Created in the Image of God

[FreeGrace]

6 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Hi Marilyn C you always come up with something that stimulate discussion.

Jesus was made like his brethren in every way and this statement is made to indicate the Jews as his brethren and did not includes the Gentiles. 

Is there any distinction between the Israelites and the Gentiles and what is that? Or in what extent is that? 

There is something there that I do not want to say it as you can figure it out for yourself. In trying to think why there is a distinction between the Israelites and the Gentiles. One of the most important ones. 

Well then, I'll say it.  The difference between Israelites and Gentiles is circumcision.  

[FriendofJonathan]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Can you explain why I would have to be?  Do you only listen and follow "experts"?

Because grammar syntaxes and meaning of words matters, especially when it comes to ancient languages like paleo Hebrew. 

[FriendofJonathan]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Can you explain why I would have to be?  Do you only listen and follow "experts"?

Do you not consider that website to be authentic and scholarly?  Why not, if not?

Also, I met a man once who could read both Hebrew and Koine Greek, and the Bible he carried to church was written in Hebrew for the OT and Koine Greek for the NT.

And he highly recommended biblehub.com for its value in being able to study the original language words.  

If you think my views are only mine, and no one else thinks so, think again.  Regarding why the Septuagint opens Gen 1:2 with "but" is explained here:

“The Hebrew particle wª - "and," which is used to combine the successive links in the chain of this narrative, does not indicate any necessary connection between the sentences it unites.  Besides, so far is it from implying that the parts of a narrative where it occurs are connected by immediate sequence in point of time, a statement which it introduces may be separated by a considerable and even protracted interval from the course of events narrated in the preceding sentence, without any notice being taken of there being such a chasm.  (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)   a highly respected whole Bible commentary

This is their commentary on the words "tohu wabohu" which occur in Gen 1:2, Jer 4:23 and Isa 34:11 -

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used, that the world, which had formerly been a scene of material beauty and order, was by some great convulsion plunged into a state of chaos or widespread disorder and desolation. Hence, some eminent critics, who take this view, render the clause thus: 'But (or afterward) the earth became waste and desolate.' This translation is declared by Kurtz to be inadmissible, as being contrary to the rules of grammatical construction; but Dr. McCaul has shown that the verb haayªtaah 'was,' is, in some twenty places, in this chapter, used as equivalent to 'became,' and that elsewhere it has the same signification without a following Lª - (preposition) (Isa 64:5,9). That the earth was not originally desolate seems also to be implied in Isa 45:18 “

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, 1997, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc.)

btw, if you want to continue with this discussion, please go to the Apologetics forum and the "science and faith" subforum where the subject of earth age has been thoroughly discussed, and if you put my name in the post, you can continue asking questions, making comments, etc.  I don't want to derail my own thread.  Thanks.

 

 

One two-letter word you seemed to have glossed over.  Can you guess what thar word is?

Dr. Michael Heiser (PhD in Hebrew and Greek) explains the grammatical issue of Genesis 1:1-3 quite convincingly.  You should listen to him. 

[FreeGrace]

49 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

  FreeGrace said:

Can you explain why I would have to be?  Do you only listen and follow "experts"?

Because grammar syntaxes and meaning of words matters, especially when it comes to ancient languages like paleo Hebrew. 

So, like, a word can be used in describing God's perfect creation (Gen 1:2) which has no context, AND used in describing total destruction of the land by an invading army?

How does that work, exactly?  I think you are just trying to dodge the obvious issue.

[FriendofJonathan]

1 minute ago, FreeGrace said:

So, like, a word can be used in describing God's perfect creation (Gen 1:2) which has no context, AND used in describing total destruction of the land by an invading army?

How does that work, exactly?  I think you are just trying to dodge the obvious issue.

Obviously, when reading and interpreting scripture, context is important. Just because one word is used more than once does not mean that word has the same application or meaning in all cases. 

For ex: take the word "Elohim".  It appears over 600 times in the OT and does not always refer to the God of creation,  as in Genesis 1:1.  

Context and grammar. Very important. 

[FreeGrace]

47 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

One two-letter word you seemed to have glossed over.  Can you guess what thar word is?

Dr. Michael Heiser (PhD in Hebrew and Greek) explains the grammatical issue of Genesis 1:1-3 quite convincingly.  You should listen to him. 

Amazing!  ignoring everything I posted, just to make a very vague comment that I can't access.  btw, everything I posted is FACT. Since you don't think so, I invite you to address any point that you can and refute facts.  Then we'll see who really has the facts.  How about a web link?

As to Heiser, how do you suggest I hear what he has to say?  And why didn't y0u AT LEAST NAME that "one 2 letter word" that must hold such importance?  

It sure would be nice if your posters were more helpful.

Or, you could have just summarized what you learned about this "grammatical issue" of Gen 1:1-3.

Regardless of Heiser says, FACTS are FACTS.  Did he address how "tohu wabohu" can be used to describe God's original creation in one place AND then describe total destruction of the land in another??  That would be interesting.

And the FACT that both Jeremiah and Isaiah used "tohu wabohu" to describe THE SAME THING;  total destruction.  So how does Moses get a break if he was describing God's original creation?

 

[FreeGrace]

5 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

Obviously, when reading and interpreting scripture, context is important. Just because one word is used more than once does not mean that word has the same application or meaning in all cases. 

Well, here's the FACT.  God left out context for Gen 1:2.  But the Holy Spirit made sure everyone could fully understand the meaning of "tohu wabohu" by including context in Jer 4 and isa 34.  You still have the challenge to explain HOW the 2 words can be used to describe God's original creation in 1 verse but is used to describe total destruction of the land in the other 2 contexts.  That is NOT logical, reasonable or rational.  It is illlgical, unreasonable and irrational.

5 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

For ex: take the word "Elohim".  It appears over 600 times in the OT and does not always refer to the God of creation,  as in Genesis 1:1.  

Context and grammar. Very important. 

How about giving several examples?  Can you do that, or do you just remember that littrle sliver of comment from Heiser?

[FriendofJonathan]

2 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

And why didn't y0u AT LEAST NAME that "one 2 letter word" that must hold such importance?

Or. 

 

57 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used

Two theses. Both can't be right. I accept the first, you know, the one before the two letter word "Or".  

[FriendofJonathan]

4 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

10 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

OT and does not always refer to the God of creation,  as in Genesis 1:1.  

Context and grammar. Very important. 

How about giving several examples?  Can you do that, or do you just remember that littrle sliver of comment from Heiser?

LOL. No, I knew this from long ago when I was studying the word Elohim. Go look for yourself. You'll see. 

[FreeGrace]

23 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

“The analogous use, therefore, of this rare and peculiar phraseology in the verse before us may imply, according to the first sense of the term, that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted; and accordingly it is rendered in the Septuagint version 'invisible and unfurnished.' Or it may signify, according to the second acceptation in which the words are used

Two theses. Both can't be right. I accept the first, you know, the one before the two letter word "Or".  

First, WHAT 2 letter word?  You STILL haven't told me the word.  What are you waiting for?  

As for either of your "two theses", that's the problem.  Here's the definition of thesis:

• a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved: "his central thesis is that psychological life is not part of the material world"Similartheorycontentionargumentline of argument
• a long essay or dissertation involving personal research, written by a candidate for a college degree:

It's only a theory.  either one.  I have given you FACTS, whether you realize that or not.  Deal with FACTS, not theories or theses.

And, I don't know the context for what you said in your post.  And context does matter, when there is one.  In this case, there are TWO contexts, both of which use "tohu wabohu" exactly the same; total destruction of the land.  

And you want me to believe that Moses was only describing God's original creation with those same two words???   

And another problem with your quote above:

"that the world at its creation had neither received its proper shape nor was fit to be tenanted"

The meaning of words is very important.  'shape' is 2 dimensional and 'form' is 3 dimensional.  So the quote is bogus.  God didn't create shapes but forms.  Learn that.

Gen 1:1 is the statement about what God created:  heavens (universe) and earth.

And we know HOW He did that;  He spoke them into existence per Psa 33:6,9.

Those are IMMEDIATE actions.  

take Gen 1:3, for example.  It says, And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light.  Not exactly.  It's much more dramatic than the poor translation.

Lit:  And God said, "Light, be!"  and light was.  Poof.  Or maybe a real big bang.

Instant creation.  That is how God created the heavens and earth.  

And the rest of ch 1 doesn't even address form.  God didn't have to keep fiddling with the form of the earth.  when He spoke the earth into existence, it appeared immediately as a sphere, with no further tweaking, fiddling, etc needed.

And, the translation "without form and void" cannot be reality, for there is no such thing as an object having less than 3 dimensions in this 3 dimensional universe that we find ourselves in.  So the word itself is bogus.

No object is "without form".  The English translators didn't think it through very much.  All they had to do was see how "tohu wabohu" was used in every other passage in the OT, which they obviously didn't do.  Of course, they didn't have biblehub.com to help them.  And translations are done by groups or teams of translators, each being assigned sections of the Bible.  No doubt the team/group that was assigned Genesis was not simultaneously assigned either Jeremiah or Isaiah, obviously.  If they were, they would have realized how "tohu wabohu" was used because of the obvious context.