- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Friends,
Can God change? I believe He can but there are some here who have difficulty with this concept. They misapply Malachi 3:6 where God said “I change not”. But this simply means that when God makes a promise, threat or speaks a word of any kind that it cannot change because His character cannot change. The statement in Malachi speaks nothing of God's ability or inability to become a man. The Hebrew Scripture itself seems to indicate that God can indeed change. The online Hebrew-English Interlinear reads thus,“I shall become what I am becoming.”
http.//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
But on the Trinity 2 thread this use of “hayah” was explained away. We were told that “hayah” does not refer to a manner of existence but only refers to “function”. In other words, in reference to Christ God was merely functioning as a man but He did not become a man.
Let's apply this approach to “hayah” in the case of the rod of Moses becoming a serpent. In Exodus 4 it says that the rod of Moses would “become” a serpent. The word for “become” is “hayah” in this instance. Did the rod of Moses remain a rod that merely “functioned” as a serpent? Or did the rod of Moses actually become a serpent and then “function” as such? Would it have been possible for a rod to just lie there on the floor of the palace and just start acting like a serpent without being changed? The thought is nonsense!
So God could not “function” as a man without actually becoming a man. So the “function” explanation can't work and is just a feeble attempt to explain away a clear statement God made of Himsef. He said,
Quote I shall become what I am becoming I anticipate that a certain individual is going to invoke his “expert” sources that will say that “hayah” in Exodus 3:14 simply refers to “function.” But the explanation must stand the test of reason and I have just shown here that it does not.
I have contacted the former Pastor of my church. Several years ago he left our church to receive a call from a well known seminary in Tennessee. He was the Professor of Old testament studies and during his tenure there published several books. He now pastors a church in Mississippi. He is an honored Hebrew scholar. I have asked him if he would email me his commentary on Exodus 3:14 so I could paste it on this thread. I will be anxiously awaiting his reply.
In Christ,
thinkerHiTT,
Number 1961
Transliteration:
hayah {haw-yaw}
Word Origin:
a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT – 491
TWOT:
491
Part of Speech:
verb
Usage in the KJV:
was 0, come to pass 0, came 0, has been 0, were happened 0, become 0, pertained 0, better for thee 0Total: 0
Definition:
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
(Qal)
—–
to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become
to arise, appear, come
to become
to become
to become like
to be instituted, be established
to be
to exist, be in existence
to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
to accompany, be with
(Niphal)
to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
to be done, be finished, be goneSurely you would not offer that we build on the foundation of one possible meaning of a word in scripture??
Time does not apply to God but it is a measure for the sake of creation.
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 13 2009,20:11) Friends,
Can God change? I believe He can but there are some here who have difficulty with this concept. They misapply Malachi 3:6 where God said “I change not”. But this simply means that when God makes a promise, threat or speaks a word of any kind that it cannot change because His character cannot change. The statement in Malachi speaks nothing of God's ability or inability to become a man. The Hebrew Scripture itself seems to indicate that God can indeed change. The online Hebrew-English Interlinear reads thus,“I shall become what I am becoming.”
http.//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
But on the Trinity 2 thread this use of “hayah” was explained away. We were told that “hayah” does not refer to a manner of existence but only refers to “function”. In other words, in reference to Christ God was merely functioning as a man but He did not become a man.
Let's apply this approach to “hayah” in the case of the rod of Moses becoming a serpent. In Exodus 4 it says that the rod of Moses would “become” a serpent. The word for “become” is “hayah” in this instance. Did the rod of Moses remain a rod that merely “functioned” as a serpent? Or did the rod of Moses actually become a serpent and then “function” as such? Would it have been possible for a rod to just lie there on the floor of the palace and just start acting like a serpent without being changed? The thought is nonsense!
So God could not “function” as a man without actually becoming a man. So the “function” explanation can't work and is just a feeble attempt to explain away a clear statement God made of Himsef. He said,
Quote I shall become what I am becoming I anticipate that a certain individual is going to invoke his “expert” sources that will say that “hayah” in Exodus 3:14 simply refers to “function.” But the explanation must stand the test of reason and I have just shown here that it does not.
I have contacted the former Pastor of my church. Several years ago he left our church to receive a call from a well known seminary in Tennessee. He was the Professor of Old testament studies and during his tenure there published several books. He now pastors a church in Mississippi. He is an honored Hebrew scholar. I have asked him if he would email me his commentary on Exodus 3:14 so I could paste it on this thread. I will be anxiously awaiting his reply.
In Christ,
thinker
Thinker,
I do not remember saying that I AM means function. I said it means “I exist.”I find it of interest that you downgrade my sources but insist that yours are “expert” and right. That seems a bit hypocritical to me. Aren’t you the one that trusts no man’s interpretation? Are you not the one that says all men are evil at heir core? How can this pastor of yours, who is evil at the core and untrustworthy come up with a proper interpretation of the word. You ask us to trust what you and your former pastor say about this word but in another breath tell us that all men are evil/wicked at their core and untrustworthy. It sounds to me like the ones that are evil and untrustworthy are the ones who have the audacity to disagree with your theories. Imagine that!
Thinker,
The Moses and the snake example is still referring directly to the situation that is being talked about and the snake was/existed/exists/became in the present time of the future event that was being talked about.
What you are trying to prove is that hayah can mean that God will become something at a future time that is not related to the event that is directly being talked about and that is not what the word means.
Martian said:
Quote I do not remember saying that I AM means function. I said it means “I exist.” Martian,
About Exodus 3:14 you said that “hayah” means to function. On Jan 26 2009, 05:16 you wrote:Quote While it is true that YHWH can at times mean to become this is a matter of function not appearance. In other words it is not that YHWH would appear as a man, but that a man would function with the same character as YHWH. So you see that you said say that “hayah” means “function” in reference to Exodus 3:14. I pointed out to your your inconsistency then and will repeat it here. It says that YHWH will function. Yet you turn it around and make it a man functioning as YHWH. The text does NOT say that another will function as YHWH. It says that YHWH will function if “hayah” indeed means to function in this instance. YHWH is doing the functioning. You can't even be consistent with what the text says about it.
Martian said:
Quote I find it of interest that you downgrade my sources but insist that yours are “expert” and right. That seems a bit hypocritical to me. Aren’t you the one that trusts no man’s interpretation? Are you not the one that says all men are evil at heir core? How can this pastor of yours, who is evil at the core and untrustworthy come up with a proper interpretation of the word. You got a point here. My reply is two-fold. First, I overstated the case. Though man is evil at the core he will put his slant in things but not necessarily all the time. I checked out what my former pastor said for myself when he said this several years ago. I did not just accept it. I trust no man. Second, I will grant that your sources may be right sometimes. But I get the impression you just blindly accept what they say.
thinker
Meerkat said:
Quote The Moses and the snake example is still referring directly to the situation that is being talked about and the snake was/existed/exists/became in the present time of the future event that was being talked about. What you are trying to prove is that hayah can mean that God will become something at a future time
that is not related to the event that is directly being talked about and that is not what the word means.[/quote]
Meerkat,
I am not merely trying to prove that YHWH can become something at some future time though that is included. I am trying to show that YHWH can become whatever He wants AT ANY TIME.It says that the Messenger of YHWH appeared to Moses as a burning bush. Now Martian makes an ontological distinction between the messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. But the messenger of YHWH identifies Himself as YHWH in the text. Therefore, it was YHWH who appeared to Moses as a burning bush. So we see that YHWH did “become” something that was directly related to that situation. He became a burning bush. And since YHWH meant that He would become what He wants to become in any situation at any time, then He can become a man.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 15 2009,20:35) Meerkat said: Quote The Moses and the snake example is still referring directly to the situation that is being talked about and the snake was/existed/exists/became in the present time of the future event that was being talked about. What you are trying to prove is that hayah can mean that God will become something at a future time
that is not related to the event that is directly being talked about and that is not what the word means.[/quote]
Meerkat,
I am not merely trying to prove that YHWH can become something at some future time though that is included. I am trying to show that YHWH can become whatever He wants AT ANY TIME.It says that the Messenger of YHWH appeared to Moses as a burning bush. Now Martian makes an ontological distinction between the messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. But the messenger of YHWH identifies Himself as YHWH in the text. Therefore, it was YHWH who appeared to Moses as a burning bush. So we see that YHWH did “become” something that was directly related to that situation. He became a burning bush. And since YHWH meant that He would become what He wants to become in any situation at any time, then He can become a man.
thinker
Did God who spoke out of Ballams Ass become an ass to do so? Did God become all of the various prophets that spoke saying “thus saith the Lord when it was them speaking? Did God become each one of the High Priests whn they spoke in prophecy?
Does every prophet today suddenly change from a person to YHWH when they bring forth prophecy?Sillit argument.
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 15 2009,20:35) Meerkat said: Quote The Moses and the snake example is still referring directly to the situation that is being talked about and the snake was/existed/exists/became in the present time of the future event that was being talked about. What you are trying to prove is that hayah can mean that God will become something at a future time
that is not related to the event that is directly being talked about and that is not what the word means.[/quote]
Meerkat,
I am not merely trying to prove that YHWH can become something at some future time though that is included. I am trying to show that YHWH can become whatever He wants AT ANY TIME.It says that the Messenger of YHWH appeared to Moses as a burning bush. Now Martian makes an ontological distinction between the messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. But the messenger of YHWH identifies Himself as YHWH in the text. Therefore, it was YHWH who appeared to Moses as a burning bush. So we see that YHWH did “become” something that was directly related to that situation. He became a burning bush. And since YHWH meant that He would become what He wants to become in any situation at any time, then He can become a man.
thinker
I am not in the least bit interested in your process for deducing that YHWH means “He will become” You warned me in a private message that you would not engage with me if I did not argue scripture in context. Well this is in context with the character of God and Christ as our example.It is obvious that your desire to prove that YHWH means (I will Become) is based on a need to use it as proof that God can become anything He wants, including a man (Jesus).
1.Even if YHWH meant “I will Become”, it would not be proof that God can become a man.
2. I my thread What God cannot Do found here, I showed very clearly that God cannot change His character from a being that cannot sin to a being that can.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=2211You pushed that fact asside and then tried to end around by starting your own thread on the same subject without my explanation of the unchanging character of God.
Your thread on what God can do can be found here
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….94cac823. You then tried to prove that Jesus was unaware that he had the ability of sin. This borders on lunacy. If Jesus was unaware of his ability to sin, he could never be tempted.
Resisting temptation is one of the primary examples that Jesus came to show us. Without Jesus temptation you can chuck out the window a major part of His example for us. Scripture says Jesus was tempted in every way as we are. We can look at Jesus’ example and say with great hope, “He did it and he is just like me so I can do it”. He is a man and I am a man. He is not a God who became a man and I am not a God who became a man. He did not pre-exist and I did not pre-exist. He had the ability to sin and I have the ability to sin. He resisted and overcame temptation and I can resist and overcome temptation. Without that we can no longer look at Jesus’ resisting temptation with hope in our hearts.I do not need to debate with you or disprove your process if your conclusion is untenable.
This reminds me of the joke about medicine when a doctor says. “The operation was a success, but the patient died”.
In this case Christianity is the patient and your doctrine is the operation. You can applaud the merits of your doctrine or interpretation all day long but it still defames the character of God or greatly hinders Christ as our example.
Both of these points I have already gone into great detail proving and both you have ignored. Wasn’t there a group in biblical times that both degraded Christ as an example and defamed God’s character by their words and actions all for the sake of their traditions?
Oh Yes, they were called pharasees.But don’t let maintaining the character of God or the example of Christ stop you from applauding your Constantinian Tradition.
Martian said:
Quote Did God who spoke out of Ballams Ass become an ass to do so? Did God become all of the various prophets that spoke saying “thus saith the Lord when it was them speaking? Did God become each one of the High Priests whn they spoke in prophecy?
Does every prophet today suddenly change from a person to YHWH when they bring forth prophecy?Martian,
I try my best to comment on Scripture in context and I think it would serve you better if you did the same thing. So forget about the jack ass for now because we are talking about Exodus 3.You make an ontological distinction between the Messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. You deny that Jacob saw God Himself “face to face” because the narrative says that Jacob wrestled with the Messenger of YHWH. The fact is however that Jacob believed that he had seen God Himself face to face. This means that Jacob believed that the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH.
It was the Messenger of YHWH that appeared to Moses as a burnish bush. This Messenger of YHWH identified himself as YHWH. Therefore, the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH and your ontological distinction fails.
Now what are you going to do with this? Will you continue to invoke unrelated narratives like that of the jack ass so you can avoid dealing with the immediate context? The fact is that YHWH said that He will become what He will become. YHWH spoke these words while appearing as well functioning as a flame of fire. Therefore, “hayah” as used in Exodus 3 cannot refer to mere function without change. YHWH functioned as a burning flame because He transformed Himself into such. He couldn't function as a burning flame without being transformed anymore than the rod of Moses could have functioned as a serpent while remaining a wooden stick.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote If Jesus was unaware of his ability to sin, he could never be tempted. Who said that a man who does not have the ability to sin cannot be tempted? I do not find your hypothesis anywhere in scripture. Give me a “thus saith the Lord” reference to work with. I find just the opposite. Hebrew says that Jesus our High Priest was without weakness yet he was tempted in all points like as we are tempted.
Quote For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless undefiled, spearate from sinners….For the law appoints high priests who have weakness, but the WORD of oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. (Heb. 7:26-28). Please note that it says that a high priest that was without sin and weakness was FITTING for them. It says also that Jesus was appointed by an oath rather then by the law which appointed men that had weakness. But you say “No way”. You reply against God! You say that we need a high priest that has weakness just like us! But inherent weakness in a man may nullify the oath which we both agree cannot happen. Otherwise, God's character could change. Therefore, it was needed that a man without weakness be appointed as High Priest.
It clearly says that our High Priest was without weakness. You just don't like the idea. When you say that Jesus had the ability to sin you reduce him to the same level with weak and sinful men. But oath appoints only a High Priest that is without weakness.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 16 2009,03:15) Martian said: Quote Did God who spoke out of Ballams Ass become an ass to do so? Did God become all of the various prophets that spoke saying “thus saith the Lord when it was them speaking? Did God become each one of the High Priests whn they spoke in prophecy?
Does every prophet today suddenly change from a person to YHWH when they bring forth prophecy?Martian,
I try my best to comment on Scripture in context and I think it would serve you better if you did the same thing. So forget about the jack ass for now because we are talking about Exodus 3.You make an ontological distinction between the Messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. You deny that Jacob saw God Himself “face to face” because the narrative says that Jacob wrestled with the Messenger of YHWH. The fact is however that Jacob believed that he had seen God Himself face to face. This means that Jacob believed that the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH.
It was the Messenger of YHWH that appeared to Moses as a burnish bush. This Messenger of YHWH identified himself as YHWH. Therefore, the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH and your ontological distinction fails.
Now what are you going to do with this? Will you continue to invoke unrelated narratives like that of the jack ass so you can avoid dealing with the immediate context? The fact is that YHWH said that He will become what He will become. YHWH spoke these words while appearing as well functioning as a flame of fire. Therefore, “hayah” as used in Exodus 3 cannot refer to mere function without change. YHWH functioned as a burning flame because He transformed Himself into such. He couldn't function as a burning flame without being transformed anymore than the rod of Moses could have functioned as a serpent while remaining a wooden stick.
thinker
I do notthink it will do any good to go farther. I do nt believe you are willing to see scripture from the mindset of the people that wrote it. You continually try to understand scripture with a Westrn view. It is no wonder that you error.The name Yahweh comes from the root word hayah. This root and the words derived from it have a wide variation in meaning and application. The original concrete meaning is breath and has the extended meaning exist as one who exists breathes. Without God’s breath we and the universe would not exist.
The ancient Hebrews had a very organic and fluid language. The letter H denotes breath. To Hebrew thinkers the breath represents existence. When God created the world it was through the forming of words with His breath. The very word for Spirit in both NT and OT is breath or wind of God. When God created man, He formed his body from the dust, but the animation or life came from God’s breath.
The mechanical translation of Gen 2:7.And YHWH { He Exists} of Elohiym molded the human of powder of the ground and he exhaled into his nostrils a breath of life and the human breathes/existed (hayah) for a being of life.
God’s breath did not change when creating Adam. The molecules that made up the dust of the Earth were transformed into organic matter and the soul sourced from God’s breath gave it life.Through Hebrew poetry called parallelism YHWH and hayah, in Gen 2:7, are being paralled showing how close they are in meaning.
In our English translations “hayah” is translated “became”, however it is only one of several meanings and applications of the word. Became carries a meaning of being one thing and then becoming something else. By simple fact and by the way that Hebrews viewed their world the human Adam did not exist in another form and then become a being of life. Adam simply did not exist until he was sourced from YHWH.
YHWH has never not existed. He does not become anything, He simple is. I AM who I AM should be translated I Exist whom I exist. This points to God’s self sustaining nature and the fact that He did not come from somewhere, He simply exists.
Thinker — You cannot latch onto one application of hayah and claim that it means the same everywhere. As you have been preaching to me, context is everything. There is more contextual evidence and many sources that render an “exist” meaning. Even accepting a meaning of “He will Become” (which I do not) does not translate to God becoming a man. You make that leap based on a preconceived idea of doctrine and speculation.
Breath also carries with it the concept character and is related to the same root word as “shem” which is translated “name” and means character.
YHWH character does not change. His breath does not change. It is his breath that brings everything together and binds the universe. His breath/character can be seen in his creation –
Romans 1:20?For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.YHWH attributes and divine nature are revealed through His creation. That creation includes the universe, us and Jesus. Jesus the exact representation of God. A representation is not the original but only reflects the original.
The breath or essence of God does not change, but the ways in which it reveals, functions, or manifests itself can change. No one can see God, but we can see the effects of God. The Hebrews viewed God through their nomadic lifestyle and the concrete physical realm around them. This is why The ancient Hebrews saw God as wind. You cannot see wind but you can see the effects if the wind on the leaves and the blowing sand. In the same way God guided them on their journey through life just like the trade winds guided them.
In Acts 2 we see the “wind/breath of God infilling the apostles. For the first time these men had a larger taste of the life they were meant to live. Jesus, who was given all authority in heaven and Earth said He came to give life and life more abundantly. That life is in the breath/wind of God himself. The more we partake the more we live as we should.
Hi m,
Job 33:4
“The Spirit of God has made me,And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
Separate matters
Thethinker originally posted:
Quote You make an ontological distinction between the Messenger of YHWH and YHWH Himself. You deny that Jacob saw God Himself “face to face” because the narrative says that Jacob wrestled with the Messenger of YHWH. The fact is however that Jacob believed that he had seen God Himself face to face. This means that Jacob believed that the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH. It was the Messenger of YHWH that appeared to Moses as a burnish bush. This Messenger of YHWH identified himself as YHWH. Therefore, the Messenger of YHWH was a KINDRED to YHWH and your ontological distinction fails.
Now what are you going to do with this? Will you continue to invoke unrelated narratives like that of the jack ass so you can avoid dealing with the immediate context? The fact is that YHWH said that He will become what He will become. YHWH spoke these words while appearing as well functioning as a flame of fire. Therefore, “hayah” as used in Exodus 3 cannot refer to mere function without change. YHWH functioned as a burning flame because He transformed Himself into such. He couldn't function as a burning flame without being transformed anymore than the rod of Moses could have functioned as a serpent while remaining a wooden stick.
Martian replied:
Quote I do not think it will do any good to go farther. In other words, Martian lost the argument.
Martian said:
Quote I do not believe you are willing to see scripture from the mindset of the people that wrote it. You continually try to understand scripture with a Western view. No one will believe your accusation because I have consistently called on you to comment on Scripture in context. You have failed to come to the plate and comment. And you talk about the “mindset” of the people at the time. Geez man! Were you there? And do your “sources” have special inroads into Hebrew thinking?
You pressured me to engage with you. Now you're the one saying that it's time to end it. I asked you, “What are you going to do with this [information]?”. Your bailout speaks loudly saying that you're not interested in the Biblical narratives. The Bible itself is a “source” that is not an option for you.
thinker
Martian said:
Quote n our English translations “hayah” is translated “became”, however it is only one of several meanings and applications of the word. Agreed. But I have not said anything to the contrary. I am trying to get you to comment on how “hayah” is used in Exodus 3:14. SO LET ALL WHO READ NOTE THIS: I HAVE SAID THAT “hayah” IN EXODUS 3:14 MEANS “I WILL BECOME”. I HAVE NOT SAID THAT IT MEANS THIS EVERYHWERE IN THE BIBLE. I HAVE NOT SAID THIS ANYWHERE ON THESE BOARDS.
I have made the point that YHWH appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. He became what was needed for Moses in that situation. But I cannot get Martian to comment specifically about this. He presupposes that YHWH is unchangeable in every way conceivable. But there is no such declaration in the Scriptures. He invokes Malachi 3:6 which in its context says only that when God speaks a word He is unchangeable. But Martian does not care about context.
Martian said:
Quote Thinker — You cannot latch onto one application of hayah and claim that it means the same everywhere. Show me where have I said that it means the same thing everywhere?
Martian said:
Quote There is more contextual evidence and many sources that render an “exist” meaning. But I am talking about Exodus 3:14. The title of this thread is “hayah in Exodus 3:14.”
Martian said:
Quote Even accepting a meaning of “He will Become” (which I do not) does not translate to God becoming a man. You make that leap based on a preconceived idea of doctrine and speculation. If YHWH can transform Himself into the form of a burning bush which is out of character, then what's the problem with His transforming Himself into the form of man which is in His image and therefore within His character?
Again, your “function” explanation does not cut it. Your own sources say that it is YHWH that functioned as a man. Yet you say that it is Jesus that functioned as YHWH. Which is it Martian? If you say that it was YHWH that functioned as a man then I will reply saying that He would necessarily become such in order to function. I have already given the rod of Moses as the example.
But if you say that it was Jesus that functioned as YHWH then you change what YHWH said. For He said “I will function”.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 16 2009,11:51) Hi TT,
God did not transform Himself into a burning bush.
Nor did He become a man.
Thus saith Nick.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
