An Article I Found Validating Christ's Deity

[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.​

My dear Der Alter,

What difference does it make if words such as "abilities" or "having knowledge" are in scripture or not. Those are obvious references when speaking of good and bad. When speaking of "like God" it doesn't take a genius to recognize that God is the Creator of the universe and like God man has limited abilities to be creative as well.
Are you not the one who assumes that the Bible contains errors and needs to be corrected while diving into original Hebrew scriptures?

In front of me is a JW Bible called "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" rendered from original languages. I think it should find your agreement when it says in Genesis 1:26, And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,". And in Genesis 3:22 it says, And Jehovah God went on to say: "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad."
Any complaints regarding the authenticity of these two statements?

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

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

Dear DrBubbaLove,

Agreed, Naming animals is a long process since new species are being discovered now and then. But we need to recognize that Eden must be considered a limited piece of real estate with only a limited number of animals therein. Lions, tigers, for instance, are not to be found there.
Your quote from the Catholic magazine ignores conveniently the fact that neither Eve nor Adam were ably to distinguish good from bad since they lacked this essential quality to begin with. Fascinating when reading such elaborating sentences as "Eve had a perfectly ordered and rational human soul which found evil totally repugnant and unappealing"...
Speaking of excuses, this is a real good one.

Kutte

 

[Der Alte]

My dear Der Alter,

What difference does it make if words such as "abilities" or "having knowledge" are in scripture or not. Those are obvious references when speaking of good and bad.

The difference is the original Hebrew words do not include in their meaning, "abilities" or "having knowledge." Therefore what you consider "obvious references" is merely your assumptions/presuppositions.

When speaking of "like God" it doesn't take a genius to recognize that God is the Creator of the universe and like God man has limited abilities to be creative as well.

Assumptions/presuppositions.

Are you not the one who assumes that the Bible contains errors and needs to be corrected while diving into original Hebrew scriptures?

You have it backwards. If you write something and someone translates it into another language. Which more accurately represents what you said the original that you wrote in English or the translation in another language?

In front of me is a JW Bible called "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" rendered from original languages. I think it should find your agreement when it says in Genesis 1:26, And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,". And in Genesis 3:22 it says, And Jehovah God went on to say: "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad."
Any complaints regarding the authenticity of these two statements?

Yes I do have problems with the NWT. Of the five people on the "translation" team only one had 21 semester hours of Classical Greek, not Biblical Koine. None of the others had any training in Greek. None of the translators had any training in Hebrew. The NWT is merely the KJV rewritten to support JW doctrine.

http://www.freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear DrBubbaLove,

Agreed, Naming animals is a long process since new species are being discovered now and then. But we need to recognize that Eden must be considered a limited piece of real estate with only a limited number of animals therein. Lions, tigers, for instance, are not to be found there.
Your quote from the Catholic magazine ignores conveniently the fact that neither Eve nor Adam were ably to distinguish good from bad since they lacked this essential quality to begin with. Fascinating when reading such elaborating sentences as "Eve had a perfectly ordered and rational human soul which found evil totally repugnant and unappealing"...
Speaking of excuses, this is a real good one.

Kutte

My view of the creation stories has no restrictions on animals and since we are already both speculating beyond what is recorded - am ok with those who suggest all animals were vegetarians prior to the fall or alternatively all the animals that existed at that time at least. We don't really know. Am also not big into looking at the "Garden" as a literal place, as the story seems more like a fairy tale/symbolism/legend and has an ethereal quality to it that I do not see the value in insisting Adam was restricted to some magic garden or island of perfection where lions or wolves existed.

The article hardly "conveniently ignores" the issue. In fact it suggest both Adam and Eve are in perfect alignment with Good - and thus of necessity would detest the opposite, which is the relative absence of Good, which is evil. Even the quote I gave mentions Eve detesting something. One cannot detest something without a reference from which to take that position. Either that reference is Good, as in really Good which in a perfect world with perfect humans Good would be that reference; or that reference is what we in our minds make "a good", like Eve did with the fruit. So rather than ignoring the issue, that bit of the article addresses it directly. What was lacking then, and what was gained when they ate was an awareness of their ability to create a subjective good from something that was actually Good. My will not Thy Will. That is what is meant by "gaining" the knowledge of Good and evil.

 

[Kutte]

The difference is the original Hebrew words do not include in their meaning, "abilities" or "having knowledge." Therefore what you consider "obvious references" is merely your assumptions/presuppositions.



Assumptions/presuppositions.



You have it backwards. If you write something and someone translates it into another language. Which more accurately represents what you said the original that you wrote in English or the translation in another language?



Yes I do have problems with the NWT. Of the five people on the "translation" team only one had 21 semester hours of Classical Greek, not Biblical Koine. None of the others had any training in Greek. None of the translators had any training in Hebrew. The NWT is merely the KJV rewritten to support JW doctrine.

http://www.freeminds.org/history/NWTauthors.htm

Hi Der Alter

Since you seem to have a problem even with the JW bible, I don't see how we can continue this dialog. It is rather obvious that whatever passage in any given Bible is presented, you can always counter with, "This does not agree with the original Hebrew scriptures". Therefore further talk is futile.

Kutte

 

[Kutte]

My view of the creation stories has no restrictions on animals and since we are already both speculating beyond what is recorded - am ok with those who suggest all animals were vegetarians prior to the fall or alternatively all the animals that existed at that time at least. We don't really know. Am also not big into looking at the "Garden" as a literal place, as the story seems more like a fairy tale/symbolism/legend and has an ethereal quality to it that I do not see the value in insisting Adam was restricted to some magic garden or island of perfection where lions or wolves existed.

The article hardly "conveniently ignores" the issue. In fact it suggest both Adam and Eve are in perfect alignment with Good - and thus of necessity would detest the opposite, which is the relative absence of Good, which is evil. Even the quote I gave mentions Eve detesting something. One cannot detest something without a reference from which to take that position. Either that reference is Good, as in really Good which in a perfect world with perfect humans Good would be that reference; or that reference is what we in our minds make "a good", like Eve did with the fruit. So rather than ignoring the issue, that bit of the article addresses it directly. What was lacking then, and what was gained when they ate was an awareness of their ability to create a subjective good from something that was actually Good. My will not Thy Will. That is what is meant by "gaining" the knowledge of Good and evil.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Great to see that we agree on the issue of the "Garden".
When speaking of "detesting the opposite" in the case of Eve, it can only mean by instinct, not by knowledge. An absence of good may not be necessarily evil. Evil in my view can be too much of a good thing as well as too much of a bad thing. It is up to us to sustain a just balance between the two. We need to have the ability to compare both. Without this knowledge conditions supposedly representing only "good" become meaningless if they cannot be compared to bad conditions. Or, to put it on a simple footing, conditions featuring total light are as blinding as conditions featuring total darkness.

Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Great to see that we agree on the issue of the "Garden".
When speaking of "detesting the opposite" in the case of Eve, it can only mean by instinct, not by knowledge. An absence of good may not be necessarily evil. Evil in my view can be too much of a good thing as well as too much of a bad thing. It is up to us to sustain a just balance between the two. We need to have the ability to compare both. Without this knowledge conditions supposedly representing only "good" become meaningless if they cannot be compared to bad conditions. Or, to put it on a simple footing, conditions featuring total light are as blinding as conditions featuring total darkness.

Kutte

God is All Good, Adam and Eve know and Love He Who is All Good. God tells them they can eat of basically anything edible except this one tree (again no tree of death or tree of evil BTW). So know you want us to believe it was just instinct that would have caused Eve to detest the opposite?

Too much of a good thing is doing exactly what I stated, presuming what one is happens to be getting too much of, is actually a real, objective, good (not subjective). The fruit Eve ate is actually Good - has to be because ALL was said to be Very Good. Being told it was not for them to eat then means that any amount of that fruit for them would be too much of a good thing. Knowing it was forbidden, they saw that it looked good and imagined in their minds it would be good for them if they ate it. They took a good thing, perverted it's natural use - which they knew was not for them to eat. So it would be the same with "too much" of any good thing. That's why gluttony is a sin, even though nourishment/food is good for us.

Dark is not the opposite of Light - it is the absence of Light. As such "dark" is not a "thing" we can measure, whereas "light" is. Being the relative absence of something else also means that dark really does not exist, it is merely an expression of what is meant by less or no light.
Our problem now however is that with our fallen nature, we do not often view light and dark for what it really is, but wants to find the grey areas and pretend we do not know better.

 

[2KnowHim]

What if I was to say that....When God says this:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

He is speaking of The Finished Work of What Christ has accomplished through His death, burial, and resurrection, ...and not Adam's beginning in the Garden. That God is seeing All things Finished and always speaks out of this place as Finished and being ,"Good, Very Good", rather than speaking of the beginning of something. He calls those things "That be not" as though they were.

There are two reasons why I believe this:
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

All these scriptures here in Gen. Declare something that is Finished "Before" it was actually in the earth.
What is a plant before it Grows? It is SEED. God's Word is The Seed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not sure "things that are not yet done" and the end of that sentence supports the conclusion. Read in total it says
"and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

I could see an argument for God's Omniscience in that verse and in the following verse also Omnipotence (what He says/Wills, will occur).

Also the idea the Garden depicts a future state from the opening of the Bible, in just one sense I could agree - when He speaks of how it was between Him and man and the way all of creation around man was Very Good - that would be the "state" He intends to restore both man and that creation to. All things new again, not "am going to make man into something else something better than I originally made him".

The creation story also goes to the purpose for which He made mankind. The only purpose that makes sense for our existence is to Love Him and share in His Eternal Happiness. We certainly cannot do that in our current state and the world certainly is not currently one we think of as the best place He could have created for us if He intended for us to be happy. To accept the suggested view of those stories means it was in the beginning the way it is now from the beginning - which would mean God did not put us from the beginning in the best place He could have - it could be better - much better - that begs other disturbing questions.

Which would lead me to ask why not put us in the best place He could have made?
Also what was His purpose for making Adam?

To me he story has a whole, rather than picking apart verses, supports very well the idea of God having made everything Perfect, including man who He put in the best place possible for us. The sin of the first man is then shown not only corrupting our very nature, but also the world as it was before that first sin. And that "fall" then explains why things are the way they are now and why we needed a way back to the Cross(tree of Life) to restore not only individuals but also begins the story of how He intends to restore creation from the way it is now. Restoring something is making it like it originally was - not turning it into something else. Remove that idea of Perfection and a fall and the foundation for why He had to come seems to be removed (to undo what a man had done).

For these reasons I would say the idea of everything originally being just as things are now is not supported by the view of the stories as a whole, and I do not think we have support for that idea from the folks who first told those stories around campfires at night.

 

[2KnowHim]

So I think your saying you don't see it the way I was suggesting? And if you don't, then you probably won't see that the whole Garden senerio and the fall happened in Gen1:2 either, ....Hence the reason for the darkness.

 

[2KnowHim]

I realize that it is a hard concept for us to believe that God would intentionally subject us to such things as we have all come to experience in our lives. But when you are able to see the End from the Beginning like He does, then with patience you wait for it knowing that "The Good" will come to pass. And that is what I am suggesting. God has always seen the end before it ever began.
And His whole purpose was to create man in the image of Himself , His Son, His Word, Jesus Christ.

I am not saying God created Evil, but He knew that in bringing us forth, Evil would exist, and we would be made subject to it.
But again if He saw everything before the world began, then no matter what Evil we would experience in this world it would not compare to The Glory of what The End would be.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I don't believe that being made in the image of God is The way we started out, I believe it is The End Result through His Son, His image. Gen. 1 is a Seed bed for Truth. It is not the creation of the physical world, but the plan of the Restoration through the Salvation of His Word.

 

[Kutte]

God is All Good, Adam and Eve know and Love He Who is All Good. God tells them they can eat of basically anything edible except this one tree (again no tree of death or tree of evil BTW). So know you want us to believe it was just instinct that would have caused Eve to detest the opposite?

Too much of a good thing is doing exactly what I stated, presuming what one is happens to be getting too much of, is actually a real, objective, good (not subjective). The fruit Eve ate is actually Good - has to be because ALL was said to be Very Good. Being told it was not for them to eat then means that any amount of that fruit for them would be too much of a good thing. Knowing it was forbidden, they saw that it looked good and imagined in their minds it would be good for them if they ate it. They took a good thing, perverted it's natural use - which they knew was not for them to eat. So it would be the same with "too much" of any good thing. That's why gluttony is a sin, even though nourishment/food is good for us.

Dark is not the opposite of Light - it is the absence of Light. As such "dark" is not a "thing" we can measure, whereas "light" is. Being the relative absence of something else also means that dark really does not exist, it is merely an expression of what is meant by less or no light.
Our problem now however is that with our fallen nature, we do not often view light and dark for what it really is, but wants to find the grey areas and pretend we do not know better.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

I recommend taking a step down from those lofty theological phrases and look at light and darkness on a down to earth level.
It simply cannot be denied that without darkness, without any dark spots on the horizon we will be blinded. Sunglasses won't be of much help either. Therefore, some darkness is needed to help us find our ways. Of course the opposite, an environment featuring nothing but darkness is just as bad and we need some light to find our ways. What I am getting at is the necessity of both and the need for a just balance. The same applies to features such as good and bad. If goodness cannot be compared to badness one will not have any appreciation of goodness.

Kutte

 

[2KnowHim]

I find it interesting to note that The Darkness came first before the Light did.
Gen. 1:2
The Light shines Greater in Darkness does it not?

 

[Kutte]

I find it interesting to note that The Darkness came first before the Light did.
Gen. 1:2
The Light shines Greater in Darkness does it not?

Hi 2KnowHim,

Yes, of course. The beauty of a candle light dinner can only be appreciated in a room with dimmed lights.

Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubbaLove,

I recommend taking a step down from those lofty theological phrases and look at light and darkness on a down to earth level.
It simply cannot be denied that without darkness, without any dark spots on the horizon we will be blinded. Sunglasses won't be of much help either. Therefore, some darkness is needed to help us find our ways. Of course the opposite, an environment featuring nothing but darkness is just as bad and we need some light to find our ways. What I am getting at is the necessity of both and the need for a just balance. The same applies to features such as good and bad. If goodness cannot be compared to badness one will not have any appreciation of goodness.

Kutte

Well in theological terms, we would be "blinded" because we are by our own choices partially in the dark, which is why we need a "restoration" before it is safe for us to be fully in the Light. We were as humans, according to orthodox teaching, created to be fully in that Light. The idea we were made to exist in both that Light and either the absence of it or (as you suggest), something real that is the opposite of the Light; this idea requires a different purpose for our existence and accordingly a different purpose for God having made us - if the idea includes the necessity of His having created us at all.

The idea that good and evil need to coexist in order for us to value, appreciate good requires evil to actually exist as a real thing. So the question then becomes where does this (imagined IMO) real thing come from. Either God made it (as scripture says everything that is (created) He made) or one would have to say this thing you suggest is what we call evil/darkness, it like God Himself pre-existed. Either view is very troubling on many levels for other aspects of our faith.

I don't need to taste ice cream made of feces in order to appreciate my favorite flavor. So while it is correct that tasting various flavors can make me appreciate my favorite more, it is not true that I need to experience something that is not ice cream in order to appreciate what in my view is the perfect ice cream. Just another way of saying when we speak of "goodness" it has and we can express levels. Anything we can imagine, in this case ice cream, we can imagine something that is only a tiny good to the opposite end there be an ice cream for which we cannot say any is better. So as far as "goodness" goes it is either there or it is not. If goodness is absolutely not there, it is not like something else replaces it - it is just not there. Somewhere on that scale, we can each choose a level, where anything below we consider bad and above would be good, however the entire scale is still "goodness". So our comparison/appreciation of something, in this case ice cream, is a comparison of relative levels of "goodness" to our individual preference/acceptance level of what is desirable.

 

[2KnowHim]

created to be fully in that Light.

Yes, Created To Be in that Light,... But Not Formed in The Light, but Formed of The Dust of The ground.

The idea we were made to exist in both that Light and either the absence of it or (as you suggest), something real that is the opposite of the Light; this idea requires a different purpose for our existence and accordingly a different purpose for God having made us - if the idea includes the necessity of His having created us at all.

Your absolutely right...It does.

Either God made it (as scripture says everything that is (created) He made) or one would have to say this thing you suggest is what we call evil/darkness, it like God Himself pre-existed. Either view is very troubling on many levels for other aspects of our faith.

Right again...but as far as "troubling on many levels" consider this.

Heb 12:25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
Heb 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
Heb 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Heb 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

If it can be shaken, then it is not of Him, for what He gives us cannot be shaken.

Somewhere on that scale, we can each choose a level, where anything below we consider bad and above would be good, however the entire scale is still "goodness". So our comparison/appreciation of something, in this case ice cream, is a comparison of relative levels of "goodness" to our individual preference/acceptance level of what is desirable.

I couldn't agree more, but somehow I don't think you Truly heard what you just said,... or you didn't hear The Spirit in what you just said, but I did.

 

[Kutte]

Well in theological terms, we would be "blinded" because we are by our own choices partially in the dark, which is why we need a "restoration" before it is safe for us to be fully in the Light. We were as humans, according to orthodox teaching, created to be fully in that Light. The idea we were made to exist in both that Light and either the absence of it or (as you suggest), something real that is the opposite of the Light; this idea requires a different purpose for our existence and accordingly a different purpose for God having made us - if the idea includes the necessity of His having created us at all.

The idea that good and evil need to coexist in order for us to value, appreciate good requires evil to actually exist as a real thing. So the question then becomes where does this (imagined IMO) real thing come from. Either God made it (as scripture says everything that is (created) He made) or one would have to say this thing you suggest is what we call evil/darkness, it like God Himself pre-existed. Either view is very troubling on many levels for other aspects of our faith.

I don't need to taste ice cream made of feces in order to appreciate my favorite flavor. So while it is correct that tasting various flavors can make me appreciate my favorite more, it is not true that I need to experience something that is not ice cream in order to appreciate what in my view is the perfect ice cream. Just another way of saying when we speak of "goodness" it has and we can express levels. Anything we can imagine, in this case ice cream, we can imagine something that is only a tiny good to the opposite end there be an ice cream for which we cannot say any is better. So as far as "goodness" goes it is either there or it is not. If goodness is absolutely not there, it is not like something else replaces it - it is just not there. Somewhere on that scale, we can each choose a level, where anything below we consider bad and above would be good, however the entire scale is still "goodness". So our comparison/appreciation of something, in this case ice cream, is a comparison of relative levels of "goodness" to our individual preference/acceptance level of what is desirable.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

I wish you would refrain from throwing evil and darkness into one pot. Darkness is not necessarily evil, it only becomes bad/evil with the total absence of light. As scripture itself is telling us in Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light and make the dark, I send good times and bad. I, God, am He who does these things." I don't think it is necessary for me to explain again why light and darkness are needed in our lives. I have done so several times before. This should close any further arguments on the issue of light and darkness.

For what its worth: I don't like ice cream.

Kutte