Genesis 1:1-3

The above rendering has one goal: avoid polytheism.The original Hebrew says "Elohim" (plural) need I cite the scholars ?The context of the entire Bible establish the identity of the Gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). You are mistaken. In the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 "created" is "bara" it means out of nothing. The N.T. confirms which I don't think you are interested in (Hebrews 11:3)."yatsar" = Genesis 2:7 "formed"."asah" = Genesis 2:22 "made" from existing materials. Agreed.But we can plainly see these Jewish scholars and their a priori theological bias operating/monotheism.BTW, there does NOT have to be a "first cause"; neither "infinite regression"; God is eternal: always was....always will be.Ray

Unprovoked ad hom attack. Nice way to start.Hi CA, this is Ray Martinez/WILLOWTREE in case you didn't know. There was no ad hom - just a cite to one of six renderings that all mainstream scholarship subscribe to."The intent" of the Tanach rendering is to steer clear of polytheism: a mainstay of orthodox Jewry. I am not faulting the Tanach nor criticizing - simply identifying their bias - you know the thing everyone has ? What I just wrote was what I wrote previously; what you have labelled an ad hom attack - totally unjustified. Elohim is plural it means "Gods" - the original is not singular as you and I already know. Your conceptualizations are not relevant since the text in question does not say "when" anywhere. Why is my rendering "shallow and simplistic" and not yours ? Are you silently asserting that only Jews can decide the meaning ? Why does the MT arbitrarily chop off even 100 year blocks of time from the genealogic life-spans of antidiluvian patriarchs ? While the LXX and SP do not ? We have a strong anti-Messianic bias operating - no problem: the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah as everyone knows. Insisting "Elohim" does not mean what it says begs the question: why did the writer of Genesis record in the plural if he didn't mean it ?Imagine that...it doesn't matter what the Holy word of God actually says since we have a theological bias to ajudicate. I admit I have a bias, and admit it is one of six that all scholarship hold to. You are going through great lengths to insist you do not have what everyone has.Genesis 1:1 says "Elohim" plural; should be translated "Gods" but like your Jewish scholars - the KJV translators ultimately answered to King James. Both sets of scholars predetermined that the text could not possibly be advocating polytheism/heresy. But it says "Elohim" = Gods. The context of the entire Book unveils the meaning and identity of the Gods.Other "Gods" (in the singular):angELs.MichaEL.GabriEL.RafaELContext determines which "God" and kind. Genesis 1:1 is big picture facts. The remainder of the Biblical texts fill in the details of what 1:1 means. Text without context is error.Paul in 2Corinthians refers to Satan as the "theos of this world." There is one God. This means in unity. There is a Top Dog, though. Your monotheism plight is intact. This is as far as I go - not interested in Trinitarian doctrines of which Niebuhr called "logical nonsense". For any untrained lurkers out there:CA subscribes to (as do I) one of six renderings concerning the word "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1.Here are the 6:1. Survival of early polytheism (more than one God).
2. Plural majesty.
3. Plural of deliberation.
4. A plural of the fullness of the attributes of God; His power.
5. God addressing the angelic beings.
6. The one-in-three of the Godhead.A persons previously decided theological bias predetermines which one they endorse.The Church I attend endorses the 6th based on the content of the entire Bible.CA endorses # 2; meaning the Deity speaks as is custom of Kings or Majesty to refer to themselves as "we" or "us".CA concerning "bara" and "yatsar" and "asah": does the O.T. not have a word for creation out of nothing ?Imagine that...an alleged Deity who claims to be the universal Deity admitting He cannot create out of nothing nor does He claim so anywhere in the O.T. ?Let me speculate: attempting to establish in-roads for theistic evolutionists ?Ray

Show me and I will promptly retract.Also by implication; I am glad to see that by the same standard employed in your blue box above; JEPD is a Jewish conspiracy theory invented by the philosophic forerunners of the Third Reich ?Ray

IsraELWhen God renamed Jacob He was sharing His glory. "Israel" literally means "Prince that has power with God".God will share His glory as testified to above.What He won't share is the dispensing of it.Genesis 1:1 = "Gods" = many types through-out Scripture.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 11-18-2005 02:05 PM

source: Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University.I suspect you will further entrench groundless Judeo-Christian ad hom and/or race cards into the debate = inability to refute tactic. I have no interest in participating where I am not wanted. You have succeeded in driving me away.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 11-21-2005 12:49 PM

Arach:Elohim is not singular - not a matter of opinion.I want you to know I read this post and the others. Glad to see your competence in Biblical studies.Ray

Could one expect an atheist to say anthing else about the greatest theist scholar of all time ?Your approval would have supported our wrongness.Your ad hom attacks = inability to refute.Your misrepresentations = inability to refute - thats why you misrepresent.CA: I am greatly comforted that you must resort to childish antics. Everyone here at EvC knows Dr. Scott is a pyramidologist, and I have argued the irrefutable truths in many debates, like here:Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Boardand here:http://EvC Forum: PROOF OF GOD -->EvC Forum: PROOF OF GODI suggest you answer the points that have you in a tizzy and refrain from the pseudo-ad homs and poisoning the well tactics. The Great Pyramid proves how spectacular physical evidence proving the Bible is meaningless when God removes sense as a penalty for denying Him Creator credit.Ray

Invoking a shield of theism or deism while arguing ordinary atheist philosophy and arguments makes you infinetly worse - a liar. At least CA is faithful to his worldview and philosophy. When you show yourself educated, maybe I will take your replies seriously. I suggest you first learn punctuation and grammar skills. Your enraged ad hom against a Stanford Ph.D. also proves my point how uneducated/sophmorish you are. Could one expect a Darwinist to say anything else ?Your approval would have supported their wrongness.Ray

Where was any rant ? You have made a mistake. The rant was in the post I responded to. If you believe I am in error then please paste the rant and explain how and compare it to what I responded to ?If not I will gladly take a vacation.Ray

I very calmly and repsectfully asked you to explain HOW my comments could be viewed as nonsense or rant. In reply you repeated your groundless charge.I must conclude what is obvious: you are daring me to expose the fact that you have no clothes/point, but are in fact defending a child who plainly wrote nonsense and rants.Asserting what I wrote to be nonsense or a rant does not make it so because you have an Admin hat on. In reality, you are cut by my points and are lashing out by abusing your power.You have made an error by posting as an Admin and not a private member.I ask you once again; support your charges objectively or rely on the Emperor has no clothes metaphor.Ray

I must conclude since CA went on a ad hom rage against Dr. Scott AFTER message 39 - this means his race card ploy backfired as is seen in his refusal to condemn the Wellhausen school for the same.Ray Martinez

Your rants about Dr. Scott can be easily explained by your worldview.One minor interpretation of the name Israel has set you off. We know Hebrew is altogether ambiguous, even with context determined the renderings still have flexibility - YOU KNOW THIS."Israel" was not the subject.Concerning your Tanach scholars: what is your view concerning their historical research showing Daniel as the most precise Prophet one could imagine ?Or will you **special plead** your worldview ?Dr. Scott says the Tanach scholars have proven the prohecies of Daniel were indeed uttered hundreds of years in advance.Ray Martinez

Dr. Scott was the greatest Biblical scholar of all time. Of course, this is my viewpoint. Your are either astronomically ignorant or ranting since your rage will not even acknowledge him a scholar I must conclude your worldview is involved - whether atheist or Darwinian.Dr. Scott did ALL of his Biblical scholarship on live television in front of the world knowing scholars from all over the world are watching, including entire seminaries. He was an expert in Biblical mss amassing a personal collection only 4th to the BI, Huntington, and NYC Central. His website contains over 50 pages of these mss and Bibles.Dr. Scott mastered Hebrew, Greek, both dialects of Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, and Armenian, not to mention every major European language. Our Church owns copies of every targum; many originals. Again, he has demonstrated his scholarship on worldwide televison for 29 years. His Ph.D. was cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion. Doctoral dissertion: theology of new-orthodox theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.The interpretation of Israel is correct. The only real issue is why you simply did not counter will an alternate interpretation WITH SOURCE CITE. Insult = inability to refute.The context of Jacob's renaming supports Dr. Scott's rendering. Jacob wrestled ALL NIGHT with an angelic being; some theist scholars say it was Christophany. The point is, Jacob crossed a spiritual barrier with God. The new name was God acknowledging this: He declared Jacob now had pull and power with Him - a great blessing.CA, what does "bara" mean ?Ray

Insult = inability to refute.Ray

Where does the text say or imply "chaos", what is chaos, and where did it arise from ?Chaos implies that order was at some point behind it. In fact, the original meaning of Greek N.T. word "kosmos"/cosmos is "order".We IDists know "order" is synonymous with design = what we see in the Universe.What caused the chaos ? Your rendering (like most) creates as many questions as it answers ?Ray