|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/20/2008 8:45:52 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NobodyImportant
The words 'let us' and 'our' aren't technically there, but are editorial components for english reading. Even then, 'let us' is no different than saying "let's" and, afaik, there is nothing in the verse to necessitate the use of 'us' over 'my.'
I think, conceptually, it reads:
God
Said (Willed\Thought\Commanded)
Fashion (Produce\Make\Accomplish\Bring About)
Adam (Man\Mankind)
Image (Likeness\Resemblance)
Likeness (Similarity. Second use for emphasis\repetition?)
Dominion (Dominion\Rule\Reign\Prevail)
Fish
Sea
Fowl (Flying creatures)
Air (Sky\Heavens)
Beasts
Earth (Ground\Land)
Moving Things (Creeping\Gliding Things)
Move (Creeps\Glides)
Earth (Ground\Land)
By the way, have you done this with Gen 2.21? You will get an interesting double entendre:
Adam is a type of Christ.
Sleep :: Death
Took :: Married
Rib :: Side, Limping
Closed up :: Redeemed
Flesh :: Mankind
And the Lord caused a deep death to fall upon Christ and he died: and he married his limping side, and redeemed mankind instead thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 5:14:33 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
Wow. This is all kind of a "no-brainer."
Obviously, God was speaking of the triune Godhead when he said, "Let us make man in our image." When you consider that man himself is a triune being, consisting of one unique being existing in three distinct yet intertwined "states", it's fairly easy to see the Godhead in the same light: the body, mind, and spirit of man having their basis in creation in the triune nature of God: Father (mind), Son (body), and Holy Spirit (spirit).
The Father says to Isaiah: "Come, let us reason together", indicating the mind of God.
By the way, John 1:1-3 expressly states who and where Jesus was at the beginning and the role He played in creation. John 16:13-15 talks about the Holy Spirit and His unique role in the Godhead. Genesis 1:2 talks about the "Spirit of God hovering over the waters."
From this we see that all three persons of the Godhead were present at creation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 5:26:57 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm sorry, but I just do not see it. The Old Testament (and indeed, the early New Testament) Jewish population were vehemently monotheistic.
The apostle Paul was a Pharisee, a teacher of the Law, who studied under one of the greatest Pharisees of his day. Paul understood - as well as any man could - the concept of the "trinity." The other apostles were all sitting at Jesus feet when He talked about He and the Father being "one" and at His baptism, John witnessed the Spirit descend on Him and heard a voice from heaven "this is my son, in whom I am well-pleased." That one picture alone ought to tell you as much as you need to know about the trinity.
Furthermore, the OT prophets tell of "God's spirit being poured on all flesh" and of the Messiah, who would be "Son of the most High." Though these were not fulfilled until the end of Christ's earthly ministry, the triune nature of God is adequately foreshadowed in the OT, beginning in Genesis.
C'mon guys, of all the things to be arguing about this is something that was settled in 425 AD as part of the Nicean Creed to put certain heresies to rest. No need to revisit doctrine that's been established since creation and codified in both word and creed. :P
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 9:26:24 AM
|
|
|
NobodyImportant
Posts: 38
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjones
Yes. He says he will make them in his likeness in 1.26, but does not 'fulfill it until 5.1.
In the fulfillment language of 1.27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." he did not use "likeness".
You will also note that he changed from "make" to "create". This is also used in 5.1.
Ok, I'm sorry - I had misunderstood what you meant by 'the fulfillment language' but that makes sense.
quote:
By the way, have you done this with Gen 2.21? You will get an interesting double entendre:
Adam is a type of Christ.
Sleep :: Death
Took :: Married
Rib :: Side, Limping
Closed up :: Redeemed
Flesh :: Mankind
And the Lord caused a deep death to fall upon Christ and he died: and he married his limping side, and redeemed mankind instead thereof.
I love things like this, I just wish it were more accessible. It's easier to do it by subject, unfortunately you skip parts like that which seem obvious and miss the undercurrent. I knew the relationship between Christ & Adam, and the Bridegroom symbolism (In the Adultery\Idolatry context) but I hadn't seen it arranged within the pages this way, with the creation of Eve being 'taken out of the temple' so to speak. I wonder if this relates to the veil in the Holy of Holies being torn in half?
_____________________________
How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 12:51:17 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 997
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
Wow. This is all kind of a "no-brainer."
Obviously, God was speaking of the triune Godhead when he said, "Let us make man in our image." When you consider that man himself is a triune being, consisting of one unique being existing in three distinct yet intertwined "states", it's fairly easy to see the Godhead in the same light: the body, mind, and spirit of man having their basis in creation in the triune nature of God: Father (mind), Son (body), and Holy Spirit (spirit).
This is only because one chooses to view man that way. Three is a common linguistic tool. Concepts are better understood if they are grouped in threes. This is the simplist number of objects that one can have and express the ideas of similarity and diversity. That is why you have a minister. a priest and a rabbi in many jokes. Two examples are used to set a precident and then the third then shows the silliness of the precident.
One could see man as a four part being, body, mind, emotion and spirit. We also have five senses. A basic falacy is that correlation equals causation. Just because two things are similar does not necessarily mean that one proves the other. Insects have three part bodies, but this does not mean that they are more like Adonai than arachnides(two part bodies).
So, it is not a "no-brainer". Unless it is a clearly required by Scripture or there is some practical reason that one must accept it, I'm pretty sure thinking people are free to be uncertain regarding the ultimate nature of Adonai until they are convinced in there own minds. Creeds are not Scripture and therefore are subject to examination as are any other assertions.
quote:
The Father says to Isaiah: "Come, let us reason together", indicating the mind of God.
Context is important here, Adonai is talking to us. Therefore, let us(Adonai and Israel) reason together.
quote:
By the way, John 1:1-3 expressly states who and where Jesus was at the beginning and the role He played in creation. John 16:13-15 talks about the Holy Spirit and His unique role in the Godhead. Genesis 1:2 talks about the "Spirit of God hovering over the waters."
I don't think anyone is arguing that Adonai Elohiem(Lord Almighty), Yeshua Ha Meshiach(Jesus the Messiah) and Ruach Ha Chedosh(Holy Spirit) are legitimate names for Adonai and as such were Adonai from the beginning. What is at issue is, are these manifestations of Adonai clearly differentiated in all circumstances or are they just three of many ways in which Adonai has manifest Himself?
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 5/22/2008 1:13:01 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 4:48:35 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
Obviously, God was speaking of the triune Godhead when he said, "Let us make man in our image." When you consider that man himself is a triune being, consisting of one unique being existing in three distinct yet intertwined "states", it's fairly easy to see the Godhead in the same light: the body, mind, and spirit of man having their basis in creation in the triune nature of God: Father (mind), Son (body), and Holy Spirit (spirit).
NO! Man is not triune! Even if man is tripartite, man is not a trinity like God is. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are absolutely not analogous to the mind, body and spirit of a human. First, the Son and the Holy Spirit each have their own mind (Romans 8:27), and the Son has His own spirit as well (Luke 23:46). More than that, the Son really is the son of the Father. The human body is not begotten of the human mind, there is no begotten relationship within a human, as there is within the triune God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit as persons are not like the various parts of a human at all.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/22/2008 4:51:04 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
I don't think anyone is arguing that Adonai Elohiem(Lord Almighty), Yeshua Ha Meshiach(Jesus the Messiah) and Ruach Ha Chedosh(Holy Spirit) are legitimate names for Adonai and as such were Adonai from the beginning. What is at issue is, are these manifestations of Adonai clearly differentiated in all circumstances or are they just three of many ways in which Adonai has manifest Himself?
Once again, I ask you the question in my signature:
Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 12:00:44 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
C'mon guys, of all the things to be arguing about this is something that was settled in 425 AD as part of the Nicean Creed to put certain heresies to rest. No need to revisit doctrine that's been established since creation and codified in both word and creed. :P
Nothing is settled in creed. If you do not wrestle with the issue yourself, you merely parrot, and you miss out of having the awe inspired by meditating upon what He says for Himself about Himself.
The creed is merely a shorthand for believers' conversation, not a substitute for study. If more people actually studied it for themselves there would be less parrot babble...
Too many discussions are merely Calvin's words torn from a study guide, crumpled and tossed at one who tears Wesley's words from a sermon, crumples them and tosses them back, IMHO.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 2:36:09 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit as persons are not like the various parts of a human at all.
Do you understand the metaphorical use of language?
But conceding that point for argument's sake tell me: what is the "image and likeness of God" by which we are made?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 3:01:23 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
A basic falacy is that correlation equals causation. Just because two things are similar does not necessarily mean that one proves the other.
And yet you have God stating in Genesis that he was going to create man "in his image and likeness." Correlation does not necessarily equal causation except where you have a causative agent at work.
It logically follows that if we are created in his image and likeness, we can get a sense of the nature of God especially in light of other scriptures that lend context to the discussion, for instance:
"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16-17
Note also that the great commission charges the apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But the bottom line is that God in Genesis could have only been referring to the Godhead when He said, "let us make man in our image and likeness", because there was none other but the trinity that was co-equal with God in whose image man could have been made.
We know Jesus himself was present at the creation and - in fact - was through whom and by whom all things were made. And there was the Spirit, hovering over the face of the waters. To whom else could God have been referring but himself manifest equally as the Father, Son and Spirit?
Sorry, I guess I just don't get what the problem is here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 3:12:12 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Nothing is settled in creed. If you do not wrestle with the issue yourself, you merely parrot, and you miss out of having the awe inspired by meditating upon what He says for Himself about Himself.
The creed is merely a shorthand for believers' conversation, not a substitute for study. If more people actually studied it for themselves there would be less parrot babble...
Actually, that "shorthand" you dismiss was written in response to any number of "personal interpretations" (presumably based on all kinds of "personal study") that had been cropping up as heresy. The creed was arrived at by the early church fathers both as a concise statement of church dogma and as refutation to the many heresies that had been growing in the church.
Remember: the printing press would not be invented for another 1100 years. The church fathers needed a concise set of beliefs set forth as dogma they could use to teach their churches and refute heretics.
The Nicene and Apostle's Creeds are not substitutes for study. They are, however, a framework from which one may begin a serious study of the Bible, and are the result of serious study themselves by church fathers who were a whole lot closer to the problems they were addressing than we are today.
Heresies, you see, can appear as "less parrot babble", too.
< Message edited by Stormcrow -- 5/23/2008 3:18:47 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 8:53:28 AM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
I haven't dismissed creeds. Merely point out that they have substituted personal scholarship.
When you trust a creed you are trusting someone else's scholarship and trusting man rather than God. Until it is settled in your own mind, it doesn't really matter how many others believe the creed.
The creed may be correct, but you inherently teach that you cannot trust God to guide you in study.
Creedal statements should not be blindly accepted, not should they be plastered about as argument. They are conclusions of someone else's work. And you don't even personally know who they were.
We have creeds floating about that were written by mass murderers. What they said may be true, because truth stands on its own, but would you blindly stake your eternal destiny on it?
Self appointed Creedal inquisitors are sometimes more pernicious than heresy.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/23/2008 4:18:08 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stormcrow
quote:
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit as persons are not like the various parts of a human at all.
Do you understand the metaphorical use of language
Yes, I understand metaphors. However, I don't see how there is any metaphor that fits here. Just having three items grouped together does not a trinity make, despite how the term has been perverted to mean such (carrots, celery and onion, bah! Great flavor, but not a trinity!)
quote:
But conceding that point for argument's sake tell me: what is the "image and likeness of God" by which we are made?
Well, I haven't done as much study as I'd like into what it means to be made in the image of God, but let us look at the context of the verse:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Nothing in all of creation rules as man does. Men will judge even the angels (1Cor 6:3), and rule with God (2Tim 2:12). Man was made to be adopted into the sonship of Jesus Christ. This is explicit in scripture. God as LORD and righteous Judge, and man joining God as lords and judges is not only found in the context of the verse in question, but throughout scripture. There are very clear and unambiguous parallels. However, as much as God is potrayed as triune throughout scripture... Man is not. The ways that God is shown to be triune are not only clear, in a way that man as tripartite is not. Beyond that, God as triune is very very different from man's body soul and spirit.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/24/2008 1:20:36 AM
|
|
|
Godhead
Posts: 351
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
"Us," refers to the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Gen 1:1)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(Joh 1:1)
_____________________________
A Seventh day Adventist came up to me and said, “Do you know that there is no hell?”
I then immediately replied, “Well you have nothing to worry about then.”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 6:18:01 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
I haven't dismissed creeds. Merely point out that they have substituted personal scholarship.
When you trust a creed you are trusting someone else's scholarship and trusting man rather than God.
On the first point, "they have substituted personal scholarship" that's a pretty broad brush with which you're painting. My personal scholarship tells me these are right on. Does my agreement with them in the basics of the Christian faith and dogma mean that I am less scholarly than you?
Methinks you presume too much.
On the second point, "When you trust a creed you are trusting someone else's scholarship and trusting man rather than God." do you presume that you're "personal scholarship" is greater and more sanctified than anyone else's? Let's look at your position another way:
Your major premise is that "trusting man' scholarship is evil." So we are not to trust anyone's scholarship. But then you argue that "personal scholarship is good."
Hmmm...If trusting man's scholarship is evil, but trusting your own is good, then either you're not a member of the human race, or it's OK to trust "some" human scholarship, at which point you become the final arbiter of that which is trustworthy and that which is not.
In either case, you're arguing from a position of hubris, not humility.
Finally, tell me specifically which parts of these faith-based statements you disagree with. Be specific:
The Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
The Apostle's Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
As one source linked here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm points out, each creed was written to address a specific heresy of its time, yet both are succinct and - in my view - straightforward encapsulations of Christian dogma on the Trinity and the gospel. They don't replace study but - as noted before - provide a framework for personal study and interpretation.
Yes, the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but that presumes the person reading the bible is open to the Spirit's leading. Given that "biblically-based" heresies are springing up all the time in churches, the early church fathers felt something short, sweet and to the point was needed to let people plainly know exactly where the church stood.
That's what these creeds do.
You can argue they aren't needed in light of the Spirit's job to lead and guide into all truth. But obviously - at some point -- they were, or they wouldn't have been written.
And honestly, all you have to do is spend a day reading these boards to see how far afield some people go in interpreting scripture.
Fundamentals aren't just for "fundies."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 6:23:59 AM
|
|
|
Stormcrow
Posts: 59
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, as much as God is potrayed as triune throughout scripture... Man is not. The ways that God is shown to be triune are not only clear, in a way that man as tripartite is not.
We have a quibble over semantics then. My bad. You object to my use of the term "triune" in describing "tripartite man."
Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 7:27:32 PM
|
|
|
rcjones
Posts: 184
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline
|
"Methinks thou protesteth too much"
This is the statement I responded to, wherein you propose that since someone else resolved it in their minds, that others shouldn't discuss it any more.
quote:
C'mon guys, of all the things to be arguing about this is something that was settled in 425 AD as part of the Nicean Creed to put certain heresies to rest. No need to revisit doctrine that's been established since creation and codified in both word and creed. :P
Next you say that you personally have done the scholarship and agree with the creed.
quote:
On the first point, "they have substituted personal scholarship" that's a pretty broad brush with which you're painting. My personal scholarship tells me these are right on. Does my agreement with them in the basics of the Christian faith and dogma mean that I am less scholarly than you?
Congratulations! You have done exactly what you don't want them to do. Rather than hash it out and settle it in their own minds you would have it resolved for them by the creed.
The rest of your post goes farther afield with strawman arguments which I haven't made and therefor will not respond to.
_____________________________
Riddle me this:
Job 8.9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 8:05:34 PM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 110
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
I've heard that this is probably not a direct reference to other members of the godhead. At the very least, that wasn't the human author's original intent, seeing as how the authors of the Old Testament had no real concept of the trinity that we know of. . .
U&U
NOW I HAVE TO TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. You are in fact denying that GOD is the author of all Scripture:
2 Peter 1:20-21 (NKJV)
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Isaiah 6:8 (NASB)
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
Matthew 28:19 (NASB)
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
The "US" in Gen. 1:26, Gen. 3:22, AND here in Isa. 6:8 are CLEARLY a reference to the HOLY TRINITY; BECAUSE, the prophets who did not understand the concept of the Holy Trinity, did not think up those words in those Scripture verses, GOD DID!
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 8:43:34 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 963
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Ho-hum. I said I wouldn't post here anymore, but... Well, when one is accused of something this serious, one must respond, yes?
quote:
NOW I HAVE TO TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. You are in fact denying that GOD is the author of all Scripture:
If by "GOD is the author of all Scripture" you mean God directly and entirely took control of the author's and made them write exactly what He wanted, regardless of their own personal style as individual persons, then, well, I don't feel my statement denied that, but I would disagree with the assertion. The individual books (and indeed, sometimes chapters in books like Psalms and Proverbs, where different human authors are involved) are too distinct in their linguistic styles for me to believe God was the only one involved in writing Scripture.
However, I have complete faith and confidence that God's word is faithfully presented in Scripture. God's truth shines brilliantly through every word, because He guided the authors, using their own unique writing style, to faithfully present it in written form.
quote:
The "US" in Gen. 1:26, Gen. 3:22, AND here in Isa. 6:8 are CLEARLY a reference to the HOLY TRINITY; BECAUSE, the prophets who did not understand the concept of the Holy Trinity, did not think up those words in those Scripture verses, GOD DID!
You're assuming your doctrine into your exegesis. There is nothing clearly trinitarian in any of those passages (I refer, of course, to the three in my quoted section - Matthew 28:19 clearly demonstrates a trinitarian idea). Nothing in the grammar suggests God speaking to other members of the Godhead.
Even if God directly inspired Scripture word-for-word, why would He do that to the original readers? Remember, the Bible wasn't just written to us 21st century Christians. It was just as much the living word of God back then. Now, as I've said before, concepts like God holding a heavenly court, with the angelic arrayed in His presence, was understood back then. It was been around at least since the story of Job, which is probably one of, if not the, earliest book of the Bible written. I see no reason why the "us" in all three of those verses cannot refer to this heavenly host.
*edited to remove a stray apostrophe*
_____________________________
Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
-C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 9:11:17 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 1674
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2by2
Genesis 1:26 says, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”.
And Genesis 3:22 says "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--
Who do you think he is referring to in these verses?
Is he speaking to the Holy Spirit?
I appreciate your input as I seek wisdom.... 
Greetings,
quote:
Who do you think he is referring to in these verses? Is he speaking to the Holy Spirit?
Wisdom speaks and says those 2 verses have absolutely nothing to do with one another
The word “knowing” in verse Gen 3:5 is a type od intimate relationship…. and in this case is attributing that intimate relation with evil to God. By His creating the natural man in His image, according to His likeness…. but in John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Therefore 1:26 says, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness”. Is speaking “of” the Spirit
WHY did He drive out the man?
……..Because the Spirit was not in them John 14:17
….. and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--
Isa 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
24 So He drove out “the man”; who heard indeed, but understood not; and saw indeed, but perceived not. Because the Spirit was not in them John 14:17
Ge 3:5 - Show Context
For God “knows” that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened
(d) (Poal) to cause to know) and God will cause you to know….
…….and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, (the east gate) and a flaming sword (H3858)= Confused words) ….which “turned every way”, Mat 7:13
to guard the way
Joh 14:6
to the tree of life.
Jhn 3:16
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 10:14:56 PM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 110
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
VCO - The "US" in Gen. 1:26, Gen. 3:22, AND here in Isa. 6:8 are CLEARLY a reference to the HOLY TRINITY; BECAUSE, the prophets who did not understand the concept of the Holy Trinity, did not think up those words in those Scripture verses, GOD DID!
You're assuming your doctrine into your exegesis. There is nothing clearly trinitarian in any of those passages . . .
Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; . . . ."
Thee Holy Trinity created us "in His image", in that we are triune beings also:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NKJV)
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Our three distinctly different parts make up ONE man, not three men; therefore we truly are created in His likeness. Two parts are invisable, and one part is visable; just like our Triune God.
COMMENTING ON ISA. 6:8
". . .God asked, Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us? The word “Us” in reference to God hints at the Trinity (cf. “Us” in Gen. 1:26; 11:7). This doctrine, though not explicit in the Old Testament, is implicit for God is the same God in both Testaments. . .
—Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas Theological Seminary)"
COMMENTING ON ISA. 6:8
"Notes for Verse 8
Verse 8. I . . . us -- The change of number indicates the Trinity (compare Ge 1:26 Ge 11:7). Though not a sure argument for the doctrine, for the plural may indicate merely majesty, it accords with that truth proved elsewhere.
—Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary"
COMMENTING ON GEN 1:26
". . .And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him; Let us make man - The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
—Wesley's Commentary"
COMMENTING ON ISA. 6:8
"Notes for Verse 8
Verse 8. Who - To deliver the following message. The change of the number, I and us, is very remarkable; and both being meant of one and the same Lord, do sufficiently intimate a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
—Wesley's Commentary"
< Message edited by VCO -- 5/25/2008 10:22:41 PM >
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/25/2008 10:34:18 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 963
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NKJV)
23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Our three distinctly different parts make up ONE man, not three men; therefore we truly are created in His likeness. Two parts are invisable, and one part is visable; just like our Triune God.
No, we're not. We are not triune. We are not three individuals persons existing in unity, as God must surely be! 1, the Greek likely is a metaphor speaking of the whole person, and is not necessarily meant to divide us into three neat little compartments (since there are also other Scriptures which divide us into 2 little compartments, Hebrews 4:12), and 2, assuming a three-part personage within us, the body, soul and spirit are not three separate persons. My body does not act independently of my soul or spirit, etc. While the members of the Godhead certainly act in perfect unity, they still act as perfect individuals. The Father did not die on the cross. The Son does not indwell us. The Spirit did not say "This is my Son, in whom I am well please," when Christ was baptized (though He did appear as the dove there, I'm quite certain). In contrast, our parts are bound entirely together. One cannot act without the other. We are not triune beings at all.
quote:
COMMENTING ON ISA. 6:8 ". . .God asked, Whom shall I send? And who will go for Us? The word “Us” in reference to God hints at the Trinity (cf. “Us” in Gen. 1:26; 11:7). This doctrine, though not explicit in the Old Testament, is implicit for God is the same God in both Testaments. . .
—Bible Knowledge Commentary (Dallas Theological Seminary)"
I like how it gives no solid argument for their statements. Perhaps you would do better to seek a more exegetical commentary that deals with the original languages, since those comments seem based purely on the English. Don't misunderstand me - I'm convinced that the Trinity is implicitly taught in the Old Testament. However, I see no reason that "us" passages are required to uphold the idea. I'd rather base my views on clearer passages, such as the wrestling with Jacob, or the Angel of the Lord (often taught as being Christ) coming to visit with Abraham.
quote:
"Notes for ISA. 6:8
Verse 8. I . . . us -- The change of number indicates the Trinity (compare Ge 1:26 Ge 11:7). Though not a sure argument for the doctrine, for the plural may indicate merely majesty, it accords with that truth proved elsewhere.
—Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary"
And yet they ignore that God is arrayed in His glory before high angelic beings. Why should they suddenly disappear from the narrative? Considering the density of the Hebrew language (unlike our language, which uses oodles of words for any and all occasions), it would be poor authorship for Isaiah to just drop these majestic creatures from his retelling of his vision.
quote:
COMMENTING ON GEN 1:26 ". . .And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him; Let us make man - The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
—Wesley's Commentary"
While I certainly don't see such a view as heretical by any stretch of the imagination, I feel it commits to all too common error of ignoring the fact that the Old Testament was written to an Old Testament audience. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, in the original language to suggest the members of the Godhead. I again state that I have not heard a single valid argument against the "us" referring to the heavenly host.
quote:
COMMENTING ON ISA. 6:8
"Notes for Verse 8
Verse 8. Who - To deliver the following message. The change of the number, I and us, is very remarkable; and both being meant of one and the same Lord, do sufficiently intimate a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
—Wesley's Commentary"
Or perhaps it could be that God is first speaking to Himself (as He often does), and then also inquiring of His heavenly host (as He also does, see 1 Kings 22).
_____________________________
Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.
-C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Who is God referring to in Genesis? - 5/26/2008 1:48:11 AM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
