Creation & Eden-verse by verse

[jon914]

Study this some more. The term used was serpent, not snake. If you want to argue with a long list of commentators that this is not referring to Satan, be my guest. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

I just had to say that you have a good point.
In Gen. the hebrew word here is not snake, but is translated from a unknown word. I
had a teacher, who felt it may have been a treeslawth. because they craw on there bellys unless they are in a tree.
Now a dragon does not crawl on his belly, but never met one.
Could it be that the devil uses many forms and God cursed the animal that was used at the time.? Just a thought!

John914

 

[dad]

...you signed the Nicene Creed in order to post, here, which includes the doctrine of homoousis.

Really, now? Where in that little creed is this homowhatsit thingie?

This is translated (into English) as "one (being or essence)" in "one being with the Father" with respect to Jesus Christ.

Right, in a sense, they are one. Also in a sense they are three distinct personalities.

 

[dad]

Note for those not familiar with the terminology used in Patristic writings - "catholic faith" as used in the Creeds is for all intents and purposes the same as "Christian faith", and is not referring to the Roman Catholic Church in the slightest.

Note for bible believers, or those who do not know..The document that threatens, and insinuates salvation is by something other than the grace and gift of God is not at all right. Not even close in the most important areas.

 

[dad]

God is a schizophrenic. Welcome to the wacky world of dad!

No, He has three seperate persons of the godhead. Basically, the natural man really cannot understand the things of the spirit and how it works. They are one, yet they are three. No real equivelant in the flesh.

 

[Willtor]

Really, now? Where in that little creed is this homowhatsit thingie?

Sorry to repost the whole thing. I just wanted to frame it in context.

---

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,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
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],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who 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.

Right, in a sense, they are one. Also in a sense they are three distinct personalities.

That is correct. One being, three Persons.

 

[dad]

Sorry to repost the whole thing. I just wanted to frame it in context.
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;

Of course The Lord our Gods is one God. Admit it, though it is above our understanding how they could be seperate yet one.
By the way, anyone know what that bit means light from light?

That is correct. One being, three Persons.

As I said, the things of the spirit are not as the things of the flesh, and we really can't fully understand this, if at all.

 

[Melethiel]

By the way, anyone know what that bit means light from light?

Has to do with Christ being the Light of the world. Very early concept, praise of the Light, as shown in the 2nd century hymn "O Phos Hilaron" (O Gladsome Light)

 

[Willtor]

Of course The Lord our Gods is one God. Admit it, though it is above our understanding how they could be seperate yet one.
By the way, anyone know what that bit means light from light?

In some sense. God cannot be comprehended. But He can be apprehended (by His grace). Apprehension of God is the only meaningful way to talk about understanding God.

Light was a Greek metaphor for truth and wisdom. Christ is called the true Word and Wisdom of God. Light from Light indicates that Christ is not a dim reflection of God, but God's eternal Word and Wisdom.

As I said, the things of the spirit are not as the things of the flesh, and we really can't fully understand this, if at all.

As I say, it can be apprehended. There is, of course, good reason to think that it is so, even if it is not comprehended.

 

[dad]

Has to do with Christ being the Light of the world. Very early concept, praise of the Light, as shown in the 2nd century hymn "O Phos Hilaron" (O Gladsome Light)

OK, thanks. Makes sense. The true light. The light that will still be here when the light of this temporary heavens passes away.

 

[wtopneuma]

The Anchient Hebrews did not yet exist. Seth was the Father of the Hebrew nation. He wasn't yet born. Even so, any who believe parts of the Bible is not true will have difficulty and struggles believing other parts because their reliance is on their own mind and reasoning.

I didn't quite say what i wanted to say yesterday. Instead of Seth, Adams third son, the linage of the Hebrew nation came from Noah's son Seth. Many Americans plus many Russians come from another of Noah's sons Japeth. The rest that don't fall into the 1st two come from the third son of Noah, Ham. The Father of the Hebrew Nation was Abraham.

 

[wtopneuma]

Why am I putting Job in this series? Job is probably the second oldest bood of the Bible. I think God had some specific purposes for The Book of Job.
1. I think God wanted humanity to know that He was not like man and man was not like Him.
2. I think God wanted humanity to know that we can never outgive him. Job's faithfulness earned him far more then was taken from him during his time of testing.
3. I think God wanted humanity to know that due to Adam's choice, there would always be suffering but He would always be there to help His people through-it-all.
4. I think God wanted humanity to realize that God was the creator of everything.
5. I think God wanted man to know that Satan was not as powerful as He. I will continue to reveiw this site for awhile and reply to other comments or insights from all of you. I want you all to know that I welcome any corrections or comments for we need each others insights for learning. Feel free to be frank, for I will be.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why am I putting Job in this series? Job is probably the second oldest bood of the Bible. I think God had some specific purposes for The Book of Job.

Job is almost certainly the oldest book in the Hebrew Bible.

Authorship and Origin:
Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible. The literary form of Job is similar to documents which go back to the first part of the 2nd millennium B.C.. In the dialogue section of the book, can be found some of the most difficult and archaic Hebrew in the Bible. Even the name Job is known to be an ancient name. Along with failure to mention covenants or the Law, Job probably lived in the time of the patriarchs, that is around 2100B.C. until 1700 B.C..

from: http://netministries.org/Bbasics/BBjob.htm

although pieces of the Torah like the song of deborah may predate it.

did you know that 1/2 of all the words used only 1 time in the Hebrew Scriptures occur in Job?(hapax legomenon)

 

[Assyrian]

did you know that 1/2 of all the words used only 1 time in the Hebrew Scriptures occur in Job?(hapax legomenon)

Wow that's phenomenal. It must make it a pain to translate. How many hapax legomena are the in the OT (offhand)?

 

[AV1611VET]

did you know that 1/2 of all the words used only 1 time in the Hebrew Scriptures occur in Job? (hapax legomenon)

That's interesting, RM, I didn't know that.

Here's an interesting footnote from my study Bible---

God finally answers Job, but He does so with about seventy-seven rhetorical questions, not one of which has anything to do with the sufferings of Job, or the sufferings of anyone else. Evidently the purpose of the book of Job, in spite of the opinions of most commentators, is not to answer the question as to why righteous people suffer. Although this is the burning theme throughout the entire dialogue between Job and his critics, God never answers it at all in His four-chapter monologue.

Instead, His questions all have to do with His great creation, and man's responsibility thereto. That, evidently, is God's great concern. He is rebuking Job ... for his inability to answer.

God places great emphasis on the correct interpretation of His creation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Wow that's phenomenal. It must make it a pain to translate. How many hapax legomena are the in the OT (offhand)?

i used to have a hebrew word frequency table, however i can't find one online. perhaps someone else will have better luck.

it lists all the 1 usage words, then all the twice, then those that appear 3 times etc. handy when you are learning a language because you start at the end of the book. *grin*, ie the most frequent.

 

[wtopneuma]

.
Interestingly, this brings up another contradiction between Gen 1 and Gen 2. In Gen 1 the word 'bara' is used with respect to the creation of man, yet in Gen 2 we're told he was formed from dust. What's the YEC concensus on this?

My Strong's concordance is presently packed for remodeling my living room but i think it is in reference in chapter one of God creating both man and woman while in 2 it is only in reference to creating man. i could not find the word bara elsewhere.

 

[wtopneuma]

Why am I putting Job in this series? Job is probably the second oldest bood of the Bible. I think God had some specific purposes for The Book of Job.

Job is almost certainly the oldest book in the Hebrew Bible.


from: http://netministries.org/Bbasics/BBjob.htm

although pieces of the Torah like the song of deborah may predate it.

did you know that 1/2 of all the words used only 1 time in the Hebrew Scriptures occur in Job?(hapax legomenon)

You are right that the Book of Job was probably written before Moses wrote the books of the law, probably around the time of Abraham but God gave Moses the Creation account which occurred sooner. We do not know when The Book of Job gained canonicity status.

 

[shernren]

My Strong's concordance is presently packed for remodeling my living room but i think it is in reference in chapter one of God creating both man and woman while in 2 it is only in reference to creating man. i could not find the word bara elsewhere.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html#1
(click on the "c"s beside each verse for the Hebrew text)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=01254&book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=1&page=1&exact=0&perlit=&bgcolor=FFFFFF&textcolor=000000&linkcolor=0000FF&vlinkcolor=A000A0&show_strongs=no&hr=&icon=

Strong's on bara.

 

[IisJustMe]

You are right that the Book of Job was probably written before Moses wrote the books of the law, probably around the time of Abraham but God gave Moses the Creation account which occurred sooner.

There is little evidence that Job was written before Moses wrote the Penteteuch. In actuality, the reference to Eliphaz in 2:11 as "a Temanite" tends to indicate Job was written very early in the history of the physical nation of Israel, probably during the time of the Judges. "Temanite" is translated form the Hebrew teymaniy which means "southward." It was along the Israeli-Edomite border, which was at the southeastern region of the nation of Israel.. If it was written before the Moses' writings, it is unlikely the reference would be to a region that was 'south' of anything, since the land had not been divided or conquered at that time, and the reference would be meaningless. Job would have to be non-Jewish for that to be the case, because the entire nation of Israel -- 70 family members plus servants -- had entered into Egypt with Jacob's clan 470 years prior to Joshua's campaign to liberate Canaan for Israel.

Virtually the entire Penteteuch was written around 1408 BC, though Genesis might have been written earlier. This was the final year of the 40 years in the wilderness, just before Joshua led Israel into the Promised Land. Again, if Job was written before that, the reference to Eliphaz's home would be meaningless to Israel, since Temani was actually on the eastern edge of Edom.

All of which is really irrelevant anyway, since, as I stated in an earlier post the scenario of creation laid out in Job is not so much chronological as it is meant to snap Job's head back and get him to realize he has next to no knowledge about God to pretend to be able to explain Him or His actions.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Virtually the entire Penteteuch was written around 1408 BC, though Genesis might have been written earlier. This was the final year of the 40 years in the wilderness, just before Joshua led Israel into the Promised Land. Again, if Job was written before that, the reference to Eliphaz's home would be meaningless to Israel, since Temani was actually on the eastern edge of Edom.


wow.
apparently the same motivation that denies the value of modern science in things such as radioactive dating or TofE also extends to academic or scholarly studies of the Scriptures. certainly there is a wide chasm in the division of conservative and liberal Biblical studies, but i would hazard a prediction that there doesn't even exist a conservative Biblical scholar who would make such a statement, with such certainty in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary.

But the thing that really interests me about these kinds of statements is the certitude, the great assurance of being absolutely correct in one's analysis. This is the same characteristic i see so often when YECists post:
i am sure that God created the universe 6K years ago because the Bible says so.

where does this come from? in my lifetime, the more i've studied and the more i've learned, the less certain many things have become. Is it ignorance or do these people have a straight line communication to God that i lack?

Why doesn't God just give such certainty of all believers? then a church membership exam, or better yet a Presbytery licenciate exam would consist of a single question:
are you absolutely sure that the Torah was written in 1408BC+-10? simple, straightforward, just one question would separate all the sheep from the goats.
wow.