- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2013,21:38) So, I learned something about 'the Adam' tonight in my Hebrew class. 'the Adam' refers to a specific person that bears the image of God…in other words 'a specific follower' of God. Without the 'the,' adam refers to the believers in general. The word 'adam' is not a word for unbelieving man in general or a specific man if he is not a believer and hence, not an image of God bearer.
Hi Kathi,I'd surely like to believe this, because for me it would answer the question of “the others” in the land of Nod. It could lend support to my belief that there were other humanoids alive before Adam, but he was the first who was specifically made in the image of God, and therefore the first “adam”.
I'd like to believe it, but I don't think scripture bears this out:
Genesis 6:7
So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race (adam) I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”Wouldn't your claim mean that only those men who followed Jehovah were wiped out, while the non-followers were allowed to live?
Anyway, that's the first one I came across in the Englishman's list from Biblos.com. I'm sure if we kept searching that list of “adam” in the scriptures, we'd come to people who followed Baal, and were still called “adam”.
I don't mean to rain on your parade, because I think it's great you are studying the Hebrew language. But don't you agree with me that we would find non-followers in scripture who are called “adam”?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2013,21:49) Mike,
Origen is making an argument based on the absence of the article to show the second God mentioned is a lessor type. This is what is the failed argument.
I agree that the greatness of one of the two gods in 1:1 over the other one cannot be ascertained merely from the definite article “THE”.But do you agree with me and Origen that the “god” in part b is the “uncreated cause of all things”?
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 20 2013,21:49) Mike please answer this:
Which one purchased the church with His own blood? The first mentioned God or the second God mentioned???
I don't believe God Almighty has blood, Kathi, so I'd have to say the latter one. After all, it was the latter one who was the sacrificial lamb of the former one, right? And sacrificial lambs have their blood shed to atone for others, right?Don't be confused about Acts 20:28, Kathi. Here is the TRINITARIAN translation from NET Bible:
……to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 6
And here is footnote #6:
Grk “with the blood of his own.”
The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.”
In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.
The Trinitarian NRSV also has “blood of His own Son”.
God Almighty Himself doesn't have blood to shed on our behalf, Kathi. That's why He sent His servant and lamb as the sacrifice, right?
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,05:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:49) Mike,
Origen is making an argument based on the absence of the article to show the second God mentioned is a lessor type. This is what is the failed argument.
Certainly there is the reference that THE God is greater than the Word. But Origen is teaching that lack of article here has an intended purpose and that is to distinguish between the Almighty God and the Word who is in nature god or divine.
Well put, t8. I should have added that to my response as well. The definite article cannot, in and of itself, tell us which god was greater. But it does distinguish between “THE god”, and a different god who is not “THE god”.Besides, we don't need that one verse to tell us which of those two gods are greater. The whole of scriptures do that for us – not to mention the words of Jesus himself.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 21 2013,05:36) LU, That is a confusing Trinitarian tenet. You infer that
Jesus the Shoot is not Yawheh.
Jesus the Root is Yawheh.
Agreed, Kerwin. And I have talked to Kathi about this before. There is but ONE Jesus, the Son of God. She seems to teach that there were two, one who was God Himself, and one who wasn't God Himself.But God is immutable, right? God cannot become “less than God” and die at the hands of men, can He?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,12:41) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,13:36) Mike, Quote What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion? Is God's Holy Spirit a god? Are the spoken words of God “gods”? Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?
The last I head elohim can even refer to holy items. I believe theos is the same way.
So then your answers are both “YES”, right? You believe the Holy Spirit is “a god”. And you believe the spoken words of God are “gods” – is that what you're saying?
How could the Holy Spirit be “a god”, and how could 'the spoken words of God' be.. “gods”??Mike, there is only one true God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,10:19) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,06:13) Certainly there is the reference that THE God is greater than the Word. Please show us this reference.
Well, Jesus is called “the Word of God” because he is God's spokesman, right? So who is greater Kathi, the spokesman, or the king for whom he speaks?Not to mention all the other scriptures that distinguish Jesus as lesser than his own God. (The fact that Jesus even HAS a God of his own should tell you that his God is greater than he is.
)Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:12) “Jesus is the son of the other YHWH”. “The son of the other God”.
That is a fair assessment of what Kathi believes and teaches.Quote (t8 @ Mar. 21 2013,15:40) I even have a friend of a friend who is fluent in Greek and he confirms that the definite article and lack of one is significant.
I once read a blog from a Greek guy who said that while they do have Trinitarians in Greece, none of them use John 1:1 as a proof text – because they understand it is not saying the Word was “THE God” he was WITH.Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,16:06) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,05:48) taking on the appearance of man and walking in flesh is mysterious indeed. Is this not suspicious, more than mysterious?
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,16:23) (Mike will say that it is impossible for God to have two Sons. I say – “Why is it impossible for God to have two sons?”)
No, Mike doesn't say that. Mike knows that God has MANY sons.What Mike wants to know is which Son of God is the one who now sits at God's right hand? And where exactly is this “other” Son of God?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,13:54) Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,16:23) (Mike will say that it is impossible for God to have two Sons. I say – “Why is it impossible for God to have two sons?”)
No, Mike doesn't say that. Mike knows that God has MANY sons.What Mike wants to know is which Son of God is the one who now sits at God's right hand? And where exactly is this “other” Son of God?
Okay…The Son of God, Jesus, is at “God's right Hand”. The other Son of God, the Holy Spirit, IS God and is part of God (The One God!)
So, worship God in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:31) I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”. Can you see this?
Cain would not be adam…only those that serve YHVH are adam. Unbelievers are not adam.
Exodus 8:17
They did this, and when Aaron stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the ground, gnats came on people (adam) and animals.Were the Egyptians “followers of Yahweh”, Kathi? Because they are the ones who were covered by gnats, right? And Moses called them “adam”, right?
But if it helps you to understand the point I'm making to Abe, switch out “Cain” with “Able”, okay?
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,18:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,12:41)
So then your answers are both “YES”, right? You believe the Holy Spirit is “a god”. And you believe the spoken words of God are “gods” – is that what you're saying?
How could the Holy Spirit be “a god”, and how could 'the spoken words of God' be.. “gods”??Mike, there is only one true God.
Read it more closely, 2B. These are apparently KERWIN'S answers – not mine. I don't believe the Holy Spirit of God is a god. Nor do I believe the words God speaks are gods.And remember, since you've just acknowledged to t8 on this thread that Jesus is “God”, but not “THE God”, if you then take “only true God” in a LITERAL sense, you are in effect saying Jesus, your Lord, is a “FALSE God”.
Is that what you believe?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,05:41) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,13:36) Mike, Quote What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion? Is God's Holy Spirit a god? Are the spoken words of God “gods”? Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?
The last I head elohim can even refer to holy items. I believe theos is the same way.
So then your answers are both “YES”, right? You believe the Holy Spirit is “a god”. And you believe the spoken words of God are “gods” – is that what you're saying?
Mike,Yes.
We, English speakers, may say divine instead of god.
Quote (2besee @ Mar. 21 2013,18:58) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,13:54)
What Mike wants to know is which Son of God is the one who now sits at God's right hand? And where exactly is this “other” Son of God?
Okay…The Son of God, Jesus, is at “God's right Hand”. The other Son of God, the Holy Spirit, IS God and is part of God (The One God!)
So you're not far off from the Trinitarians then, 2B. They too believe God Almighty consists of a Father and a Son.So to you, Jesus is the Son of the Father AND Son? Wouldn't that make him the GRANDSON of God the Father – like Ed has pointed out?
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 21 2013,19:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2013,05:41) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 20 2013,13:36) Mike, Quote What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion? Is God's Holy Spirit a god? Are the spoken words of God “gods”? Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?
The last I head elohim can even refer to holy items. I believe theos is the same way.
So then your answers are both “YES”, right? You believe the Holy Spirit is “a god”. And you believe the spoken words of God are “gods” – is that what you're saying?
Mike,Yes.
We, English speakers, may say divine instead of god.
I think you'll find that anyone who agrees with you that the words of God are “divine”, will NOT agree with you that the words of God are “gods”.Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 21 2013,01:36) Mike, Quote What exactly would fall into the class “god”, in your opinion? Is God's Holy Spirit a god? Are the spoken words of God “gods”? Or does it seem much more likely that a BEING, who was also in the “god class”, was with “THE god” in the beginning?
The last I head elohim can even refer to holy items. I believe theos is the same way.
Quote a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
the Godhead, trinity
God the Father, the first person in the trinity
Christ, the second person of the trinity
Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
spoken of the only and true God
refers to the things of God
his counsels, interests, things due to him
whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judgesTheos defined.
2beesee,The ancient Greek word theos is a vague word. It has many meanings. The English god is not much different.
The gods in government debate our fate.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,20:01) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 21 2013,17:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 21 2013,18:31) I want you to understand that if Cain was with “THE Adam”, and was himself “adam”, it simply means Cain was “a man” who was with “THE first man, Adam”. Can you see this?
Cain would not be adam…only those that serve YHVH are adam. Unbelievers are not adam.
Exodus 8:17
They did this, and when Aaron stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the ground, gnats came on people (adam) and animals.Were the Egyptians “followers of Yahweh”, Kathi? Because they are the ones who were covered by gnats, right? And Moses called them “adam”, right?
But if it helps you to understand the point I'm making to Abe, switch out “Cain” with “Able”, okay?
Mike,
No, the Egyptians were not followers of YHVH. I will have to investigate this more and ask my Hebrew teacher to clarify this for next week.Is http://www.bible.cc working for you tonight? It's not working for me for some reason.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2013,13:28) The Word of Yahweh is Yahweh the Son.
The Eve of Adam is Adam his wife.No, Eve of Adam is adam/mankind, his wife.
You are saying the first sentence, I am saying the second.
Pretty clear which one is right.
You are confused. Come out of this confusion so that you might see clearly.
I found this from another Hebrew site that says that the word 'adam' with the article would never refer to the person with the proper name of 'Adam.' The article in Hebrew is 'ha' and HaAdam is adam with the article.
Quote Appendix 3:
'Adam' and Hebrew Grammar
Eth'Eth' is put before the object of the sentence if the object is either a definite noun (has article 'ha') or a proper noun (proper name).
Example:
Jim ate the bread.
'Jim' is the subject, the doer of the action.
Bread is the object of the action.Eth adam 'Adam' is the proper name of one person, refers to the person whose name is 'Adam'.
Ha-adam
Life form(s). Example: Human beings.
If Adam stands for 'life form', then one can put 'ha' in front.
If 'Adam' is a proper name, one cannot say 'ha-adam'.
In other words, 'ha-adam' does not refer to a person named 'Adam'.Eth ha-adam The life form is the object of the sentence. The life forms are the object of the sentence.
From: http://www.solhaam.org/articles/genevo.html
That really flies in the face of t8's article theology with his use of 'the Adam' to mean the person named Adam.
This is something that needs further investigation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
