Look at the word ‘Chazah’ which is Hebrew for ‘to See IN INNER VISION’ when taken in proper context.

God speaks through an angel or through physical objects. He showed his power to Moses saying that if He showed Himself Moses would be destroyed so only showed retreating/receding power. And that was so great … what if God showed his frontal power… Yet even that is nothing since consider the universe and the power and majesty of it… and yet God is master of it and creation is but, “like a room in the great mansion of Heaven”