Is Jesus the Light of Genesis 1:3?

[Buddha Dharma]

However I believe it's Elohim for a good reason. What do you think?

Bear in mind that I've studied the polytheistic backdrop to some of the Biblical tradition. I'd say it's a safe guess that Elohim in Genesis 1 means Elyon and his spirit children. We see such a view of Elyon as a high god preserved in the following as well:

Deuteronomy 32:8 (NLT) When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number in his heavenly court.

You will also find the above translated as 'the number of the sons of God' -or- 'number of the sons of Israel'. This is due to textual variants in the ancient manuscripts, which lets on from the get go that something in the verse was changed by one of the parties to suit an end.

Exodus and Psalms are not so ambiguous and show that at the very least the Israelite religion used to be henotheist. That's at very least.

Exodus 15:11 Who is like you among the gods, O LORD--glorious in holiness, awesome in splendor, performing great wonders?

Psalm 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment

In such cases, the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural, to designate all the heavenly beings or divinities talked about. Therefore, one can infer Genesis 1 perhaps preserves an older creation account than Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is usually stated by scholars to represent a later tradition, in which Yahweh alone is creator.

Some scholars also suggest that the usage Yahweh-El demonstrates a syncretization of Yahweh and El took place within the monotheism, where previously Yahweh would have been one of Elyon's many sons.

(Also of note: Psalm 82 makes a lot of sense when approached as a polemic against ancient pagans, because you will notice that it depicts 'God' condemning other deities as being unjust and supporters of evil)

 

[wizanda]

Elohim in Genesis 1 means Elyon

Excellent post impressed at your knowledge...

Though would correct one point, there are verses where El is not like the Elohim (Isaiah 46:9), and that YHVH 'and' Elyon are two distinct references (2 Samuel 22:14 & Psalms 18:13 + Psalms 50:14 + Psalms 78:35 + Psalms 92:1).

Thus we have one God Most High (CPU), and then a council of Elohim who created reality, exactly the same as Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc.

In my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Is Jesus the Light of Genesis 1:3?"
No.

 

[74x12]

You will also find the above translated as 'the number of the sons of God' -or- 'number of the sons of Israel'. This is due to textual variants in the ancient manuscripts, which lets on from the get go that something in the verse was changed by one of the parties to suit an end.

I've heard of this controversy before. I actually believe the "sons of God" to be the angels. As seen in Genesis 6, and the book of Job. So although it's clearly sons of Israel now in the Masoretic. Yet, I'm open to the idea of it actually saying "sons of God" like in the Septuagint. This would mean to me a certain counsel of angels (possibly the watchers or a similar group referred to in Daniel 4:17) who have been put into some authority over the affairs of humanity.

Exodus and Psalms are not so ambiguous and show that at the very least the Israelite religion used to be henotheist. That's at very least.

I don't think so. I think the Bible is never shy about calling Yah the "Most High God" so it's clear there are other gods. It's just about who is the God. Even Paul said there are many called gods but to us only one God. (1 Corinthians 8:5) That is to the church there is only one God. We worship the most High and we believe all the elect angels do the same.

Exodus 15:11 Who is like you among the gods, O LORD--glorious in holiness, awesome in splendor, performing great wonders?

Psalm 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment

I've spoken more than once here on this forum about Psalm 82. This is about a certain counsel or members of a certain counsel of angelic beings. They have apparently decided not to follow the Most High's ways. So they are judging unfairly and basically doing whatever they want from the sound of it. So They're condemned and will be judged and die like humans. Anyway, in my opinion this is a counsel of angels that have some authority over the affairs of humans. These might be the princes of this world who are mentioned in the new Testament writings as well as two princes of Greece and Persia being mentioned in the book of Daniel.

(Also of note: Psalm 82 makes a lot of sense when approached as a polemic against ancient pagans, because you will notice that it depicts 'God' condemning other deities as being unjust and supporters of evil)

This makes a lot of sense to me because I believe many of these "princes" I've been talking about have made themselves into gods of various nations of the world. No offense ... this is why I cannot worship any god or idol other than the Biblical God. I believe that holy angels will point people to the most High God and say worship Him. Where as angels that have their own ambitions will accept worship themselves.

In such cases, the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural, to designate all the heavenly beings or divinities talked about. Therefore, one can infer Genesis 1 perhaps preserves an older creation account than Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is usually stated by scholars to represent a later tradition, in which Yahweh alone is creator.

I don't believe that myself. I know in Jewish tradition it's just considered a plurality of respect. So Elohim is a more holy version of El or maybe Eloah I don't know exactly. I don't know for sure myself. But, in my opinion it's not including anyone but the Most High God. I also believe there may be a mystery involved here. The scriptures are full of mysteries.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I've heard of this controversy before. I actually believe the "sons of God" to be the angels.

That is doubtless, without any theological influence whatsoever.

So although it's clearly sons of Israel now in the Masoretic. Yet, I'm open to the idea of it actually saying "sons of God" like in the Septuagint.

Do you acknowledge what Deuteronomy says in another place then? That the nations were given these 'sons of God' for them to worship, but that Israel will worship only Yahweh?

Deuteronomy 4:19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Anyone knowing how polytheists sometimes associate our deities with various elements or cosmic phenomena would understand this verse. If they were given for the nations to worship- they arguably are not mere angels. They also are gods.

I don't think so. I think the Bible is never shy about calling Yah the "Most High God"

Which doesn't mean the religion wasn't henotheistic. Yah can be the 'most high god' in a henotheistic framework.

I've spoken more than once here on this forum about Psalm 82. This is about a certain counsel or members of a certain counsel of angelic beings.

How does that line up with Deuteronomy 4:19?

This makes a lot of sense to me because I believe many of these "princes" I've been talking about have made themselves into gods of various nations of the world.

Deuteronomy doesn't say they made themselves into anything.

But, in my opinion it's not including anyone but the Most High God.

That is further called into question when one notices the detail 'male and female' were made in the image of 'Elohim-plural'. I am aware one can metaphorize the passage and make it monotheistic, but does that prove the metaphorized reading is correct? Genesis 1 can easily support what I'm saying from a literal reading, which I seem to recall is preferred where it can be done. Pesher.

 

[74x12]

That is doubtless, without any theological influence whatsoever.

Well ... how about extra-biblical references also? For example the book of Enoch etc. Actually angelic beings. Messengers of the gods was wide spread belief in ancient middle east.

Do you acknowledge what Deuteronomy says in another place then? That the nations were given these 'sons of God' for them to worship, but that Israel will worship only Yahweh?

Deuteronomy 4:19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Anyone knowing how polytheists sometimes associate our deities with various elements or cosmic phenomena would understand this verse. If they were given for the nations to worship- they arguably are not mere angels. They also are gods.

How does that line up with Deuteronomy 4:19?

All nations would include Israel. I think the point here is to go back to Genesis account which is to say the sun, moon stars are given as lights and for signs and for seasons and years etc. So although God meant these things to be beneficial for all nations.They were not to be worshiped originally. (Genesis 1:14) So when they are apportioned for all nations it's in this way.

Which doesn't mean the religion wasn't henotheistic. Yah can be the 'most high god' in a henotheistic framework.

I admit this, however this doesn't make the argument one way or another.

Deuteronomy doesn't say they made themselves into anything.

My reason for believing that is by putting two and two together. Looking at the evidence beginning in Genesis chapter 6 when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. Look at how all the gods of the ancients did the same things. They had children with human women etc. Like Hercules, Gilgamesh etc.

That is further called into question when one notices the detail 'male and female' were made in the image of 'Elohim-plural'. I am aware one can metaphorize the passage and make it monotheistic, but does that prove the metaphorized reading is correct? Genesis 1 can easily support what I'm saying from a literal reading, which I seem to recall is preferred where it can be done. Pesher.

Well this is a first. Now I'm arguing from Jewish perspective and you're against me. It's usually the other way around. I just think that your explanation leaves something to be desired. I think if we're to take the Bible at face value and just let it speak for itself we'll find that even the things we don't understand right away begin to make sense. Basically let the Bible interpret itself. That's the only way to do it if you're trying to prove if it is really from God or not. If it is from God then it should all come together. For me, I'm convinced that it really does come together very well.

When it comes to arguing the Hebrew obviously you get into grammar rules etc. That's just not my expertise. Sorry. I did find this interesting refutation of Zacharias Sitchin's use of the world elohim however.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Well ... how about extra-biblical references also? For example the book of Enoch etc. Actually angelic beings. Messengers of the gods was wide spread belief in ancient middle east.

We know when Enoch was compiled into a single work, which was by Christians, and roughly when it's parts were written. The Apocalypse of Weeks, Book of the Watchers, etc. Sometimes referred to by scholars as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch. Though these three can be broken down further.

One cannot simply go running to Enoch for an argument without understanding this historical detail. Enoch was not written to reflect the oldest layer of Hebraic tradition. The Apocalypse of Weeks for example, was written by someone of an Essene mind as a polemic against second-temple Judaism. Because it predicts the second temple will fall at the end of the week because it's priests have 'forsaken Wisdom'.

Enoch, if anything- reflects a view that cropped up between the Genesis narrative and whatever the ancient mythos was that came before both. Genesis can be argued to be later than Enoch in the literary tradition it's employing, because Enoch doesn't clearly show that man fell through Adam's sin. Rather, Enoch attributes human depravity to the corruption of the Watchers. IE: 'They taught women charms, enchantments, and the cutting of roots'

All nations would include Israel. I think the point here is to go back to Genesis account which is to say the sun, moon stars are given as lights and for signs and for seasons and years etc. So although God meant these things to be beneficial for all nations.They were not to be worshiped originally. (Genesis 1:14) So when they are apportioned for all nations it's in this way.

Except it doesn't establish that clearly in the context of the verse, which commands Israel not to worship these things.

I admit this, however this doesn't make the argument one way or another.

The wording of the first commandment doesn't either, I guess?

My reason for believing that is by putting two and two together. Looking at the evidence beginning in Genesis chapter 6 when the sons of God came into the daughters of men. Look at how all the gods of the ancients did the same things. They had children with human women etc. Like Hercules, Gilgamesh etc.

How do you know Genesis didn't come after those myths in Greece and other places? See my earlier post about Enoch. When do you think Genesis was written? Most scholars say after Babylon.

Well this is a first. Now I'm arguing from Jewish perspective and you're against me. It's usually the other way around.

I do that because I admire Judaism as a spiritual tradition, as I've explained to you before. It's the monotheistic religion I admire the most. Sometimes I feel like vindicating Judaism against it's two offshoots.

 

[74x12]

We know when Enoch was compiled into a single work, which was by Christians, and roughly when it's parts were written. The Apocalypse of Weeks, Book of the Watchers, etc. Sometimes referred to by scholars as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch. Though these three can be broken down further.

It's actually quoted in the book of Jude. It predates the time of Christ by some time. The idea Christians wrote it is not right. Check dead sea scroll evidence here.

One cannot simply go running to Enoch for an argument without understanding this historical detail. Enoch was not written to reflect the oldest layer of Hebraic tradition. The Apocalypse of Weeks for example, was written by someone of an Essene mind as a polemic against second-temple Judaism. Because it predicts the second temple will fall at the end of the week because it's priests have 'forsaken Wisdom'.

It's more evidence that angelic beings were believed to exist in those days.

Enoch, if anything- reflects a view that cropped up between the Genesis narrative and whatever the ancient mythos was that came before both. Genesis can be argued to be later than Enoch in the literary tradition it's employing, because Enoch doesn't clearly show that man fell through Adam's sin. Rather, Enoch attributes human depravity to the corruption of the Watchers. IE: 'They taught women charms, enchantments, and the cutting of roots'

Just because he doesn't show that man fell through Adam's sin means little. After all, Enoch himself is a character from Genesis. Humans were definitely further corrupted by the "sons of God" as seen in Genesis chapter 6.

Except it doesn't establish that clearly in the context of the verse, which commands Israel not to worship these things.

In context Moses is warning them not to worship any statues or figurines. And then strengthens his point and tells them not to worship the sun, moon or stars. As an aside he mentions how these were apportioned to all peoples just like Genesis 1:14 says. This really comes as no surprise when you know traditionally Moses is the one who wrote Genesis as well. Your opinion on the other hand that he's saying the stars and sun and moon were given by God for the gentiles to worship is a stretch at best. Why would God want humans to worship moons and stars? Your viewpoint requires us to go against the most obvious meaning of the text.

Here is the literal translation:

16 lest ye do corruptly, and have made to you a graven image, a similitude of any figure, a form of male or female --
17 a form of any beast which [is] in the earth -- a form of any winged bird which flieth in the heavens --
18 a form of any creeping thing on the ground -- a form of any fish which [is] in the waters under the earth;
19 `And lest thou lift up thine eyes towards the heavens, and hast seen the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of the heavens, and thou hast been forced, and hast bowed thyself to them, and served them, which Jehovah thy God hath apportioned to all the peoples under the whole heavens.

How do you know Genesis didn't come after those myths in Greece and other places? See my earlier post about Enoch. When do you think Genesis was written? Most scholars say after Babylon.

I believe Moses likely wrote Genesis so it probably did come after some of these legends. The fact those legends inadvertently support the Genesis account is what is so interesting.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's actually quoted in the book of Jude. It predates the time of Christ by some time. The idea Christians wrote it is not right. Check dead sea scroll evidence here.

Yes what you're not understanding though is that Enoch as we have it today is a compilation of several works. Christians compiled these works into a single Enoch. The Enoch of the DSS is 1 Enoch only, which is the Book of the Watchers.

Just because he doesn't show that man fell through Adam's sin means little.

Not to textual scholars it doesn't mean little. They don't take for granted anything the books say.

Moses is the one who wrote Genesis as well

You really believe that?

I believe Moses likely wrote Genesis

Traditionally Ezra penned the Torah to writing, which got him listed with the prophets- albeit there are apocalyptic works attributed to him not in the canon.