God Is a Physical Being

[Daniel Marsh]

You're darn right He is a big bird. The divine Word is a tangible substance spread more or less sparsely throughout the universe that He created, sustaining and monitoring it and upholding it, "sustaining all things by the Word of His power" (Heb 1:3). That means He exists in all possible shapes including eagles for example. Which means there are no valid metaphors for God - all such passages are literal. You know that immense wings can fan you, right? Take a look at the rushing Wind that fanned the 120 on Pentecost, or take a look at Charles Finney's autobiography where he described an outpouring that seemed "to fan me, like immense wings".

Psalm 36:7 is figurative.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

He was president and founder of one of the most esteemed evangelical seminaries in church history.

Scholars of that level are usually correct about church history - otherwise their peers love to rebut them. Produce a shred of evidence that he was wrong about those church fathers.

And everyone knows Tertullian was a staunch materialist.

I quoted Tertullian himself that shows he was not. Even figureheads like Sperry makes historical errors.

On Creation Sperry wrote: "Speaking generally, man's creation included that which was material—"the dust" (symbolizing the use of elements appropriate to the forming of a material body), and immaterial—"the breath of life." This general two-fold distinction is elsewhere indicated as the "outward man" and the "inward man" (2 Corinthians 4:16); "the earthen vessel" and "this treasure" (2 Corinthians 4:7). Likewise, contemplating the soul or spirit as representing that which is immaterial in man, we read that the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7); and there are those who are able to kill the body who are not able to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28). It was when God breathed the breath of life into the material body that man became a "living soul" (Genesis 2:7; note, also, 2 Corinthians 5:8; 3 John 1:2)." Major Bible Themes

im·ma·te·ri·al
/ˌi(m)məˈtirēəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
"so long as the band kept the beat, what they played was immaterial"
2.
spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Stop quoting English translations. You don't win a debate by reasserting what is in debate. The burden of proof lies on those who would tout "spirit" as a valid translation. What we know for sure is that 100 times in the OT, for starters, the underlying Hebrew term means breath/wind - nobody disputes that fact. There is NO passage clearly indicating a magical immaterial substance named "spirit".

No Burden of proof is still on you. And, you have not proven your claim at all. I am convinced that you can not read figurative literature correctly.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

So spirit is not a substance? So:
(1) It's not a material substance?
(2) It's not an immaterial substance?

Thus it doesn't exist? What's your position?

Since you entered the realm of philosophy, not biblical theology --- I am only giving the philosophy links for others to link to better understand your funny games.
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Read
"immaterial substance" - Norton Safe Search
Error - Cookies Turned Off
The substance objection
Major Bible Themes

Dictionary defines spirit as immaterial. That is as far as I go.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Tertullian wrote in Latin. The term 'Spirit' in latin (Spiritus) was etymologically rooted in physical breath/wind:

noun
breath
spiritus, halitus, anima, sufflatus, subflatus, respiratio
wind
ventus, spiritus, eurus, aura, anima, zephyrus

In the passage you cited, he said:

"Still there was solidity in their bodily substance,"

Solid means tangible.

And as such you are not guilty of the etymological fallacy of word studies.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I can't prove anything 100%. But if you don't believe in matter, I trust you will have no objections if a perpetrator hits you with a baseball bat.

You completely missed his point and I do not think you understood the light question too.

"
Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. "
Does light have mass?

theory light - Google Search

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Good Night all, boss aka wife is home.

 

[JAL]

Psalm 36:7 is figurative.

Nope.

 

[JAL]

I quoted Tertullian himself that shows he was not. Even figureheads like Sperry makes historical errors.

On Creation Sperry wrote: "Speaking generally, man's creation included that which was material—"the dust" (symbolizing the use of elements appropriate to the forming of a material body), and immaterial—"the breath of life." This general two-fold distinction is elsewhere indicated as the "outward man" and the "inward man" (2 Corinthians 4:16); "the earthen vessel" and "this treasure" (2 Corinthians 4:7). Likewise, contemplating the soul or spirit as representing that which is immaterial in man, we read that the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7); and there are those who are able to kill the body who are not able to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28). It was when God breathed the breath of life into the material body that man became a "living soul" (Genesis 2:7; note, also, 2 Corinthians 5:8; 3 John 1:2)." Major Bible Themes

im·ma·te·ri·al
/ˌi(m)məˈtirēəl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
"so long as the band kept the beat, what they played was immaterial"
2.
spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"

You're just underscoring the fact that immaterialists tend to backpedal. As for angels, Sperry was clear, he classified them as material. That was my reason for citing him, and that citation stands.

 

[JAL]

You completely missed his point and I do not think you understood the light question too.

"
Does light have mass?
The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. "
Does light have mass?

theory light - Google Search

(1) You assume that I have to agree with everything taught in modern science? Wake up and smell the coffee.
(2) My definition of matter includes anything tangible (anything capable of creating collisions) so the point is moot. Seems you are the one missing the point - my point.

 

[JAL]

Since you entered the realm of philosophy, not biblical theology --- I am only giving the philosophy links for others to link to better understand your funny games.
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Read
"immaterial substance" - Norton Safe Search
Error - Cookies Turned Off
The substance objection
Major Bible Themes

Dictionary defines spirit as immaterial. That is as far as I go.

I have no disagreement with the dictionary definition of spirit. But that's not a valid translation of the biblical terms AS THEY ARE USED IN SCRIPTURE. Ever heard of pneumatic tools? Are they immaterial-powered? Pneuma is by default a material term, as Lewis Sperry Chafer pointed out (despite any backpedaling on his part).

 

[JAL]

No Burden of proof is still on you. And, you have not proven your claim at all. I am convinced that you can not read figurative literature correctly.

Proven? You mean prove it 100%, right? Don't be ridiculous. I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. What I have shown is that "spirit" is a ridiculous translation given the data at hand, such as the 100 clear, undisputed OT instances of wind/breath, plus the verse-by-verse contextual indicators of wind/breath that totally seal the deal (e.g. John 20:22). Or maybe you think God is a stupid writer foolish enough to put those wind/breath contextual-indicators everywhere that He is trying to convey "spirit".

Or maybe you actually haven't even read my arguments at all. In any case, certainly you haven't refuted any of them. Show me some superior logic and exegesis. For the most part, you haven't even MENTIONED my specific arguments, much less address them.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Nope.

Yep

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Proven? You mean prove it 100%, right? Don't be ridiculous. I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. What I have shown is that "spirit" is a ridiculous translation given the data at hand, such as the 100 clear, undisputed OT instances of wind/breath, plus the verse-by-verse contextual indicators of wind/breath that totally seal the deal (e.g. John 20:22). Or maybe you think God is a stupid writer foolish enough to put those wind/breath contextual-indicators everywhere that He is trying to convey "spirit".

Or maybe you actually haven't even read my arguments at all. In any case, certainly you haven't refuted any of them. Show me some superior logic and exegesis. For the most part, you haven't even MENTIONED my specific arguments, much less address them.

context determines translation of a word.

I guess you are trying to commit another word study fallacy -- wind, spirit.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have no disagreement with the dictionary definition of spirit. But that's not a valid translation of the biblical terms AS THEY ARE USED IN SCRIPTURE. Ever heard of pneumatic tools? Are they immaterial-powered? Pneuma is by default a material term, as Lewis Sperry Chafer pointed out (despite any backpedaling on his part).

You have not shown where he agrees with you. I quoted him where he disagrees with you. I guess you must be reading your ideas into his works.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

You're just underscoring the fact that immaterialists tend to backpedal. As for angels, Sperry was clear, he classified them as material. That was my reason for citing him, and that citation stands.

no your citing him does not stand. give the source and if you have it link to your quote from the primary source, secondary sources are a waste of time.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Nope.

5 Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.

6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O Lord, thou preservest man and beast.

7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

8 They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures.

9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

10 O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart.

Yes, this text is using figurative language.

 

[JAL]

5 Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.

6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O Lord, thou preservest man and beast.

7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

8 They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures.

9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

10 O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart.

Yes, this text is using figurative language.

You evidently don't understand the difference between a simile and a metaphor.

Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O Lord, thou preservest man and beast.

Obviously that's a simile. No problem there. It's not a metaphor for the divine Word. Therefore, moot verse. .

thy judgments are a great deep:

Not terribly clear, but looks like a metaphor for the JUDGEMENTS of God. As such it is not a metaphor for the divine Word Himself. Therefore, a moot verse.

9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

Literal. The divine Word assumes all physical shapes including the River of Living Water and the divine Light in Moses' face.

drink of the river of thy pleasures.

Probably a literal reference to the Living Water. Or a figure of the emotion "pleasure". In either case, still not a metaphor for the divine Word. Therefore, a moot verse.

trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Literal, because the divine Word assumes all physical shapes including birds. "The Holy Breath descended on him in bodily form like a dove" (Lk 3:22).

Is that all you've got? Look, even if you could find a bona fide metaphor for the divine Word - and I doubt that's possible - you'd probably find it only in the poetic or prophetic passage (such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, or Revelation) and not in the more didactic literature (the history books and the epistles), and thus it wouldn't be very probative. Note that I build my case for wind/breath mostly on the didactic literature such as John 20:22.

 

[JAL]

You have not shown where he agrees with you. I quoted him where he disagrees with you. I guess you must be reading your ideas into his works.

Stop telling lies. I never said Sperry was a staunch materialist. I cited his belief in the materiality of angels. That's all. Chafer argued that angels are physical since “the term spirit…in both Hebrew and Greek is primarily a material term, indicating wind, air, or breath” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Angelology Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:392 (1941), p. 401).

In fact, in my last set of posts, I specifically classified him as an immaterialist who backpedals. For example in that article he IMPLIES that God Himself, while immaterial, has a material Presence. He's trying to stand on both sides of the fence because the biblical evidence for materiality is overwhelming. Many immaterialists try to stand on both sides of the fence.

 

[JAL]

context determines translation of a word.

I guess you are trying to commit another word study fallacy -- wind, spirit.

Huh? Assuming what is in debate is NOT an argument.