- This topic has 2,076 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Southern Origins of Yahweh
The name “God,” “El” in Hebrew, also belongs to this Northwest Semitic literary tradition. In Ugaritic texts, the god El is creator, king, and father. “El” is one of the ways Israel addressed and understood God from an early period (Deut 33:26; Ps 68:36). Even the name “Israel,” found first in the 13th-century Merneptah Stele, displays the divine name El.
Israel’s God has another name, however, “Yahweh.” Daniel Sibony calls this name “La plus grande création de la Bible hébraïque.” Yet, as Meindert Dijkstra writes, “The name and character of YHWH appeared out of the blue in the Ancient Near East.” No Yahweh appears in Ugaritic texts. Unlike Baal and El, ancient Palestine knows no Yahweh theophoric place-names.
What is more, it is not merely a matter of the name that scholars have failed to track down. As Ziony Zevit writes, “M. S. Smith’s admirable study of the image of YHWH in light of Canaanite culture attempted to trace the emergence of the Bible’s YHWH from the posited core, but only managed to demonstrate how the layers of recognized persona could have been built up from Canaanite stuff. His research did not uncover the core.” Perhaps that core belongs with the mysterious name, Yahweh. For, as Smith affirms, “Yhwh is grounded in a place outside of Israel”.
The Old Testament itself gives conflicting accounts of how and when Israel came to know the name Yahweh. Yahweh was God of both Israel and Judah, and that might suggest that Yahweh was known quite early. The oldest biblical text that uses the name Yahweh is probably Judg 5:13, 23, and the name’s appearance in Yahwistic names Joshua and Jonathan is also old, although no personal names found in the LB or Iron I Levant contain the name Yahweh. Ancient Near Eastern texts from outside the Bible also attest to Yahweh being the God of Israel; the earliest of these is the Mesha Stele (840 bc).
According to Gen 4:26, people began to “call on the name of Yahweh” close to the origin of the world. Most scholars assign this text to the so-called Yahwist Source. By contrast, the Priestly Writer believes the name was new to Moses (Exod 6:3), or is at least aware of two conflicting accounts and attempts to reconcile them. Biblical scholars have long ignored the testimony of Exodus 6 and assumed Israel knew the name Yahweh “long before the time of Moses,” a view argued by Kittel, Delitzsch, Ewald, Wellhausen, Smend, and Kautzsch among others.
On the other hand, Genesis 4 may not concern the use of the name Yahweh at all. It could simply be a statement about people first worshipping God, a God whom the biblical author naturally knew to be named “Yahweh.” In that case, the text says nothing about what its author thought early people called God and when. If the author of Genesis 4 meant to say that in Enosh’s time people began to address God by the Tetragrammaton, there were many easier ways to say that (as in Gen 9:20; 10:8).
Some scholars have found the etymology of “Yahweh” relevant for the name’s (and the God’s) origin. First, we must establish that the name is, in fact, Yahweh. The Mesha Stele preserves the form identical to the Hebrew Bible, יהוה .The form Yah occurs in personal names and in words like hallelujah, but also in Exod 15:2; Isa 12:2; and Ps 68:19.27. These two forms, Yah and the tetragrammaton, occur together on the Khirbet Beit Lei Inscription, c. 700 bc.
What, does “Yahweh” mean? Discussing its etymology, which exposes even the most sober scholars to “a mystical infection,” is a very large and complicated subject into which we need not try to enter very deeply. Frank Moore Cross, noting the repeated use of the phrase Yahweh Ṣebaot, “Yahweh of hosts” (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2), and interpreting Yahweh etymologically as a causative form, “to create,” interpreted Yahweh Ṣebaot as the designation “creates armies” and argued it was merely an epithet of El: “El creates armies.” John Day, followed by others, noted both that Cross was wrong in his etymology of Yahweh and that the epithet “El creates armies” not showing up at Ugarit was fatal. While Cross is no doubt correct that Israel equated Yahweh with El, the origin of the name Yahweh is independent of El.
This same chapter of Exodus 3 that presents the Tetragrammaton, introduces in v 1 Moses’ “father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian,” a title he is again given in Exod 18:1.45 Exodus 18 continues in v 9 (ESV, with the proper name Yahweh as it appears in the MT),
9And Jethro rejoiced for all the good that Yahweh had done to Israel, in that he had delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians.
10 Jethro said, “Blessed be Yahweh, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh and has delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. 11Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all gods, because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people.” 12And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God.The plain sense is that the priesthood of Jethro is a priesthood of Yahweh. Admittedly, the text only ever calls him a priest of God (El), but Yahweh is the name used in vv 9–11. The author might envision Jethro as a priest of some other god(s) and intend that v 11 reflect a realization that Yahweh is greater than those other gods, and that is, in fact, how Judaism has traditionally interpreted the passage. Yet as Morgenstern wrote, “It is not the cry of a hiterhto half-convinced and hesitating convert to a new faith, but rather the exultant shout of an old and loyal worshiper and champion of Yahweh.” Some Jewish traditions noted rightly that the “conversion” interpretation would require a mental “conversion” before v 9, only voiced in v 11, as well as the awkward fact of Moses’ marriage into a non-Yahwistic family. Before this chapter, Jethro (and by extension, his daughter Zipporah) is never presented as a polytheist or “pagan” of any sort. Moreover, the fact that it is Jethro who makes the offering in v 12 (stated even stronger in the Syriac, Targumim, and Vulgate, where he not only “brings” it but also burns it) requires that his priesthood has at a minimum somehow automatically transferred to Yahweh. The more natural interpretation is that the author believes Jethro’s was always a priesthood of Yahweh. Note that Jethro knows the name “Yahweh” in v 10 before Moses has even told him about it. The strength of this reading caused some rabbinic traditions to say that Jethro was such a great Yahwistic saint that when he arrived at the Israelite camp, even the Shekinah went out to meet him.
Exodus 3:1 calls the father-in-law of Moses by the name Jethro and states that he was a Midianite. Num 10:29, however, refers to Hobab son of Reuel, stating that either Hobab or Reuel is Moses’ Midianite father-in-law, although it is not clear which. That Hobab is to guide Israel through the wilderness suggests he is meant to be the younger man, and Reuel is the father, although Haupt argued that “Hobab” was the Edomite word for “father-in-law.” Exod 2:18 calls Moses’ father-in-law Reuel, while in Judg 4:11, Hobab is the father-in-law. In Judges 4, however, Hobab is a Kenite, as is the unnamed father-in-law in Judg 1:16, named Hobab in the Septuagint. Reuel is called a priest in Exod 2:18, just as Jethro is. The easy explanation, at least since Driver, Kittel, Bentzen, and Noth, is that Jethro is E, Hobab is J, and Reuel is P. Quite a number of scholars, however, have resisted this answer. Benno Jacob argued that Jethro could not be Hobab since Moses would not have asked the priest to leave Midian (cf. Num 10:29). Milgrom prefers an explanation where Hobab, the young desert scout, is from the clan of Reuel the father-in-law, since Reuel appears to be a clan name in Gen 25:3 LXX; Gen 36:17; and 1 Chron 1:35–37. Since Hobab means the same thing as Reuel, “friend [of God],” it makes most sense to see them as variants referring to the same person.
These names allow us to make connections in other texts, shedding more light on the intended ethnicity of Moses’ father-in-law. Genesis 36:4 has a son of Esau named Reuel, the half-brother of Eliphaz father of Amalek (by a Horite woman named Timna). Benno Jacob believed this was the same Reuel and that he was an Edomite who had moved to Midian. In any case, the text is linking Midianites with Edomites and with Amalekites (as does 1 Samuel 14:35; 15:5–7; 27:5–11, which also includes Jerahmeel[ites]). Amalekites ally with Midianites in Judges 6 and 7.
The Song of Deborah, to which we shall return, makes a fascinating connection between Israel and Amalek. Verse Judges 5:14 reads, “From Ephraim is their ancestry, in Amalek, following you, Benjamin, with your kin.” The translation here is not in question. This might mean some of the Ephraimites (and Benjaminites?) lived among Amalekites; it is hard to see how it could mean that Amalekites had been absorbed into Ephraim or that there was an Amalekite enclave in Ephraim. It could simply preserve the memory of some past defeat of Amalekites on a mountain of Ephraim, historical or otherwise, but it might also have something to do with Amalekites lurking in the background of Israel’s identity.
Jethro is priest of Midian, and other texts associate Midian with Yahweh and with Israel’s early identity. We shall return to discuss Habakkuk 3 in more detail, but the end of God’s “theophany from the South” that we will consider mentions Midian. Verse 7 reads, “I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction; the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.” This is not a detached reference; v 7a corresponds to v 3a (in the theophany) in that both have subject + geographic term + verb, and v 7b corresponds to 3b with both having subject + variant geographic term. So Midian is presented as akin to the locations from which Yahweh comes. The “Cushan” in this passage is often used to identify the “Cush” of Moses’ “Cushite” wife in Numbers 12 as another name for Midian and not Ethiopia, thereby confirming the rabbinic view that Moses had only one wife: Zipporah the Midianite was that wife, and there was no second, Ethiopian wife. Aḥituv identifies this Cush(an) with a Kush appearing in Execration Text E50–51 and the Tale of Sinuhe (B.220). Such a reading of Numbers 12 is strained, however, as the larger point, “critique of both of Moses’ marriages by establishing a clear boundary against foreign (Midianite/Cushite) women in the next generation, turning them into forbidden partners,” is served by Cush having its ordinary meaning, Ethiopia. The Septuagint reads, “Ethiopia,” and the context requires this being a new marriage. Exod 18:2 states that Moses had sent Zipporah away, i. e., divorced her.
Midian also appears in the Song of Deborah, another “theophany from the South” to be examined below. Verse 10 reads, “Tell of it, you who ride on tawny donkeys, you rulers of Midian, and you who walk by the way.” There really is no “context” here, as the “song” seems to be a mishmash of unrelated pieces. So what is a Midianite in the mind of the biblical writers? The biblical texts makes the Midianites the offspring of Abraham and his wife Keturah. They ranged widely (Gen 28:2); some are near to Sinai with Jethro (cf. 1 Kgs 11:17–18), others near to Mounts Tabor and Moreh (Judges 6; Isa 9:3; 10:26; Ps 83:10), still others far to the east at Karkor (Judg 8:10). Midianites were both sedentary (Num 31:10; Josh 13:21) and nomadic (Exod 2:16–19; 3:1; Judg 8:11). Judg 7:25 has retreating Midianite kings flee across the Jordan, and 1 Kings 11 places Midian itself south of Edom on the major trade routes extending from Arabia to Egypt and from both to Edom. This makes Midian a broad area of what is now southwestern Jordan and northwestern Arabia, likely centered on the Wadi ʿIfal east of the Gulf of Aqaba as well as the plateau of Hisma beyond that.
Hobab is a Kenite. The biblical writers’ concept of the Kenites is even more ambiguous than the Midianites. Judg 5:24 says the Kenites are “tent-dwellers.” Gen 15:19 places the “Kenites and Kenizzites” in the land of Canaan. In Gen 36:11, the sons of Esau’s grandson Eliphaz (father of Amalek) include both Kenaz and Teman. The two are linked again in vv 14–15, where the “chiefs of the sons of Esau” (Heb. אלופים ,a term used only of Edomites and Horites [Exod 15:15]; LXX εγεμωνς) include Chief Teman and Chief Kenaz. 1 Chron 2:55 mentions the “Kenites who descend from Hammath, the father of the Rechabites.” Knights interpreted this as “Kenites who came from Hamath, capital of Beth Rechab,” but there is no such place and Hammath here is a personal name, not a place name. Given what is elsewhere said about Rechabites, the former reading is preferable. Rabbinic tradition made the Rechabites descendants of Jethro (T. Sanh. 106a; Exodus Rabbah 1.12; Mekhilta to Exod 18:27; Sifre Numbers 78; Yalkut Shimoni Prophets 38), always with reference to 1 Chron 2:55.
In the core traditions of the Exodus narrative, as Kenton Sparks writes, “The Midianites prove crucial to the very survival of Moses and his mission”: as guides in the desert, in the subdivision of society, and potentially as an adjunct to the Israelite community although Jethro declines the invitation. Moreover, the oldest traditions say the name “Yahweh” was learned in Midian.134 The Kenites are always portrayed as Yahwistic (e.g., Judg 4:17; 5:24; 1 Sam 15:6; 27:10; 30:29).135 They are connected with the Rechabites, whose zeal for Yahwism was renowned, untouched by “Canaanite cults” – precisely the “Ugarit-free” I am after in this study, and who abstained from alcohol.
The nature of the Kenites expands when they are connected with Cain. The spelling is identical, and in fact the word translated “Kenite(s)” in Num 24:22 and Judg 4:11 is simply “Cain.” The only problem would be that the line of Cain ought to have been exterminated in the Flood, although such issues are often overlooked in the Hebrew Bible. The origins of the name Yahweh in Midian, a Midian/Kenite who worships Yahweh before the Exodus, both early traditions, and the identity of the ethnic groups involved as nomadic smiths,150 led over a century ago to the so-called Kenite Hypothesis. Often the poetic passages ascribing “southern origins” to Yahweh himself. Of the two traditions for the origin of Yahweh-worship, that in Gen 4:26 immediately follows the story of Cain and that in Exodus occurs in the Kenite- Midianite community. Through Caleb (Num 13:6, 30; 14:24; Josh 14:13–14) and through the Rechabites, the Kenites are renowned for Yahwistic zeal.
The tradition in 1 Samuel 30 that the Kenites are nomadic may be early. The Kenites-Amalekite connection is also old; 1 Samuel 15 is “part of the oldest traditions,” where Saul is not rejected but rebuked. 1 Samuel 27 is pre-Deuteronomistic, the entire chapter lacking Deuteronomistic language. Caleb’s story in Numbers 13 is from the so-called Yahwist, but preserving some earlier traditions. Caleb’s account in Joshua 14 is the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian, but using earlier material since it seems to be a free-floating fragment only placed here as the least problematic locus. Noting that Judges 6– 8 is already presupposed by Isa 9:4, the connection of Midianites and Amalekites in Judges 6 and 7 is pre-DtrH. The Midianite-Kenite connection, the nomadic status of Midianites, the ethnic identity of Caleb as Kenite/Kenizzite, and the story of the Rechabites, are all late Pre-Exilic memorats.
This Traditions History shows that at least as early as, say, 700, Israelite thinkers had a tradition that there were non-Israelite Yahweh-worshippers in the region just to the north and northeast of the Gulf of Aqaba—pastoralists, smiths, and musicians known as Kenites or Midianites (related to Amalek)—and that Yahweh in name at least entered Israel through their influence…..(taken from the book “Yahweh: Origin of a Desert God”)
Hi Mike,
So there you have it. Both are acceptable, and both are used by millions of people today, just as both were used at various times in the Bible
NO Mike it is only your mentality when it comes to the bible!
Read what you said:
You: For example, Jesus also speaks of the events “back in the days (plural) of Noah”. (Matt 24:37, etc) We know from the plural “days” that they are literal days, but we don’t know how many of them.
But Jesus could have also used the singular “day”(back in the day of Noah) to make his point.
Mike, NO HE COULDN’T! Jesus was specifically talking about Noah’s days, and He couldn’t use the singular form day, IT IS ONLY YOUR CORRUPTED REASONING!
Who wrote the scripture also was not in the habit to use either or!
You: Therefore there is no need to address your novel of scriptural examples which has no bearing on my point anyway.
YES, Mike, apart from that I didn’t address my scripture JUST FOR YOU, I made it clear that the scriptures I produced had no option to use either or, THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY EITHER PLURAL OR SINGULAR IN RELATION TO CONTEXT!
NOW PRODUCE ONE SCRIPTURE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR REASONING!
IN THE MEANTIME WHAT YOU SAID IS DEBUNKED!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Gene: This debate is ……Did this earth and the heavens exist “before” the first day of Gods present creation take place?
I say, the “key” word is the word (WAS) . In verse 2, I say that word strongly indicates it did preexist “before” the Six day creation took place…
The word “WAS” is the most common, most obvious, and default past tense translation of the word “IS”, Gene. Moses couldn’t rightly say that the earth IS formless and void 2000 years later, right? So what is the normal way to indicate that the earth USED TO BE formless and void? The word “WAS” is the normal way to do that.
Your entire case is: The earth God created USED TO BE formless and void before it was habitable, which means there was a previous earth that was destroyed by Satan.
That isn’t even a rational argument, Gene. There is nothing in the entire Bible that could even remotely draw a rational person to that conclusion.
On the other hand, there is a ton of scriptural evidence that shoots down your irrational conclusion, including Yahweh Himself explicitly telling us that the very creation of the heaven and the earth are INCLUDED in the six days of creation. And there’s this scriptural teaching…
Psalm 102:25… In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Was your imagined “previous earth” so utterly destroyed that God had to start all over from scratch, including laying an entirely new foundation? (PLEASE DIRECTLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION.)
Gene: Modern science backs that up also, in many ways.
Ahh… there’s the real culprit, Gene. You know there is nothing in scripture to indicate that we are living on a SECOND earth, and the “previous earth” simply wasn’t mentioned anywhere. Your entire case is based on your blind belief that a man can “test” a rock and determine that it was formed “billions of years ago” – and that men can look at the lights in the sky and determine that they are giant fireballs that are moving away from us, and therefore they must have all been at one hot, dense point of singularity in the distant past. This is utter nonsense, and there is no “modern science” that indicates any such thing. There is only the cult of Scientism – of which you are a member.
Gene: You knock down the word “WAS”, Then you might have a fighting chance Mike, IMO
So I have to defend the most common and obvious word to describe something that USED TO BE against a completely irrational claim from you that the word “WAS” – in and of itself – is a secret indication that we’re living on God’s SECOND earth because the Most High God was powerless to stop His own creation, Satan, from completely destroying the first one? Okay… challenge accepted.
John 1:2… The Word was with God in the beginning.
Gene, should we translate that as, “The Word CAME TO BE with God in the beginning.” ?
Yes or no, and why or why not?
Adam: In fact I have come out of all my beliefs and now on rational position of understanding these ancient religious texts.
And how are we to determine the validity of your claim that you are being “rational” and actually “understanding” ancient texts? You continually post very long writings that offer no actual proof of their claims, and then refuse to defend those claims under scrutiny.
In the “Many Gods” thread, although you haven’t been able to defend a claim that one of your sources makes about Deut 32:8-9, you’ve told me to stop asking you about it. Why should I stop asking you about something that you’ve refused to answer in the first place? And why would you refuse to answer it anyway? Are you unable to defend the claims that you copy, paste, and promote here – all while making the baseless claim that you are now in a “rational position of understanding”?
Why would anyone believe you when you are unable to answer a simple question? 🤔
Berean: Hi Mike
I really appreciate all of your replies and comments.
best wishes.Thanks Berean. I reciprocate that notion. 👍
Adam: I am finding many answers to my life long queries on these ancient Biblical texts.
Are you really? Perhaps you’d highlight the best “answers” you’ve found, so we can evaluate the crux of your position without having to read huge volumes of ignorant people spouting off about things they couldn’t possibly prove. Here, I’ll get you started…
Deut 32:8-9…When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh’s portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.
Adam’s claim (actually the claim of one of his sources): This passage proves that the one called “the Most High” is the Canaanite god El, and that Yahweh is a subservient, local tribal god who was given the nation of Israel by the Canaanite god El.
My question: Which words in that passage actually PROVE such a silly notion?
I read that passage like this…
When YAHWEH gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh’s portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance.
Now Adam, tell us directly and honestly how my understanding of the passage can’t possibly be the truth, and that the one called “the Most High” absolutely MUST be the Canaanite god El, and not Yahweh Himself.
Either show us the PROOF that the words could ONLY be understood the way you promote them, or ADMIT to everyone that there isn’t any actual PROOF of your claim.
Carmel: Jeremiah1:5Before I FORMED thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and MADE thee a prophet unto the nations.
Philippians 2:7 But emptied himself, taking the FORM of a servant, being MADE in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.
In the above two verses, the words FORMED and MADE don’t MEAN THE SAME EXACT THING. NO?
Looks to me like you’ve been busy trying to find any verses in which “formed” and “made” mean different things, in an effort to salvage your lost case. 😁
In the first verse, “formed” speaks of creating Jeremiah, and “made” speaks of God establishing Jeremiah as a prophet. So no, they don’t mean the same thing in this case. Nor would they mean the same thing even if it said, “I MADE you in the bowels of your mother and I MADE you a prophet.”
So even using the SAME EXACT word two times wouldn’t make them mean the same thing in this case – just like my use of the term “make them” in this very sentence doesn’t mean “created them”. 🙄
On the other hand, had God said to Jeremiah, “I formed you in the bowels of your mother, I made you in her inner parts”, then the words “formed” and “made” WOULD BE two different ways of saying the same thing.
Your second verse, Phil 2:7, doesn’t include the past tense “formed”, so it doesn’t even apply.
I wonder how many hours you spent looking at verses that contained various combinations of “created”, “made”, “formed” and “established” to find something you thought you could use to make your point. And after all that time, was Jeremiah 1:5 the ONLY one you could find – even though it’s clear to a third grader that “making” someone in general and “making” them a priest or prophet or whatever are two completely different things? 😂
Okay, I indulged your pathetic diversion. Now back to my point that you ignored…
Genesis 2:4… This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
My question is simple…
Carmel, is Gen 2:4 speaking of two different heavens and earths? YES or NO please?
Gene: Mike……here is anotger honest answer for you,
JOHN 1V1……“in the beginning (was) the word (intellegent utterance), and the word, (intellegent uterance ) was with God, and the word (intellegent utterance) was God.
Point 0ne…
Point two…
Point three…
Point four…
Hi Gene. The points that you addressed have nothing to do with why I brought up John 1:1-2… and you know it. I brought it up because I know that you believe the “word” is the “intelligent utterance” of God. And my question is about the word “was”…
John 1:2… The Word was with God in the beginning.
Gene, does the word “was” mean that the Word “CAME TO BE” with God in the beginning? Yes or No? And why or why not?
Mike: But Jesus could have also used the singular “day”(back in the day of Noah) to make his point.
Carmel: Mike, NO HE COULDN’T! Jesus was specifically talking about Noah’s days, and He couldn’t use the singular form day…
First of all, you’re blatantly wrong…
Let’s begin by pointing out that the phrase “back in the day” has been around since at least the 1940s, and the phrase “back in the days” has been around a lot longer, since the 18th century.
But in those earlier usages, “back in the day” and “back in the days” were part of larger phrases that referred literally to specific periods in the past.
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/09/back-in-the-day-2.html
Both idioms are acceptable, and both refer to general time periods. The only difference is that in the idiom “back in the day”, the singular word “day” refers to the entire time period. In the idiom “back in the days”, the plural word “days” refers to LITERAL days that together make up the general time period being referenced.
1. “Day” refers to an entire general time period.
2. “Days” refers to LITERAL days WITHIN a general time period.
And secondly, you have just checkmated yourself…
Carmel: Jesus was specifically talking about Noah’s days…
Exodus 20:11… For in six days the LORD made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them…
To use your own argument… Yahweh was specifically talking about the DAYS of creation.
There has never been a time in the history of the earth where the plural word “days” has NOT referred to literal days.
Gen 3:14… you will eat dust all the days of your life… Literal days!
Gen 6:4… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days… Literal days!
Gen 7:17… For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth… Literal days!
Exodus 20:11… For in six days the LORD made the heaven and the earth… Literal days!
Luke 17:26… Just as it was in the days of Noah… Literal days!
Carmel, I challenge you to find one single historical use of the plural word “days”, Biblical or otherwise, where that word does NOT refer to LITERAL days. If you cannot, then please be HONEST enough to admit it.
Anyone else notice that Proclaimer has been absent for 3 weeks? He’s posted a couple of links and memes, but he hasn’t engaged in any discussions here in a long time. I believe it’s because he is stuck. He can’t answer my questions from our private thread, but he also knows that I will continue to call him out for dishonorably breaking his own rules by posting before answering my “Must Answer” questions.
Anyway, here’s where we are in the private thread…
This is my previous Must Answer question from 3 weeks ago that still remains unanswered…
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT THE SUN, MOON AND STARS ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE GOD MADE THEM ON DAY FOUR… OR OPENLY ACNKOWLEDGE THAT NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS EXISTS.
Here’s my next oldest “Must Answer” question at the end of my answer to Proclaimer’s “Must Answer” question – from 2 weeks ago…
Proclaimer: Micah 7:11: ‘The day of building your walls will come, the day for extending your boundaries. In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt.
IN MICAH 7:11, IS THE VERSE TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE 12 OR 24 HOUR DAY? YES OR NO.
Mike: I think it refers to Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, so NO.
BUT WHAT IF THE MICAH PROPHECY HAD SAID THIS…
IN THE EVENING OF THE FIRST DAY OF REBUILDING YOUR WALLS, PEOPLE WILL COME TO YOU FROM ASSYRIA, AND BY THE MORNING OF THE SECOND DAY OF REBUILDING YOUR WALLS, THEY WILL BEGIN TO ARRIVE FROM THE CITIES OF EGYPT.NOW ARE WE TALKING ABOUT LITERAL DAYS?
And here’s my “Must Answer” question from last week…
PROCLAIMER, DOES THE PLURAL WORD “DAYS” EVER REFER TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN LITERAL DAYS IN THE BIBLE? YES OR NO? AND IF YES, SHOW THE SCRIPTURE(S).
And since a week has gone by again without a question or answer from Proclaimer, here is my newest “Must Answer” question…
PROCLAIMER, WHY IS THE EARTH ALWAYS LISTED AS SEPARATE FROM THE SEA IN THE BIBLE?
Mike…….simple answer, because the word of God “was and is” always God, Just as your words was and alway is you. God’s words is how he expresses himself, just as your words do you.
The word simply means (intellegent utterance) and it “was,” in the beginning (existing) with God and was God, in the beginning. JUST AS YOUR WORDS (intellegent utterances) EXIST WITH YOU AND “ARE” YOU. Same simple truth applies to us all.
We are all known and will be judged by our words , why?, because our words are from us, and express from the heart, who we are, same applies to God the Father.
God “was” in the beginning of all things and so was his word, why because he and his words are one the same person, just as our words and us are the same person. Simple as that.
Only “false teachers”, try to seperate God the Fathers words from him and present it as being someone else.
You seem to have a problem with the word, (was) , I gave you the dictionary meaning several time now , “was” simply means (it came to be ) as in, existed that way.
The word, (intellegent utterance) do not come to be God, it was, (existed) with God, and it was the (intellegent utterance) or expression of God, God and his words are one and the same person. Just as you and your words are.
Better question is why are you so confused about the word (was), when I clearly gave you what the dictionary , “clearly” said what it meant?
Peace and love to you and yours………gene
Gene: You seem to have a problem with the word, (was) , I gave you the dictionary meaning several time now , “was” simply means (it came to be ) as in, existed that way.
The word, (intellegent utterance) do not come to be God, it was, (existed) with God, and it was the (intellegent utterance) or expression of God, God and his words are one and the same person. Just as you and your words are.
Better question is why are you so confused about the word (was), when I clearly gave you what the dictionary , “clearly” said what it meant?
Maybe I’m confused because you claim that the word “was” in Gen 1:2 means that the earth CAME TO BE formless and void, but then insist that the word “was” in John 1:2 can’t possibly mean that the Word of God CAME TO BE with God.
It seems to me that if it can mean “CAME TO BE” in Gen 1:2, then it can also mean “CAME TO BE” in John 1:2. On the other hand, if “was” simply refers to the state of something in the past, like God being with His Word – and doesn’t imply that this past state CAME TO BE from another previous state, then it can also refer to a past state of the earth in Gen 1:2 – without implying that the earth CAME TO BE in that state from another previous state.
You can’t have it both ways, Gene. Either the word “was” means “came to be” in BOTH Gen 1:2 AND John 1:2… or it simply describes a past state in BOTH verses – without any implication whatsoever that this state CAME TO BE from a different state.
So which is it? The earth CAME TO BE formless and the Word CAME TO BE with God? Or the earth WAS formless and the Word WAS with God?
Mike…..It’s both, the word came to be , at that (time), when? , when God “SAID”,(intellegent utterance), “let there “be” , thats our only proof when the word came into being (at), that time , but it dosen’t mean the word didn’t exist before that time, but at that picticular time , it was there , why because God who skoke it was there. Every word comming from a person is the person they came from. Simple as that. Words are spirits just as Jesus said they were, and they express the person they came from, you and your words are one and the same. THAT IS WHY WE SHALL ALL BE JUDGED BY OUR OWN WORDS, WHY, BECAUSE THEY ARE WHO WE ARE.
God and his words are one and the same thing, just as you and your words are Mike. You can’t be seperated from your words they are you, unles you a quoting someone, as Jesus was quoting God the Fathers words to us. Then the words you are speaking are someone elses words as Jesus said, “the words i am telling you are (NOT) my words but the words of him who sent me.”
Peace and love to you and yours Mike……..gene
Gene
Revelation 19v.13 IS the REVELATION OF THE TRUTH ABOUT * THE WORD* of John 1v.1
And he *Jesus *was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called* The Word of God.*
Gene, Are you going to believe this word of God?
Hi Mike,
Carmel: According to Google fight, back in the days seems more popular: 1,800,000,000 against 584,000,000.
You: So there you have it. Both are acceptable, and both are used by millions of people today, just as both were used at various times in the Bible.
Produce scripture please that supports your conclusions!
You: Therefore there is no need to address your novel of scriptural examples which has no bearing on my point anyway.
Me : YOU’VE BEEN SAYING NO NOVELS FOR QUITE A LONG TIME!
NOW YOU ARE SAYING NO SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES!
According to you, I must as well not answer you at all in whatever manner I feel justified,
SO YOU KEEP ON TELLING NONSENSE?
ME: Mike, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT IN ACTUAL FACT GOD WAS EXHAUSTED AND RESTED?
You: The word means “ceased”. God ceased from the creative work He had been doing on the previous six days. It had nothing to do with God being “tired”.
LET’S SEE!
Me: On the seventh day, according to Exodus 31:17, God “rested and was refreshed.” Why would an omnipotent and inexhaustible God need to be “refreshed”?
It’s the same Hebrew word used for getting your breath back after running a long race (Ex. 23:2; 2 Sam. 16:14). The reason it is not improper to say that God was refreshed is the same reason it’s not improper to say that God breathes, hovers, is like a potter, gardens, searches, asks questions, comes down, THE LIST IS ENDLESS!
all images of God used in Genesis.
God’s revelation to us is analogical NO? (neither entirely identical nor entirely dissimilar) and anthropomorphic (accommodated and communicated from our perspective in terms we can understand).
So when God refers to “days,” does he want us to mentally substitute the word “eons” or “ages”? No.
Does he want us to think of precise units of time, marked by 24 exact hours as the earth makes a rotation on its axis? No.
Does he want us to think of the Hebrew workday? Yes, AS YOU SAID,
BUT in an analogical and anthropomorphic sense. Just as the “seventh day” makes us think of an ordinary calendar day (even though it isn’t technically a 24-hour period),
so the other “six days” are meant to be read in the same way.NO?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Hi Mike,
You: Okay, time to take a different tack…
CARMEL, DOES THE PLURAL WORD “DAYS” EVER REFER TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN LITERAL 24-HOUR DAYS IN THE BIBLE? YES OR NO? AND IF YES, SHOW THE SCRIPTURE(S).
Me: Mike from that same page, and the same post I asked this question hereunder:
Answer Mike,
DO YOU MEAN THAT GENESIS 1:1 IS A SORT OF SUMMARY OF WHICH TO FOLLOW?
YES OR NO PLEASE:
Don’t you think that you should FIRST answer the above question, please?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Berean, i quoted exactly what Jesus himself said , question is do you really “believe” him ? Jesus is called the word of God , because he “quotes” God the Fathers words to us, not because he really “IS” God the Fathers words “HIMSELF”, But, tells us the words of God the father, get it? , why can’t you simply understand that? Is it because your church has brain washed you or blinded you from the truth, or God has sent unto you a deluding Spirit, so you are unable to even understand that, “simple truth”?
Peace and love to you and your Berean………gene
Gene
👇
And he( Jesus)was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Hi Berean,
You: Carmel
You are on dangerous ground…
ME: YOU ARE PART OF IT!
Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
You: Not everything you say is ROCK BASED. RETURN TO THE SIMPLICITY AND PURITY OF GOD’S WORD.
God bless
Me: ONLY SCRIPTURE DETERMINES THAT!
TILL THEN
MY STANDS!
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
