An Article I Found Validating Christ's Deity

[DrBubbaLove]

DrBubbaLove,

Do I understand you correctly that the majority of Christians do not accept the literal view of the Genesis report relating to man's creation? Where did I say that I see the two separate stories of the Genesis report in question as one continues story? It has been my endeavor to prove otherwise.

Kutte

No, am saying the view you present as representing what most Christians believe about the creation accounts and what you suggest we should flee from is not the view of most Christians . And I am further suggesting someone that claims they know all the various views, yet poses the questions that have been posed here is in no position to suggest it should be common sense for everyone to abandon their view. (it is a strawman being railed against)

You posed a question several times now suggesting to me that your view is - requiring a rigid continuous chronological timeline and that rigidity would have to be true, whether you see the first two chapters as a single time line or see two independent stories with elements you attempt to piece together and reach conclusions based on some assumed shared common points in the timeline. Either way the assumptions would have to be correct for the conclusion to be valid. I do not think either story represent something one can pin timelines to. I believe each stresses different aspects of and presents creation in a different way and for different purposes.

Now reading your exchange with Der Alter, I see your current focus involves the meaning of to be "made in His Image", and that compared to what is later meant by "become one of us". The later BTW relates to the lie Satan told, essentially you will not die, suggesting to the couple that they don't want you to eat it because it will make you like them - IOW this good thing is something you should desire to use in a manner for which it was not made. Which all goes back to the what is meant by gaining knowledge of Good and evil.

I thought we had moved past this last part where you acknowledged that an awareness of what is Good is required to appreciate the beauty and order of the place Adam was created in. That same awareness is also clearly demonstrated in showing him observing the order of animals and knowing something was missing (not as Good as it could be) in his world.

So whatever one wants to see "gaining knowledge of good and evil" meaning, it is a contradiction to have that meaning oppose what the story clearly demonstrates Adam had/knew before he ate. Which is what I am saying your view of Adam being ignorant of the choice he was making does; it contradicts the earlier story where he clearly knows what is Good.

So in his choice and for the first time, he desires to do something he knows he aught not do and then does it. Which means, as the linked article states in many more words, what was gained was the knowledge that one could take anything Good (the tree of knowledge had to be Good also BTW) and use it for an "un-natural" purpose (what it was NOT made for - in this particular case not for man to eat). Put simply, given the moral law in our hearts (which Adam held perfectly up to that point), the knowledge we have gained is we can use our free will to not only desire that which is not actually (in reality) good; but also decide for ourselves that it is good for us to attain - so we do it. Sin.

 

[Der Alte]

Hi Der Alter,
Yes, there is always the option of arguing, if someone doesn't like a certain word or phrase, that it means something totally different if translated into Greek or Hebrew. Look, we can only go by of what we have. In my case I have four different Bibles, one of them in German, and all of them agree to the the meaning of "image" and "likeness".

Therein lies the problem. The Bible was not originally written in German or English it was written in Hebrew and Greek. So to look up the meaning of a word in the original language is not translating it into Greek or Hebrew. Not all words in Hebrew and Greek have an exact 1:1 translation into English so translators use the closest word they can.
.
Here are the two words צלם is translated "image" and דּמוּת is translated "likeness." Note neither word means exact copy in every respect.
.

H6754 צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.
.
H1823 דּמוּת demûth dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.​

Der Alter, You don't seem to realize what is happening. When God said in Genesis 3:22: "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad", then this means Adam and Eve did not represent a likeness of God before their so-called "fall",
but only AFTER their transformation caused by their decision to eat fruits from the tree of knowledge.
Kutte

Your argument is moot. Adam and Eve were not created exactly like God in every respect. But only "illusion, resemblance, representative figure, image, model, shape, like, fashion, similitude." And after the fall [no quotation marks] Adam and Eve were not exactly like God but only "as one of us, to know good and evil." They only gained the ability to know moral good and moral evil. They lacked omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and eternal life. So as I have said before there is no contradiction.

 

[Kutte]

Therein lies the problem. The Bible was not originally written in German or English it was written in Hebrew and Greek. So to look up the meaning of a word in the original language is not translating it into Greek or Hebrew. Not all words in Hebrew and Greek have an exact 1:1 translation into English so translators use the closest word they can.
.
Here are the two words צלם is translated "image" and דּמוּת is translated "likeness." Note neither word means exact copy in every respect.
.

H6754 צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.
.
H1823 דּמוּת demûth dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.​

Your argument is moot. Adam and Eve were not created exactly like God in every respect. But only "illusion, resemblance, representative figure, image, model, shape, like, fashion, similitude." And after the fall [no quotation marks] Adam and Eve were not exactly like God but only "as one of us, to know good and evil." They only gained the ability to know moral good and moral evil. They lacked omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and eternal life. So as I have said before there is no contradiction.

Dear Der Alter,

No excuses please. Scripture is very clear when it says in Genesis 3:22, "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad", which compliments God's intention in Genesis 1:26, "God went on to say, Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."

It is also very clear therefore that Adam and Eve while lacking knowledge of good and bad did not represent a likeness to, or if you wish, an image of God.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

No, am saying the view you present as representing what most Christians believe about the creation accounts and what you suggest we should flee from is not the view of most Christians . And I am further suggesting someone that claims they know all the various views, yet poses the questions that have been posed here is in no position to suggest it should be common sense for everyone to abandon their view. (it is a strawman being railed against)

You posed a question several times now suggesting to me that your view is - requiring a rigid continuous chronological timeline and that rigidity would have to be true, whether you see the first two chapters as a single time line or see two independent stories with elements you attempt to piece together and reach conclusions based on some assumed shared common points in the timeline. Either way the assumptions would have to be correct for the conclusion to be valid. I do not think either story represent something one can pin timelines to. I believe each stresses different aspects of and presents creation in a different way and for different purposes.

Now reading your exchange with Der Alter, I see your current focus involves the meaning of to be "made in His Image", and that compared to what is later meant by "become one of us". The later BTW relates to the lie Satan told, essentially you will not die, suggesting to the couple that they don't want you to eat it because it will make you like them - IOW this good thing is something you should desire to use in a manner for which it was not made. Which all goes back to the what is meant by gaining knowledge of Good and evil.

I thought we had moved past this last part where you acknowledged that an awareness of what is Good is required to appreciate the beauty and order of the place Adam was created in. That same awareness is also clearly demonstrated in showing him observing the order of animals and knowing something was missing (not as Good as it could be) in his world.

So whatever one wants to see "gaining knowledge of good and evil" meaning, it is a contradiction to have that meaning oppose what the story clearly demonstrates Adam had/knew before he ate. Which is what I am saying your view of Adam being ignorant of the choice he was making does; it contradicts the earlier story where he clearly knows what is Good.

So in his choice and for the first time, he desires to do something he knows he aught not do and then does it. Which means, as the linked article states in many more words, what was gained was the knowledge that one could take anything Good (the tree of knowledge had to be Good also BTW) and use it for an "un-natural" purpose (what it was NOT made for - in this particular case not for man to eat). Put simply, given the moral law in our hearts (which Adam held perfectly up to that point), the knowledge we have gained is we can use our free will to not only desire that which is not actually (in reality) good; but also decide for ourselves that it is good for us to attain - so we do it. Sin.

Dear DrBubbaLove,

There are too many religions and within of them many different sects that it is impossible for anyone to know every little detail that leads their particular beliefs. Look at the Catholic church with its many different doctrines, saints, and more. When I said that I am familiar with them it means, of course, in general terms. Just as I am familiar of what the Qur'an teaches Muslims.

I disagree that Adam knew what was /is good for him since he lacked this knowledge to begin with. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me to say he already knew what was good or bad for him, because in this case there would have been no need for God to tell him not to eat fruits from a particular tree containing knowledge of good and bad.

I agree that we move forward and return to the original issue posted by our Christian brother James is back.

These are my final words relating to Adam and Eve because the issue of their true nature has been resolved. This means that they did not resemble a likeness or image of God, as I have pointed out many times in this thread. Only after their alleged “fall”, by acquiring knowledge of good and bad, were they transformed to an image of God. This becomes evident and quiet clear in Genesis 3:22, where God is being quoted as saying: “Now the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad”, which compliments the original purpose of man’s creation in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."

Was Jesus God's messenger?

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Therein lies the problem. The Bible was not originally written in German or English it was written in Hebrew and Greek. So to look up the meaning of a word in the original language is not translating it into Greek or Hebrew. Not all words in Hebrew and Greek have an exact 1:1 translation into English so translators use the closest word they can.

.

Here are the two words

צלם is translated "image" and דּמוּת is translated "likeness." Note neither word means exact copy in every respect.

H6754 צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.​

.

H1823

דּמוּת demûth dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

​

Your argument is moot. Adam and Eve were not created exactly like God in every respect. But only "illusion, resemblance, representative figure, image, model, shape, like, fashion, similitude." And after the fall [no quotation marks] Adam and Eve were not exactly like God but only "as one of us, to know good and evil."

They only gained the ability to know moral good and moral evil. They lacked omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and eternal life. So as I have said before there is no contradiction.

Dear Der Alter,
No excuses please. Scripture is very clear when it says in Genesis 3:22, "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad", which compliments God's intention in Genesis 1:26, "God went on to say, Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."

It is also very clear therefore that Adam and Eve while lacking knowledge of good and bad did not represent a likeness to, or if you wish, an image of God.
Kutte

I'm sorry I don't post excuses! I just proved to you, from a Hebrew lexicon, that you are grossly in error. Your two out-of-context proof texts do not mean what you are trying to make them mean.

 

[2KnowHim]

These are my final words relating to Adam and Eve because the issue of their true nature has been resolved. This means that they did not resemble a likeness or image of God, as I have pointed out many times in this thread. Only after their alleged “fall”, by acquiring knowledge of good and bad, were they transformed to an image of God. This becomes evident and quiet clear in Genesis 3:22, where God is being quoted as saying: “Now the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad”, which compliments the original purpose of man’s creation in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."

I'd say you are on the right track. There is only one image of God and that is His Son.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Since when is The image of God made from the dust of the Ground?
Jesus Christ is The image of God and comes from above.

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The first Adam depicts our begining The last Adam depicts our end.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I disagree that Adam knew what was /is good for him since he lacked this knowledge to begin with. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me to say he already knew what was good or bad for him, because in this case there would have been no need for God to tell him not to eat fruits from a particular tree containing knowledge of good and bad.

How could someone express the joy Adam did instantly upon seeing the first time the one thing that he knew to be missing from his world had he not been able to look around and judge what is Good - obviously that all the animals came in pairs and that for good reasons?

Regardless of what else one believes, the conclusion one reaches about his innocent ignorance is refuted by his simple exclamation upon seeing Eve. So whatever one thinks eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gained for him, it cannot be true that Adam lacked the ability to judge what is Good prior to that point. The ability to make such judgments requires a reference, not an ignorant naive bliss.

 

[2KnowHim]

How could someone express the joy Adam did instantly upon seeing the first time the one thing that he knew to be missing from his world had he not been able to look around and judge what is Good - obviously that all the animals came in pairs and that for good reasons?

My question is "Why" did Adam feel like something was missing from his world in the first place? That is if he was truly whole in God.
Secondly "How" can Adam or anyone for that matter Judge Good if they do not know Evil? There is nothing to compare it too.
There is no suggestion that animals was what God brought to Adam to name or that they were in pairs, that is a teaching of men, the same as the Apple.
The word is specific when it says..."Beast of the field, and fowls of the air". This is a basic principle of teaching that Jesus warns us about.

Adams departure from The Lord, started within himself long before he ate of the tree. The tree only revealed what was IN Adam. Naked or Nakedness always, in scripture depicts not being clothed in Righteousness. And he was naked he just didn't know it till he partook of the tree, then it was revealed to him.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (So it was in Adam also)
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (So it did with Adam also)
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (So did Adam)
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (And so it did with Adam)

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was no doubt...The Law of God
Deu 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

 

[Kutte]

How could someone express the joy Adam did instantly upon seeing the first time the one thing that he knew to be missing from his world had he not been able to look around and judge what is Good - obviously that all the animals came in pairs and that for good reasons?

Regardless of what else one believes, the conclusion one reaches about his innocent ignorance is refuted by his simple exclamation upon seeing Eve. So whatever one thinks eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gained for him, it cannot be true that Adam lacked the ability to judge what is Good prior to that point. The ability to make such judgments requires a reference, not an ignorant naive bliss.

DrBubbaLove,

Remember that neither Adam nor Eve represented a likeness of God since God was aware of good and bad and they didn't.

I don't know what this has to do with Eve's appearance. Adam may have had some sort of instincts making him feel attracted to Eve without any feelings of love for her since love is a good quality he was not aware of.

By the way people do engage in sexual intercourse without feelings of love for each other.

Now, what about Jesus being a deity?

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

.

.

​

I'm sorry I don't post excuses! I just proved to you, from a Hebrew lexicon, that you are grossly in error. Your two out-of-context proof texts do not mean what you are trying to make them mean.

Lieber Überalter,

Once we begin to question the accuracy of bible translations then everything can be put to doubt and we might as well forget about scriptures being trustworthy. I know of a Christian denomination, Jehova's Witnesses, who are very skilled in doing just that. They point to all sorts of biblical phrases and sentences not being conform to Hebrew original texts. I can not accept the idea that all Bibles, may it be Lutheran, the King James version and so fort contain wrong translations. If you insist on going this path then our discussions ends here and right now.

Just remember that Adam and Eve did not represent a likeness of God while lacking knowledge of good and bad.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

I'd say you are on the right track. There is only one image of God and that is His Son.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Since when is The image of God made from the dust of the Ground?
Jesus Christ is The image of God and comes from above.

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The first Adam depicts our begining The last Adam depicts our end.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Hi 2KnowHim,

Finally someone trying to inject some common sense into this discussion.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Lieber Überalter,

Once we begin to question the accuracy of bible translations then everything can be put to doubt and we might as well forget about scriptures being trustworthy. I know of a Christian denomination, Jehova's Witnesses, who are very skilled in doing just that. They point to all sorts of biblical phrases and sentences not being conform to Hebrew original texts. I can not accept the idea that all Bibles, may it be Lutheran, the King James version and so fort contain wrong translations. If you insist on going this path then our discussions ends here and right now.

Just remember that Adam and Eve did not represent a likeness of God while lacking knowledge of good and bad.

Kutte

As you have pointed out, by referring to the JW, the accuracy of Bible translations is already being questioned by such groups. There are at least two groups, LDS and JW, who have made their own translations of the Bible, which surprise, surprise, just happen to support their group's teachings. Other groups use various heterodoxical translations such as the Lamsa and Bullinger translations.

I have not said the KJV or any other credible translation is wrong. It is what people do with various versions that creates the errors. A good example of this is how you are misinterpreting the scripture concerning Adam and Eve. Nowhere did God ever say that He created Adam and Eve to be mini-gods with godlike powers like Him. You are creating contradictions where none exist.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

DrBubbaLove,

Remember that neither Adam nor Eve represented a likeness of God since God was aware of good and bad and they didn't.

And this is based on your opinion that image and likeness are referring to the same thing (as Der Alter pointed out) and it also requires a very narrow view of what it means to be made like that. Without those assumptions being both true, the conclusion is invalid.

I don't know what this has to do with Eve's appearance. Adam may have had some sort of instincts making him feel attracted to Eve without any feelings of love for her since love is a good quality he was not aware of.

Presumption, conveniently supporting one's opinion. Unfortunately God is recorded in the same story indicating that it was not good that Adam did not have a mate. Same story subtly suggests Adam noticed as well as he was observing all the animals. Those are irrefutable facts from the same story one wants to conclude Adam is blissfully ignorant of good and evil until he eats the forbidden fruit. Those facts do not support that he is ignorant of what is Good. Eve is also shown clearly before she ate going from a state of seeing something as detestable to seeing the same as desirable, which is also not possible without at least a morale compass. As anyone knows a compass requires a reference, a north to point to (what is Good). So whatever else one wants to presuppose about the creation stories, it cannot be said that Adam and Eve lacked a knowledge of what is Good.

By the way people do engage in sexual intercourse without feelings of love for each other.

Well exactly and that goes to the point of taking something meant for a purpose (like a fruit not for you to eat) and using it for another (I decide, not my Creator, that it is good for me). BTW - A Travelers Guide to Heaven, among other things included a lay Catholic speculating that sex between anyone would be Good in Heaven - and I don't have a problem with that thought. : ) Clearly not a Protestant view of Heaven,

Now, what about Jesus being a deity?

Kutte

Well the story of Adam is relevant. A man mucked it up with God for all of us, so unless God were just to blanket forgive us all, (which He could have done), it would require a man to unmuck it. Except in order to make it possible (not certain) to unmuck for All (or any), that Man would have to be God. It also goes to why Whom we offend when we sin and why a single seemingly simple act of rebellion against the Good, would condemn us all. And finally, it goes to why Divinity would be necessary in order to allow for one Man to make it possible to unmuck this for all of us individually by a single act, that the same Man is also Divine giving His action Eternal application (backward, now and future).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My question is "Why" did Adam feel like something was missing from his world in the first place? That is if he was truly whole in God.
Secondly "How" can Adam or anyone for that matter Judge Good if they do not know Evil? There is nothing to compare it too.
There is no suggestion that animals was what God brought to Adam to name or that they were in pairs, that is a teaching of men, the same as the Apple.

There is nothing in the story to suggest Adam was a ignorant brute and everything to suggest otherwise. Not being an ignorant brute, Adam cannot be tasked with naming all the animals and in so doing fail to notice the differences in genders and the completeness that difference makes in the species. Like it or not that fact is evident in the statement "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him", and the statement is meaningless if one claims it does not acknowledge Adam's awareness that there was something incomplete in his existence. And that statement of his awareness is the tie to what is said to have occurred next. So I fail to see how acknowledging what the story says and the logical meaning/ramifications behind such statements becomes the "teaching of men". It is what the story says.

So whatever one imagines we should gleam from the story, it cannot contradict what the story clearly depicts in simple statements.

Again, in the traditional orthodox view Good is a thing, evil is not a thing. Evil is the corruption of Good, or looked at another way the relative absence of Good. So if everything is Very Good we have every reason to believe that at least at that point (from human view of time -some point) everything is Perfect - meaning nothing that is not Good (including that Tree btw). Everything has a purpose and all is in harmony. Throw in free will creatures, angels and men. Now in order for them to truly have free will there has to be a potential for them to freely choose to take whatever (and everything Good before this point) desire and use whatever - in this a case something Good that is edible but not meant for man, and use it for something other than the purpose for which it was made - eat it. A corruption of the natural order.

 

[2KnowHim]

Again, in the traditional orthodox view Good is a thing, evil is not a thing. Evil is the corruption of Good, or looked at another way the relative absence of Good.

And herein lies the problem...by holding on to your traditional orthodox view and interpretation of Gen. it becomes Carnal, literal and has NO LIFE of The Spirit in it. Because you've not allowed the Spirit of God to interpret it for you.

God's Word is Spirit and Life....There is only one that is Good and that is God....
So in this statement "Evil is the Corruption of Good" then you might as well say that God corrupts Good or Himself by creating Evil...which is ridiculous.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

See how your interpretations leave alot to be desired, or should I say, leaves more questions than answers?

But when we understand that, Because God is Good, Light, and Peace, ...Evil, darkness, and calamity automatically exist, and how He alone takes on that Responsability for all things, (by the giving of His Son) now it has Life and understanding in the scripture, not to mention The One that should take preminence over all things which is Christ.
Even Paul understood this ....for he said...
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

It repented God that He made man in the flesh, ...why? Because He knew very well that when He chose to do Good that Evil would no doubt be present. It is a principle of Doctrine that we should all understand.

But thank God that He knew this before hand and knew that Only, He Himself would have to be the one who would put it to death for Good. And could say after it was all Finished....it is Good, Very Good.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And herein lies the problem...by holding on to your traditional orthodox view and interpretation of Gen. it becomes Carnal, literal and has NO LIFE of The Spirit in it. Because you've not allowed the Spirit of God to interpret it for you.

God's Word is Spirit and Life....There is only one that is Good and that is God....
So in this statement "Evil is the Corruption of Good" then you might as well say that God corrupts Good or Himself by creating Evil...which is ridiculous.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

See how your interpretations leave alot to be desired, or should I say, leaves more questions than answers?

But when we understand that, Because God is Good, Light, and Peace, Evil, darkness, and calamity automatically exist, and how He alone takes on that Responsability for all things, (by the giving of His Son) now it has Life and understanding in the scripture, not to mention The One that should take preminence over all things which is Christ.
Even Paul understood this ....for he said...
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

It repented God that He made man in the flesh, ...why? Because He knew very well that when He chose to do Good that Evil would no doubt be present. It is a principle of Doctrine that we should all understand.

But thank God that He knew this before hand and knew that Only, He Himself would have to be the one who would put it to death for Good. And could say after it was all Finished....it is Good, Very Good.

Well I don't see the problem with saying that which is All Good(God) cannot create the absence of Good (evil). Light does not create darkness. Darkness is the relative absence of Light - not the opposite. We cannot measure darkness, only the absence of light. Light only "reveals" darkness in the sense one can see where the Light is and where it is not. Where Light is not , is what we call darkness. Something has to be in the way of the Light in order for there to be darkness.

And if we say created beings are what create darkness, then we are acknowledging that He made us able (choose) to block that Light or choose to reflect (His Image) brightly. And yes, in removing those that freely choose in this life to block the Light would indeed restore (make all things New again) everything to the way it was before Very Good.

 

[Kutte]

As you have pointed out, by referring to the JW, the accuracy of Bible translations is already being questioned by such groups. There are at least two groups, LDS and JW, who have made their own translations of the Bible, which surprise, surprise, just happen to support their group's teachings. Other groups use various heterodoxical translations such as the Lamsa and Bullinger translations.

I have not said the KJV or any other credible translation is wrong. It is what people do with various versions that creates the errors. A good example of this is how you are misinterpreting the scripture concerning Adam and Eve. Nowhere did God ever say that He created Adam and Eve to be mini-gods with godlike powers like Him. You are creating contradictions where none exist.

Dear Der Alter,

I am not misinterpreting scripture concerning Adam and Eve nor did I make any relation to mini-gods. What I do is let scripture speak for itself as in Genesis 1:27, "So God made man like his Maker, like God did God make man." This, of course does not relate to outside appearances but to abilities such as being creative like God and having knowledge of good and bad like God.
I suppose there will forever be disagreement among biblical scholars in regards to this or that translation, it's nothing new.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

And this is based on your opinion that image and likeness are referring to the same thing (as Der Alter pointed out) and it also requires a very narrow view of what it means to be made like that. Without those assumptions being both true, the conclusion is invalid.
Presumption, conveniently supporting one's opinion. Unfortunately God is recorded in the same story indicating that it was not good that Adam did not have a mate. Same story subtly suggests Adam noticed as well as he was observing all the animals. Those are irrefutable facts from the same story one wants to conclude Adam is blissfully ignorant of good and evil until he eats the forbidden fruit. Those facts do not support that he is ignorant of what is Good. Eve is also shown clearly before she ate going from a state of seeing something as detestable to seeing the same as desirable, which is also not possible without at least a morale compass. As anyone knows a compass requires a reference, a north to point to (what is Good). So whatever else one wants to presuppose about the creation stories, it cannot be said that Adam and Eve lacked a knowledge of what is Good.
Well exactly and that goes to the point of taking something meant for a purpose (like a fruit not for you to eat) and using it for another (I decide, not my Creator, that it is good for me). BTW - A Travelers Guide to Heaven, among other things included a lay Catholic speculating that sex between anyone would be Good in Heaven - and I don't have a problem with that thought. : ) Clearly not a Protestant view of Heaven,
Well the story of Adam is relevant. A man mucked it up with God for all of us, so unless God were just to blanket forgive us all, (which He could have done), it would require a man to unmuck it. Except in order to make it possible (not certain) to unmuck for All (or any), that Man would have to be God. It also goes to why Whom we offend when we sin and why a single seemingly simple act of rebellion against the Good, would condemn us all. And finally, it goes to why Divinity would be necessary in order to allow for one Man to make it possible to unmuck this for all of us individually by a single act, that the same Man is also Divine giving His action Eternal application (backward, now and future).

Hi DrBubbaLove,

It has nothing to do with my opinion when I say that Adam and Eve did not resemble God while lacking knowledge of good and bad, because this attribute is simply to important to have for being creative. Just giving animals a name can hardly be considered creative. So, it's rather obvious to recognize this fact. For instance, babies don't have any knowledge of good and bad this is why they need to be educating enabling them to make right choices, preventing them from falling.

Exactly, Adam was blissfully ignorant of good and bad until he ate from the tree of knowledge. Only then can we talk about a compass showing him which direction to go for reaching good and avoiding bad.

Having sex in heaven (lol) or anywhere else will give one a good feeling. Same applies to sitting in a comfortable chair. But when lacking knowledge of good and bad one may not be aware of the danger coming from too much of a good thing.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

Dear Der Alter,

I am not misinterpreting scripture concerning Adam and Eve nor did I make any relation to mini-gods. What I do is let scripture speak for itself as in Genesis 1:27, "So God made man like his Maker, like God did God make man." This, of course does not relate to outside appearances but to abilities such as being creative like God and having knowledge of good and bad like God.
I suppose there will forever be disagreement among biblical scholars in regards to this or that translation, it's nothing new.

Kutte

You have ignored the definition of the two Hebrew words translated "image" and "likeness" and have substituted your own meaning thus erroneously supporting your assumptions/presuppositions that the Bible has errors and contradictions. It is probably a waste of time but here are the definitions of the two words again. Note neither word includes "abilities such as being creative like God and having knowledge of good and bad like God."

H6754 צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.
.
H1823 דּמוּת demûth dem-ooth'
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
What Der Alter said since you did not like the way I said it.
As for naming animals I think many scientists involved in the pursuit over the ages would disagree with your assessment that particular task of Adam's.

As for sin and why the Cross was removed from us: Worth repeating I think;

"It is important to note here that the tree really is genuinely good. Eve had a perfectly ordered and rational human soul which found evil totally repugnant and unappealing. The temptation was to seek an objective good for disordered reasons, which is what happened. The temptation changes the way Eve perceived the forbidden fruit: She no longer sees its goodness in an ordered and disinterested way, but in a way that foreshadows the threefold concupiscence: The fruit is desirable to the flesh, it holds a sort of worldly glamour, and it appeals to pride."
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin by a former atheist and lesbian btw