Genesis 1:1-3

Excuse me Admin. I'm trying to hit the right buttons.I'll try harder.

well, that's dodging the question. we can imply change from the description of prior status, and a description of later status. where is the description of the earth BEFORE it was waste and void? in english, "now i am hungry" alone could imply that prior state. because it's "now" as opposed to "before." now, you might point out that there is another usage of "now:" the one i just used. verses from the hebrew bible often start that way in translations. it's because there seems to be a stylistic trend in starting verses with a vav, and saying "and so and so did etc" over and over and over again in english gets a little dull. -- these "nows" do not imply change. or, they could accuse me of plaigarism (which i try to avoid). but seriously, people dismiss me all of the time. they don't need to descredit who i am and what i actually said to do so. they just say "oh, well, he's wrong."and one can do that just as easily to the bible, too. whether or not isaiah comes from multiple sources isn't so much an issue for unbelievers. well, i think there are two camps as well. those who learn that the bible is the word of god, and those that learn to look at it a little more closely. belief or disbelief shouldn't really be a factor in a scholarly, rational approach. if you don't believe something about it, why care to study it?i think there's a lot of interesting stuff that the "word of god" camp really misses out on. it's kinda like being a yes-man. progress is made by real interaction and questions. when i read the four gospels, i see four different pictures of the person we call christ. with matthew, luke, and mark i can kind of chalk the somewhat minor differences in attitude to observer bias. three people recalling the same events according to their own interpretations. with john, jesus seems like a different person. i can't personally rectify the jesus of john with the jesus of the synoptic gospels.in this case, it's not what i don't find in john, but what i do. lots of talk about being the messiah, getting to heaven through him, and a whole, whole lotta ego. jesus doesn't really seem like a real person, but rather a representation of what people say about him, coming from his own mouth.i don't like the idea that jesus wasn't a god jew. i want to point out that thomas questioned, and the truth was revealed to him. seek, and you will find. see, that's the other thing. now, i just jumped down faith's throat for calling people idolators, so i'll try not to make the same mistake myself.i do not think that any mortal being should be worshipped as a deity, christ included. genesis reports that we are made in the image of god, and the second commandment is that we shall not worship images. this is, i think, the fundamental disagreement i have with john. in john, christ is god himself. he claims to be god, too. but god is not a man that he should die.the other gospels report of jesus claim to be god's son, at least in the regards that we all are. he claims to be the messiah, too. sort of. he calls himself "son of man" which is clearly related to god's term for the prophet ezekiel, but also well understood to relate to the end-times. in ezekiel, "son of man" figuratively means "mortal" and caries a sense of insignificance next to god. "son of man" is the OPPOSITE of a god, as far from god as can be.the other gospels portray a jesus who is not always totally with god. jesus questions in gethsemane, and is concerned enough that he sweats blood. perhaps the most touching moment in the bible is jesus's pleading with god -- the furthest away he ever is. how can one plead with themselves? how can one be separate from themselves?i'm aware of the doctrine of the trinity. but i don't think it makes sense in the context of the story, nor does thinking of jesus has anything other than what he is: "the son of god."i reject john because it doesn't fit with judaism at all, and it's just bad theology. i'll be honest: i doubt it highly. i think there's some good stuff in there, of course. he's just not the jesus that I know and love.

---

אָרַח

now, when jesus was alive and well, i'm sure he could have fixed the hole in my roof. i hear he was good with his hands. but faith in god doesn't stop the rain from getting in.don't me wrong. i'm not saying faith is a bad thing, or that jesus can't provide a lot of psychological and spiritual help. but you said "practical." that implies a simple and down-to-earth use, not lofty spiritual ideals. a practical shelter is four walls and a roof made of solid material. what would jesus say?i'm not so sure about this angry god idea, where he's out to get us and punish us for our misdeeds. that's sure not the god jesus talked about. he refered to god has a father who lost a son, and rejoiced on his return. he refered to god as a bride missing part of her head-dress, diligently searching for it. he described god as shepherd who left the 99 sheep to find the one that fell behind. he told us that god loves us, and looks after us.that's the god i believe in. not this "wages of sin is death" stuff. i cherish my relationship with my god, not mourn it, or constantly remind him how bad i am. i don't think he cares, i think he loves me (and you) in spite of that. i don't think god's love comes with conditions, especially not ones we can't meet by design.

---

אָרַח

i don't see how. just because a word CAN be used to describe destruction does not mean it can't describe something prior to construction as well. ok, lemme point out a few things to you regarding both of these.

quote:

---

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

---

this list should sound somewhat familiar.

quote:

---

Exd 28:17 And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, [even] four rows of stones: [the first] row [shall be] a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: [this shall be] the first row.

​

Exd 28:18 And the second row [shall be] an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond.

​

Exd 28:20 And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings.

---

that's three out of four rows of the breastplate that aaron wore, made by moses and co. it signifies a high priest of yahweh -- each stone represents a tribe of israel. i don't think we're ever told which is which.

quote:

---

Eze 28:14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;

---

now, i was a bit disengenous before about this. i just meant to point out that cherubim are described in genesis 3 -- after adam and eve are kicked out. but THIS cherubim is something different.

quote:

---

Exd 25:20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

---

starting to see a theme here? it continues:

quote:

---

Exd 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, [even] to Horeb.

---

there's not other coherent reference to "stones of fire" as i'm sure you know. the imagery is one who is set up over something to protect and guide, but was mislead. it invokes imagery of aaron, moses, horeb (sinai), and the ark of the covenant. i don't see how it can possibly apply to satan. it's a message that the king of tyre has betrayed his people. about isaiah 14, we're also dealing with a king.

quote:

---

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

---

king of babylon. (nebuchadnezzar at the time, if i recall).

quote:

---

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

​

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

---

this should also sound familiar.

quote:

---

Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

---

what was the name of the tower? bab-el. what was the place the king ruled? babylon. i'm going to venture a guess and say that there is no coincidence here. to further complicate the matters, apparently bab-el is a real ziggurat, completed about 623 bc under nebuchadnezzar. just after isaiah's time, by most accounts. work, of course, had been going for centuries, thus the legend. again, probably not a coincidence.so who's this lucifer fellow?"lucifer" is the latin name for the planet venus during half the year. the other half, it's "noctifer." one brings light, one brings night. the word translated as "lucifer" in the latin vulgate is heylel, although they used the word based on his description in the next few words: "son of the dawn."i don't see any reason to think that EITHER of these titles referes to a spiritual entity instead of fanciful titles for the king of babylon. i know it's tradition that lucifer = satan = the devil, but it's just not biblical. i think i've just shown pretty clearly what they bear striking similarities too. i fail to see much if any similarity to genesis 3, except for that one mention of cherubim gaurding eden post-"fall."i think it's standard christian dogma to accept that these apply to some spiritual entity that is god's opponent, even though the context and references clearly indicate they are not. so, again, wrong stories. well, that whole rebellion bit is pretty standard. but there's also one in genesis 6 according to enoch, and of course one in john's revelation. so, um, which is it? you've been taught a pretty specific sstory, and you go looking for it in the bible. then you use it as justification for an even wilder story that's also not there. but if we look at verses used as support for that original story, we find them gravely wanting. this whole thing has been built on a pretty shaky misunderstanding.similarly, should i read lilith into genesis 1, where it says god created man male and female, but eve is created in the next chapter?

---

אָרַח

nwr: my computer is fried at the moment, so i can't check the email i get notifications in. (no webmail) i'm checking a few threads every now and then, including this one, so i can follow his responses. i might use it as an excuse to take a break anyways.

---

אָרַח

When Jesus was alive and well?I am the type of Christian believer who believes that He is alive and very well.Are you the kind that believes Jesus did not rise from the dead and cannot be known today? I am the kind of Christian who takes all kinds of things to God in prayer. Yes, including the leaks in my roof.Are you the kind of Christian who feels that Christ is not only not alive but doesn't care about your practical living?I'm surprized then because you said you liked Matthew. Didn't you read the verses about the lilies of the field and the birds of the air being taken care of by the Father? Did you not read about "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you? I am the type of Christian who brings everything to God in prayer. That would include my physical surroundings.I have found that my Father knows my needs and can provide.If I could not take to Christ my concerns about solid material things then that would be a shame. I learned to take all these matters to God in prayer because He said to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these necessities would be added to me.In fact there are many cities all over this globe where I could travel and have shelter of roof and walls because I have a big family. That is part of the message of the whole Old Testament. It establishes in our minds God's hatred for sin.I don't know how you missed it. That sounds like your caricature. Judgements is called God's "strange work". It is necessary but strange that He should have to do so at all.When you put it the way you do as "out to get us" that sounds like a problem in your attitude towards the heavenly Father. Incorrect. Jesus with all of His love still maintained that God hated sin.You said you liked Matthew. Did you read Matthew? You sound like you are not able to appreciate more than one aspect of God's characture at a time.Part of the reason that the parable is given is that to be in sin is to be lost. If He was not concerned about saving us from our sins He would not have taught us the parable of the lost son to begin with. All true.And God rejoices when one realizes that he has sinned against God and heaven, just like the prodigal son. All true. How does this prove that God is not the Righteous One who must maintain righteousness in His creation? What does this have to do with us not needing to be redeemed and saved?It sounds to me like you are refering to all the scriptures which establish the point rather than negate it.Do you still have resentment because of some treatment you got from some religious people? That is also the Jesus Christ that I know and love. You didn't quote the entire thought of Paul as far as I am concerned. What he said was:The wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.You just stopped at the part that you don't like.I am the kind of Christian that doesn't just get choked on sentences that I don't like. I try to be open to the word of God in its entirety. You not me, implied that Jesus was once alive and well, but is no longer.So it sounds like you are the one with grounds to mourn - that Christ died and was buried forever.I am the kind of Christian who really rejoices that He is risen. I'm the kind of Christian who rejoices in Christ's redemption.To reach unbelievers, I sometimes let them know that I was a sinner. And in fact Christ's is still working in me.That is different from you caricature of always reminded of how bad one is. I recommend that people read the Gospel of Matthew for real rather than just give it lip service. I agree. Which is all the more reason why we need a salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Now that is really profound.I wonder if that has something to do with why Christ met the requirement on our behalf on the cross.I wonder if that has something to do with "Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes ...?"This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:02 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:03 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:06 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:12 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:16 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:18 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:19 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 07:19 AM

I see different the emphasisis different.Christ as a King, Christ as a slave. Christ as a man, and Christ as God Himself.Four aspects. I am utterly opened to receive all four without preference and excluding none. He is all-inclusive. He is everything we need.To me it is utterly foolish to pit one gospel against another. The four portraits are of one Wonderful Person. Kind of "be your own man!" stuff huh?Kind of macho like "I'm nobody's errand boy" machismo ?I'd like to be an Yes man always to the Word of God and to God. I'd like always to say Yes to God and No to the enemy of God. I hope I grow into one who always says Yes to the Living God.If the "progress" you speak of is the "progress" of announcing that you are a Christian, but you don't believe that Christ is alive and well or to be worshipped - I think that is no "progress". It is not advancing in the direction that I want to go or either see the Bible leading me. I don't see any talk about going to heaven at all in John.I see some talk about the Father's house. But I don't regard that as heaven.I also still see the Messiah mentioned very much in the synoptic gospels just like JOhn mentions. And I also so God incarnate as a man in Matthew's gospel. And the Son of God and the Son of Man in the other gospels.I don't think one gets away from the Diety of Christ by hiding out in Matthew. Sometimes I am skeptical of this attitude:"If only those gospel writers hadn't messed it all up. I would be the first person to agree with everything Jesus said, of course. But JOhn, you see, John messed it all up." Because He saw, he believed. Jesus said blessed are those who did not see and yet believed.I have certainly enjoyed a blessedness which Thomas did not therefore. I have not seen. Yet I have believed.You keep speaking in high terms about your ability to question the Scritpure.I'm sorry that you equate the ability to question with rejecting the oft repeated and obvious intended message that Christ is the Lord and Savior. How do I know that you are not just putting a good face on rebellion?Those who crucified Christ, were they also these more noble questioners, not being "yes men" but thinking independently for themselves are noble truth seekers?I can hear the old serpent telling Eve:"Eve, everytime I talk to you you tell me what God said. Be your own man Eve. Why be a dumb yes man, following the crowd. Now if you listen to me I'll make you more independent. You won't be a dumb sheep always telling me what God said. Listen, be bold. Be more noble in your questioning.Now Eve. Its like this. You won't surely die ....".I know the difference between being a Berean and being in rebellion.
I have learned something about it, if not all.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 08:38 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 08:38 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-01-2006 08:41 AM

Well, as I said my God is the man Jesus.Now if you suppose that John is alone in proclaiming that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, you are wrong.Matthew's gospel also teaches that Jesus is God incarnate. We have these insightful words of Jesus:"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt. 23:37)It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). Hence, when the Lord Jesus said, "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings." He indicated that He was God Himself.This is the gospel of Matthew speaking and not the gospel of John in this instance confirming the Deity of Jesus Christ.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-02-2006 07:00 PM

Jaywill, You are off topic. Your last three posts have not contributed to the discusion of Genesis 1:1-3. Please bring it back to Genesis.Please direct any comments concerning this post to the appropriate link listed below.Thank you

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---