Can we agree on this?

I'm wondering if literalists agree on the following point:

When God breathed life into Adam he didn't literally breathe. Since God doesn't actually breathe, whatever it was that he did was accomodated to our level of understanding by using something symbolic to us (breathing is symbolic to being alive).

hi Philis,

Would this also infer that God can't speak since He doesn't have vocal chords?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

miamited said:

hi Philis,

Would this also infer that God can't speak since He doesn't have vocal chords?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...

No, he doesn't speak in the way that people do. He communicates with us. Saying that he "speaks" to us is a simplistic way of saying that he is communicating with us. As with the last thread, you responded without answering the questions in the OP

I don't think the was to get the lungs going, I think it's the same thing that happens when you became a living soul or someone is born again.

mark kennedy said:

I don't think the was to get the lungs going, I think it's the same thing that happens when you became a living soul or someone is born again.

Click to expand...

So that means you agree with what I'm saying in the OP?

Philis said:

So that means you agree with what I'm saying in the OP?

Click to expand...

Sure, what's your point?

mark kennedy said:

Sure, what's your point?

Click to expand...

My point is that it is possible for God to accommodate His message to our level of understanding, without jeopardizing the historical nature of the resurrection.

Is it possible there are other parts of the creation account that could be written this way?

Philis said:

My point is that it is possible for God to accommodate His message to our level of understanding, without jeopardizing the historical nature of the resurrection.

Is it possible there are other parts of the creation account that could be written this way?

Click to expand...

Of course, I would never deny that nor neglect the figurative language used that is so much a part of Genesis and all Hebrew literature. Something you might not realize, there is a special creation involved in Adam becoming a living soul, it's also what happened when Christ was raised and you were saved.


Used of the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), Living creatures created on the 5th day (Gen 1:21) and Man (Gen 1:27, 5:1).

You might want to think about it because Theistic Evolutionists have real issues coming to terms with the clear testimony of Scripture.

10 dangers of theistic evolution

Grace and peace,
Mark

hi Philis,

So, when Moses reminded the Israelites that they had heard God speak, he was, uh, saying what? When we are told that after Jesus' baptism the heavens opened and heard "This is my Son...", we are to understand that that was some telepathic mental mind transference?

No, I don't agree that God cannot breath life just as He has said that He did.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

So, miamited - you are saying that God literally breathes, so he has lungs and needs oxygen? So if God walked on the moon, he would pass out and die for lack of oxygen? And you think that when "God speaks", He is literally forcing air out of his literal lungs over his vocal cords? Are all those things made of flesh - down to cells, with nuclei? If so, then do those nuclei contain DNA? If so, what is God's genome probably like? Does it include the gene for, say, sneezing when you see a bright light, as my genome does? Etc?

That's basically what the OP asked. (right, Philis)?

Papias

mark kennedy said:

Of course, I would never deny that nor neglect the figurative language used that is so much a part of Genesis and all Hebrew literature. Something you might not realize, there is a special creation involved in Adam becoming a living soul, it's also what happened when Christ was raised and you were saved.

Strong's H1254 (bara' בָּרָ&#1488 - "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: (Vine's Expository Dictionary)
​

Used of the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), Living creatures created on the 5th day (Gen 1:21) and Man (Gen 1:27, 5:1).

Click to expand...

I'll look into this more.

You might want to think about it because Theistic Evolutionists have real issues coming to terms with the clear testimony of Scripture.

10 dangers of theistic evolution

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

Your focus is on the wrong place here, I'm not a TE.

Papias said:

So, miamited - you are saying that God literally breathes, so he has lungs and needs oxygen? So if God walked on the moon, he would pass out and die for lack of oxygen? And you think that when "God speaks", He is literally forcing air out of his literal lungs over his vocal cords? Are all those things made of flesh - down to cells, with nuclei? If so, then do those nuclei contain DNA? If so, what is God's genome probably like? Does it include the gene for, say, sneezing when you see a bright light, as my genome does? Etc?

That's basically what the OP asked. (right, Philis)?

Papias

Click to expand...

^^This

And I do find it interesting that when the literal crowd answers a question they tend to all give different answers.

Papias said:

So, miamited - you are saying that God literally breathes, so he has lungs and needs oxygen? So if God walked on the moon, he would pass out and die for lack of oxygen? And you think that when "God speaks", He is literally forcing air out of his literal lungs over his vocal cords? Are all those things made of flesh - down to cells, with nuclei? If so, then do those nuclei contain DNA? If so, what is God's genome probably like? Does it include the gene for, say, sneezing when you see a bright light, as my genome does? Etc?

That's basically what the OP asked. (right, Philis)?

Papias

Click to expand...

Hi papias,

No, I didn't say any of that. That's the assumptions you've made based on your understanding of what it must mean for a creature to be able to breathe. Does God have lungs? I don't think so, but it's only your human understanding of how breathing works that makes you assured that without lungs there cannot be breath. All of these 'assumptions' that you are making are based on what you think it means to breathe. Let me ask you: Do angels breathe? We know that they speak. Would that automatically infer to you that there must be oxygen in the angelic realm? You see, friend, you really have no idea what God is actually like. You have no idea what the angelic realm in which God visibly lives is like. We don't any of us have even the slightest idea of what the physical reality of God, the Holy Spirit or really Jesus is really like. We know what Jesus was like when he walked among us, but not what his physical form is like now. We know that when the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples that Thomas was able to put his fingers in the holes in Jesus' body, yet there is no report that he stood there with blood pouring out of his body. We don't really have any idea the totality of the physical form of any of the angelic creatures or of God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Does God breathe? He may very well. He is a living being. But we don't know for sure and so when God tells us that He breathed into Adam the breath of life, I can't honestly say that I know how He physically did that, but I believe that if God said He did, then He did.

However, all of this is way more existential than just understanding that God did create this realm of existence for His pleasure and His purpose as a place to support a creature that breathes oxygen and eats food to sustain a body of flesh and that His ultimate purpose in all of this was that He knows that one day there will come a time when He will gather up of all mankind, those who have believed Him and chosen to honor and love and obey Him and He will take those to live with Him forever, just as He will take all the angels that chose to honor, love and obey their Creator to live with Him forever. God will have worked out His ultimate purpose of creating creatures to live, love, and be loved for all eternity with Him. He will have companionship with His created and His created will have eternal companionship with Him. He will stand and announce, after that day of judgment when all the disobedient angels and all the disobedient of mankind will be cast out of His presence, "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."

That's why God created this realm of existence in six short days. So that once it was all laid out to mankind who He was and what His purpose was, some would choose to believe Him and love Him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and He would take them and the remaining obedient angels and would have accomplished His purpose of creating an existence where there was no sin, no pain, no suffering because all will have, of their own free choice, chosen God's truth, God's way and God's promise as the purpose of their very existence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

mark kennedy said:

Of course, I would never deny that nor neglect the figurative language used that is so much a part of Genesis and all Hebrew literature. Something you might not realize, there is a special creation involved in Adam becoming a living soul, it's also what happened when Christ was raised and you were saved.

Strong's H1254 (bara' בָּרָ&#1488 - "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: (Vine's Expository Dictionary)​

Used of the creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), Living creatures created on the 5th day (Gen 1:21) and Man (Gen 1:27, 5:1).

Click to expand...

Living creatures created on the 5th day include birds, while the creation of Man in Genesis 1:27 is as you imply from the capital M in Man, includes both male and female: male and female he created them Gen 2:27.

If bara, creation implies creation out of nothing, why are birds and man in Genesis 2 described as being created of dust from the ground verse 7 and out of the ground verse 19, while the woman is formed from the man's rib, all creation from pre-existing material?

Philis said:

I'll look into this more.

Click to expand...

You will find some interesting things when you do.

Mark (or possible Vines whom he is citing) is correct about most of the occurrences of this verb. Most, but not all.

However, unlike Vines, Strong notes that God is the only subject used with 'bara' when it is in the Qal form (one of four different forms a Hebrew verb can have.)

It may also be that this restriction applies only when the meaning is to form, shape, fashion, create.

Non-Qal forms have interestingly different translations and certainly have human subjects. Some examples are Joshua 17:15, 18 where Joshua is telling the Ephramites that if they want more land they will have to get it by cutting down the forest. The verb "cut down" is a translation of 'bara'.

Then there is 1 Samuel 2:29 where a prophet of God berates Eli and his sons for making themselves fat by grabbing the choicest pieces of sacrificial meat for themselves instead of offering it to the Lord. "Making .... fat" is a translation of 'bara'.

And in Ezekiel 21:19 the verb "choose" is a translation of 'bara' and it is clear God is telling Ezekiel to do the choosing.

So much for non-Qual forms though.


Another characteristic of 'bara' is that it is said to express creation out of nothing. But there are some cases where it doesn't seem possible that the reference is to creation out of nothing.

Example: Psalm 89:47 God created all people to be sure, but did he create all of them out of nothing or only the first two? Yet the verb here is 'bara'

Similarly in Psalm 102:18 where the psalmist speaks of "the generation to come; the people which shall be created ['bara'].

Again 'bara' is used by Isaiah to speak of God creating the people of Israel Isaiah 43:1,15) with no suggestion of creating from nothing. And similarly Isaiah 54:16 the verb 'bara' is used of the smith and the wastrel with no suggestion of creation out of nothing.

So while Mark is definitely correct about many uses of 'bara', it is overstating the case to say this is true of all instances where 'bara' is used in the OT.


The most controversial claim, it would seem to me is that 'bara' expresses creation out of nothing. For if this were the case we have a direct contradiction between Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7.

miamited said:

Hi papias,

No, I didn't say any of that. That's the assumptions you've made based on your understanding of what it must mean for a creature to be able to breathe. Does God have lungs? I don't think so, but it's only your human understanding of how breathing works that makes you assured that without lungs there cannot be breath. All of these 'assumptions' that you are making are based on what you think it means to breathe.

Click to expand...

It is this sort of question that undermines the claim that one is interpreting the text literally.

If one assumes that the meaning of the text is literal, then the meaning of "breathe/breath" is the ordinary meaning of taking air into the lungs and expelling it again. One cannot assume anything else if one is to stay with the literal meaning.

But now you are challenging us to consider that this literal meaning of "breathe/breath" is not the only one, or not one that applies to God or to angels.

Doesn't that come down to saying that in this context "breathe/breath" is an analogy taken from our physical experience to express an action of God we cannot imagine? In short, doesn't it come down to saying that in this context "breathe/breath" is a figure of speech, not a literal description? And it is used as an accommodation to the limits of human understanding?

miamited wrote:

Does God breathe? He may very well. He is a living being. But we don't know for sure and so when God tells us that He breathed into Adam the breath of life, I can't honestly say that I know how He physically did that, but I believe that if God said He did, then He did.

Click to expand...

Right, and your interpretation of Genesis is such that it include literally moving air. That's your interpretation. Another interpretation is that "breathing into him the breath of life" was giving him a soul, and I believe that because God said He did that, He did. You see, it no where says that He "physically" did that, and to claim it does is to add your own human words to scripture.

The point is that by refusing to accept the implications of your interpretation, you show that we are both interpreting, and as such, you can't logically say that your interpretation is somehow not an interpretation. Thus, when you try to portray this disagreement as a disgreement between the scripture and science, you are misleading people, because our discussion above again shows that it is a disagreement between two equally human interpretations.

Papias

Philis said:

I'm wondering if literalists agree on the following point:

When God breathed life into Adam he didn't literally breathe. Since God doesn't actually breathe, whatever it was that he did was accomodated to our level of understanding by using something symbolic to us (breathing is symbolic to being alive).

Click to expand...

I've never gotten this argument that God uses terms like "breath" so that we can understand, but then we turn around and dismiss that He actually breathed but did something else, which means that we actually could have understood a different concept and therefore God really didn't have to use the word "breath" after all.

I think we get ourselves in trouble constantly trying to redefine what God is saying to us. The Bible talks about God speaking, and human beings hearing his words, sometimes in large numbers. Nw God could have merely put the words in everyones heads and not actually used sound waves, or he could have created an actual sound using sound waves that the crowds earths then naturally picked up. Why would we assume He created a noise in their heads when He could have easily created an actual sound?

Also, the idea that the Bible saying God speaks is merely just a way of saying God communicates doesn't take into account all the other ways God communicates, such as dreams and visions. Come on. The Bible said God spoke. Let's assume He said what He wanted to say.

The fact is, God created breath and breathed life into Adam. He doesn't need lungs. He's God. If He wanted to communicate some other concept to us, then He would have done so. He created man with intelligence and the ability to understand very deep concepts.

Calminian said:

The fact is, God created breath and breathed life into Adam. He doesn't need lungs. He's God. If He wanted to communicate some other concept to us, then He would have done so. He created man with intelligence and the ability to understand very deep concepts.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said but I'm rather curious. Do you think we are being told that after forming Adam's body God started him breathing or do you think there is a larger meaning? I always thought Adam was just kind of laying there and then took in a big breath of air filling his lungs for the first time. I'm not all that concerned, just curious, what do you think happened there?

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy said:

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said but I'm rather curious. Do you think we are being told that after forming Adam's body God started him breathing or do you think there is a larger meaning? I always thought Adam was just kind of laying there and then took in a big breath of air filling his lungs for the first time. I'm not all that concerned, just curious, what do you think happened there?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

I think this is Genesis 2's way of describing what Genesis 1 calls being created in the image of God.