- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
Do you think that when you pour your wisdom into you own son and then him putting that wisdom to use, is a poetical type of birth and then establishment of your wisdom? Because the wisdom that is within you comes out of you when you pour it into others. Maybe Prov 8 is more about the wisdom of God when poured forth in the Son and then the Son puts it to use which establishes that wisdom, as opposed to the Son being the actual wisdom.Just some thoughts.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,06:34) Hi Mike,
Do you think that when you pour your wisdom into you own son and then him putting that wisdom to use, is a poetical type of birth and then establishment of your wisdom? Because the wisdom that is within you comes out of you when you pour it into others. Maybe Prov 8 is more about the wisdom of God when poured forth in the Son and then the Son puts it to use which establishes that wisdom, as opposed to the Son being the actual wisdom.Just some thoughts.
That's pretty deep Kathi.I can't take it on right now. My brain can only handle a certain amount of learning at once.
It's like I told JA about the king of Tyre being “Satan”. It could be, but I don't have the time to research it right now.
I started off focused on nothing but the trinity, and then branched off into pre-existence. I'm wearing my poor little brain too thin.
So while I have a basic understanding of other scriptures, I don't want to say too much until I have time to delve deeply into them.
mike
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 14 2010,17:38) Hi WJ, There is MUCH “Fractal” consistency in “The Bible”!
This one is seven-fold, “God's Perfect Number”!Jesus was the “Son of God” at…
1) His Pre-existence. (Job 38:7)
2) His Conception. (Luke 1:35)
3) His Birth (Mathew 1:18, 20)
4) His Baptism (John 1:33-34)
5) His Ministry (Mathew 14:33)
6) His Crucifixion. (Mark 15:39)
7) His Resurrection. (Rom.1:4)'Your' missing “a few” as there are “Seven” total…
And where is the all of the above button anyway?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
bump for WJMike,
I can tell that you are dancing all over the boards responding to posts. I don't know where you find the time. You can just put that thought from my last post on the back burner. It's cool!btw, I don't think the King of Tyre is satan. That passage is more of an irony, imo. Basically the king is full of himself. Anyway, don't get too burnt out focus on what God is leading you to.
Mike,
Sounds like you not very happy right now.Are you working too hard?
Chillax, bro. Satan is indeed crouching at your door right now.
Beware.
I pitch the Satan 'firstborn'… as my mad theory. We all have our mad theories. “For he taketh away the first in order to establish the second”..”And the First shall be Last and the Last shall be First”
The begotten one is raised up above his brethren in many fractal Scriptures,
what is the point of the repeated theme?
What do they illustrate?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,06:10) Hi All, I would like to bring this out in the open. Jack claimed that the Septuagint has Is 45 saying, “There was no God formed before me, and there will be no god begotten after me”.
I then pasted the actual LXX and showed that that is NOT what it says.
Then I posted this to Jack about things he has been misinformed on:
Quote I'm sure it will turn out the same as everything else we've debated………with you finding out that scripture and the most learned scholars disagree with you. Remember this? The “plural of majesty” is not used in any scripture!” How about this one? “The LXX says no god will be begotten after me”. How about “yalad”? How about “monogenes”? You keep claiming I'm wrong and an idiot, but the scriptures and the early church “fathers” keep agreeing with me, not you.
He then took the statement HE made that I showed him to be false, and attributed it to ME…….right after I just showed him where it was wrong. He said:
Quote Mike:Quote
“The LXX says no god will be begotten after me”.Thank you Mike! My work is done! If no god was begotten after YHWH, then Jesus could not have been begotten after YHWH unless He is no god at all. So you should side with Gene and Marty that Jesus is no god at all.
Your last quote above put a real big smile on my face.
Not only does this show the dishonest way Jack works, but it shows that even in the face of the actual scriptural words that proved his statement wrong, he would still be willing to take “my” statement that “agreed” with him over scripture.
You have been warned Jack, please don't do this again.
mike
Mike,I unintentionally misquoted you and I apologize. And you misquoted me. I never said that Isaiah 43:10 says, “No god was begotten after Me.” I said that it says, “No god came into beingbefore or after me.” The Greek word is “ginomai” which means “to come into being.”
I read Greek Mike. Do you? The Greek is “yinomai” which means “to come into being.”
γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται
The bolded word is “eyeneto” which is the third person singular 2 aorist form of “yinomai.”
It says that no god came into being before or after YHWH.
TO ALL:
Mike is not learned in Greek. Again, the bolded word is the third person singular 2 aorist form of “yinomai.” The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the old testament scriptures. It was translated by 70 Jewish scholars in the Hebrew and Greek. They were all “strict monotheists.” So when they say that Isaiah 43:10 reads, “No god came into being before or after YHWH” Mike should listen.
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,06:19) Btw Roo, You didn't seem to respond to the fact the the early church “fathers” also think that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 refers to Jesus.
Why are you always against the early church “fathers”?
Why is it that I, while drawing my own conclusions from scripture, always later find out that it is the same conclusion the early church “fathers” came to?
Hmmmmmm………..
mike
Mike,It's not that I am against the early church fathers. It's that you want to hide behind them when you are losing an argument scripturally.
I have said many times here and everyone knows where I stand. I don't give a hoot about anything but “What saith the scriptures.”
But you and Kathi when you are losing the argument scripturally invoke the fathers saying, “See, we're not alone.”
Nobody cares Mike!
the Roo
Roo,
I have found a benefit to bringing the understanding of the early church disciples into a disagreement that we may have here. If I say a verse means 'abc' and you say a verse means 'xyz' then looking at the understanding of the early church might bring some enlightenment. It has nothing to do with a feeling of losing but everything to do with the idea of finding truth.Mike said:
Quote Not only does this show the dishonest way Jack works, but it shows that even in the face of the actual scriptural words that proved his statement wrong, he would still be willing to take “my” statement that “agreed” with him over scripture.
Mike,First, you need to visit the “Reporting Posts” thread. Accusing one of dishonesty is not acceptable. This should include moderators. I thought that you said “No God was begotten” because I did not say it and was not aware that you were attributing that to me. So I thought you were saying it. I did not read the post as carefully as I should have.
Second, the Greek word “yinomai” in its third person 2 aorist form “eyeneto” is used in Isaiah 43:10 in the LXX. It says that no god came into being before or after YHWH.
the Roo
Mike, I havent read everything here today, only briefly because I'm not supposed to be here, I'm supposed to be cleaning the house lol, but if you are getting confused, take some time out, refocus, calm your mind down, pray, I know what it's like.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,09:47) Roo,
I have found a benefit to bringing the understanding of the early church disciples into a disagreement that we may have here. If I say a verse means 'abc' and you say a verse means 'xyz' then looking at the understanding of the early church might bring some enlightenment. It has nothing to do with a feeling of losing but everything to do with the idea of finding truth.
Kathi,Hooey! When you and Mike lose an argument scripturally you hide behind the fathers saying, “See, we're not alone.” That's what it's all about. It's all about you and Mike saving face when you can't win the argument scripturally.
Proverbs 8 says that wisdom (feminine) dwells with a feminine companion called “prudence.” The speech is CLEARLY figurative and you and Mike know that your argument is weak at best.
the Roo
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 16 2010,10:01) Mike, I havent read everything here today, only briefly because I'm not supposed to be here, I'm supposed to be cleaning the house lol, but if you are getting confused, take some time out, refocus, calm your mind down, pray, I know what it's like.
It does seem that Mike is losing it a little today. He sent me a warning for unintentionally misquoting him when he also misquoted me.Kangaroo Jack
KangarooJack, We all have day's like that, my problem is I'm on the other side of the world than most people, so I miss out on all the conversations and only catch up later, when everyones gone. I think Mike need's some time out.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 15 2010,18:03) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,09:47) Roo,
I have found a benefit to bringing the understanding of the early church disciples into a disagreement that we may have here. If I say a verse means 'abc' and you say a verse means 'xyz' then looking at the understanding of the early church might bring some enlightenment. It has nothing to do with a feeling of losing but everything to do with the idea of finding truth.
Kathi,Hooey! When you and Mike lose an argument scripturally you hide behind the fathers saying, “See, we're not alone.” That's what it's all about. It's all about you and Mike saving face when you can't win the argument scripturally.
Proverbs 8 says that wisdom (feminine) dwells with a feminine companion called “prudence.” The speech is CLEARLY figurative and you and Mike know that your argument is weak at best.
the Roo
Roo,
The passage in Prov 8 is about wisdom…the unbegotten God's wisdom when it was given to the Son which the Son established by making use of it during creation. imo. The wisdom that was always part of the unbegotten God was shared with the only begotten Son before the hills were formed, from the earliest times of the earth. The Son is the wisdom of God because He was given the wisdom of His Father. Children learn from their parent's wisdom.TO ALL:
It has been claimed by Mike and Kathi that just because many of the church fathers understood “wisdom” in Proverbs 8 to be Christ then it must necessarily so. I offer you the following for your consideration:
Quote “The clear personification of these verses led most of the early Church Fathers to find here a prophecy of Christ. The Arain heretics of the fourth century therefore made much of this verse, speaking of wisdom as a created being. The orthodox party repelled this idea, as Jones and Walls say, “on other grounds.” There seems to be no clear indication that we should find Christ revealed in Proverbs 8. Wycliffe Bible Commentary pages 564-565
and,
Quote This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 (2004). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org I’m an enthusiast for “the Bible as literature.” There are, of course, liabilities to this popularized label since in some circles it runs the risk of implying that the Bible is only literature and therefore devoid of the special authority that Christians ascribe to it as a religious book.
No less a literary giant than C. S. Lewis expressed that same reservation when he accused those who read the Bible “as literature” of reading the Bible “without attending to the main thing it is about.”1 Two sentences later, however, Lewis asserted unequivocally, “There is a saner sense in which the Bible, since it is after all literature, cannot properly be read except as literature; and the different parts of it as the different sorts of literature they are.”
What Lewis meant is that the Bible is composed of different kinds (genres) of literature — narrative, poetry, prophecy, epistle (authoritative teaching in the form of a letter), and so on — and each part of the Bible must be read according to the kind of literature it is. It is this principle I propose to explain: literary genre should influence our interpretations, and an awareness of literary genre can spare us from misreadings of the Bible (though that is not its only usefulness).
How to Misread Proverbs 8. One biblical text that illustrates this principle is a famous poem that praises wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31). Here are the first five verses of the poem:
The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world. (esv)
Who is speaking here? The lead-in to the speech answers the question: “Does not wisdom call?” (v. 1); and in verse 12, we read, “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.” The repeated first-person references (my lips, my mouth, etc.), therefore, are to wisdom.
With this context as your guide, you would probably not find the passage difficult, but what would you say if someone rattled off proof texts to support the belief that the speaker of the poem is really Christ and that the passage, moreover, shows that Jesus is a created being? This is exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses claim regarding the passage.
In a Watch Tower tract entitled Should You Believe in the Trinity?2 the following verses from the Bible are strung together:
• Colossians 1:15, which calls Christ “the first-born of all creation.”
• Revelation 3:14, which speaks of Christ as “the beginning of God’s creation.”
• Several verses from Proverbs 8, one of which speaks of how “Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works” (njb).
• 1 Corinthians 8:6, where the italicizing in the tract shows the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpreta-tion that God the Father created Christ, who then created the world: “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things,…and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
They argue that because the speaker in Proverbs 8 is described in the same terms as are used for Christ elsewhere, that speaker, therefore, must be Christ. Since the speaker in the Proverbs 8 passage speaks of being “brought forth” (vv. 24–25 esv), moreover, this same Christ must be a created being and not an eternal member of the Trinity. Lest we think that the Jehovah’s Witnesses thought this up on their own, they correctly adduce “Christian writers of the early centuries of the Common Era” as having also believed that the speaker in Proverbs 8 is really Christ.3 Indeed, the view that the speaker of Proverbs 8 is Christ continues to make the rounds in some evangelical circles.
How to Recognize Personification. As I said earlier, I will make the case for literary genre as an effective way to spare us from misreading the Bible. We noted that wisdom is the speaker in Proverbs 8. Wisdom, someone might protest, cannot speak. Well, yes she can if she is a personification of an abstract concept.
Poets have always used personification, and biblical writers did as well. Just recall some famous examples: “Sin is crouching at the door” (Gen. 4:7 esv). “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10 kjv). “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:15 esv). My personal favorite is Zechariah’s vision of a woman named Wickedness sitting inside a cereal container (Zech. 5:6–8).
How can you know when a poet has used personification? It is not complicated: whenever a poet attributes human qualities to some- thing inanimate, often an abstraction, he or she has used personification.
This takes us back to Proverbs 8. The main subject of Proverbs chapters 1–9 is wisdom, which is an abstract quality or character trait rather than a person, but wisdom is treated as a woman from the first chapter right through chapter 9.
Wisdom is portrayed as a woman of dazzling attractiveness and virtue, who teaches in the marketplace of the town (1:20), who is romantically embraced (4:8–9), who can be addressed as “my sister” (7:4), who utters a long speech commending herself to the public (chap. 8), and who builds a house and invites people to an alluring banquet (9:1–6).
Is Proverbs 8 Literal Fact or Literary Fiction? We would make so much more sense of biblical poetry if we would simply acknowledge that poetry is a form of fiction and quite often of fantasy. In its usual pose, it asserts something that we know to be literally untrue and often openly fantastic. Surely personification illustrates this in its pure form. We all know that blood does not literally cry from the ground (Gen. 4:10) and that light and truth are not literally travel guides to Jerusalem (Ps. 43:3).
Similarly, in Proverbs 1–9, wisdom is not literally a woman who speaks eloquently about herself and prepares a banquet. WISDOM IS A QUALITY OF THE SOUL. The purpose of the entire eighth chapter is to praise and exalt wisdom. In conducting this praise, the writer invents a fictional creation story in which wisdom, as an attribute of God,
was actually present at creation. Proverbs 3:19 tells us propositionally that “the Lord by wisdom founded the earth.” Proverbs 8 turns that statement into a fictional narrative in which a personified wisdom was present at the creation of the world. It is as simple as that.Proverbs 8 as an Encomium. A proper understanding of Proverbs 8 does not absolutely depend on viewing the poem as an encomium, but the dynamics of the passage will fall even more into place if we do so. The encomium, one of the most beautiful and exalted types of literature used in the Bible, is a composition in praise of either an abstract quality or a general character type. First Corinthians 13 is an encomium in praise of love, Hebrews 11 in praise of faith, and Proverbs 31:10–31 in praise of the virtuous wife.
The writer of an encomium conducts the praise by using a standard set of literary motifs (elements): (1) introduction to the subject, (2) the distinguished and ancient ancestry of the subject, (3) a list of the praiseworthy acts and qualities of the subject, (4) the indispensable and/or superior nature of the subject, and (5) a conclusion urging the reader to emulate the subject.
Proverbs 8 has all of these familiar motifs. In verses 22–31, we find the motif of the ancient and distinguished ancestry of wisdom, which was present from the beginning and even participated in the creation of the world.
Is Christ the First Created Being? The specific hermeneutical principle that I have applied in this article is the need to read figurative speech in a nonliteral sense. This is part of a broader principle of interpreting a text in keeping with what we know about its genre (what type of literature it is). Interpreters have done a lot of mischief by taking figurative language literally. If an interpreter begins with the premise that Proverbs 8 is talking about Christ, then certain references can be (incorrectly) interpreted as implying that Christ is a created being. The fallacy is in thinking that the speaker in Proverbs 8 is Christ in the first place. The speaker is wisdom personified. Those who press for a literal interpretation of Proverbs 8 face the daunting task of explaining why the pronoun and language used for wisdom are feminine — is Christ feminine in His true essence or does He have a female counterpart in heaven to whom this passage refers?
We also need to apply this principle when we come to passages that speak of Christ as the “firstborn” or “beginning” of God’s creation. These titles do not refer literally to generation but figuratively to exaltation — not to a literal origin but to an exalted position.
All Literature Requires Interpretation. I can imagine some readers questioning whether what I have said in this article introduces an element of subjectivity into the interpretation of the Bible. After all, whether the speaker in Proverbs 8 is a personified wisdom and whether the passage is an encomium are decisions that the interpreter makes. Yes, they are, but two things need to be asserted in regard to this. First, all texts require interpretive decisions, and the more literary and more ancient the text, the more interpretive decisions are potentially required. Second, all interpretive decisions involve an element of subjectivity. To decide that a statement in the Bible is figurative is no more subjective than to decide that it is literal. This element of subjectivity, moreover, does not mean that all interpretive decisions are entirely subjective. With practice we can learn to recognize what kind of literature we are reading and let that influence our interpretation.
— Leland Ryken
http://www.equip.org/articles/who-is-wisdom-in-proverbs-8-the Roo
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 16 2010,08:05) Mike,
Sounds like you not very happy right now.Are you working too hard?
Chillax, bro. Satan is indeed crouching at your door right now.
Beware.
I pitch the Satan 'firstborn'… as my mad theory. We all have our mad theories. “For he taketh away the first in order to establish the second”..”And the First shall be Last and the Last shall be First”
The begotten one is raised up above his brethren in many fractal Scriptures,
what is the point of the repeated theme?
What do they illustrate?
Hi JA,No, I'm fine and happy. Thanks for asking though!
Satan is indeed crouching at all of our doors at all times waiting to trip us up.
You said:
Quote The begotten one is raised up above his brethren in many fractal Scriptures,
I'm not aware of that in any scripture. Could you show me?mike
Interesting question.
Is Psalm 2:7 literal or somehow figurative? or some of both?
This is certainly a prophetic psalm concerning God and Jesus Christ. The psalmist was the recipient and writer of the revelation.
verses 1-3 speak as if in the present tense, yet are future events.
“1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying ,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Verse 4 switches to the future tense, “shall”
Verse 4 who shall have them in derision in the future? the Lord God. not Jesus Christ. The Lord is one and the anointed are two as seen in verse 2, the Lord and His anointed. Acts 10:38. God anointed Jesus Christ with holy ghost and with power.
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
in verse 5 the tense of the verbs continues in the future tense. How interesting. verses 1-3 are prophetic expressed in the present tense, yet in verse 4-5, the tense switches to the future tense. Is this because this verse describes events further into the future than the first 3 verses? but not only so, verse 5 seems to express something yet further in the future. Is this the case? Yes, this is evident by the use of the word “then” as the first word in verse 5.
verse 6
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Prophetic psalm now speaks in the past tense. But was Jesus Christ literally on some throne in Jerusalem before the writing of this psalm? No. If that was the case, it would be pointless for the believers to be looking forward to the coming of the anointed one if he was already there.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
The king now speaks in the present of something he is about to do. ” I will declare the decree”
That decree being,”the Lord, [Lord God, remember, the Lord and the anointed are two separate personalities] hath said unto me, “Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.”
What does beget mean? The best I have come up with so far is to procreate, to sire, evidently the result of someone being impregnated. Mary was impregnated with the son of God, Jesus Christ. God impregnated Mary with what was to be born as the son of God. Until he was born, he was just a holy thing. Luke 1:35
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Why do fathers and mothers talk to their newborns as if the newborn would actually understand the parents?
For that matter, I have heard of mothers speaking to the developing fetus yet within their womb. Why?
Is it to express their love to the child or child to be?
Would God, who is love, not do the same?
barley
Hi Jack,
You said:
Quote I unintentionally misquoted you and I apologize. And you misquoted me. I never said that Isaiah 43:10 says, “No god was begotten after Me.” I said that it says, “No god came into beingbefore or after me.” The Greek word is “ginomai” which means “to come into being.”
You know, I could have sworn you said these words in a post on page 7, 8th post down:The Greek word is “ginomai”, which means “begotten”, so Is 45 is basically saying no god was “begotten” after God.
I went back to look, and I noticed you edited the post 12 hours after you posted it. But I'm sure you didn't edit out the “begotten” part…….that would be very dishonest. I'll keep looking for where you said those words above. Maybe I'll end up owing you an apology. Maybe someone who posted on this thread today has your unedited post in a cache somewhere?
You said:
Quote I read Greek Mike. Do you? The Greek is “yinomai” which means “to come into being.” γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται
The bolded word is “eyeneto” which is the third person singular 2 aorist form of “yinomai.”
It says that no god came into being before or after YHWH.
No Jack, I don't “read” Greek, but I'm slowly learning some of the words. The word you bolded is “ginomai”, and it IS translated as no god “came into being” BEFORE YHVH. But it is the last five words that you are mistaken about. (I've underlined them in your quote above.) They say:and after me never exist
So all together, just like I showed you twice already, it says:
emprosyen……………………….before
mou…………………………………me
ouk………………………………….never
egeneto……………………………begotten
allov…………………………………another
yeov…………………………………god
kai……………………………………and
met………………………………….after
eme………………………………….me
ouk…………………………………..never
estai…………………………………exist
Do you now see and will you now admit that it does NOT say no god “came into being” after YHVH? It says that no god was begotten before Him and that none will exist after Him.
But YOU are the “Greek expert”, what do YOU think Jack?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,07:23) Mike,
I can tell that you are dancing all over the boards responding to posts. I don't know where you find the time. You can just put that thought from my last post on the back burner. It's cool!btw, I don't think the King of Tyre is satan. That passage is more of an irony, imo. Basically the king is full of himself. Anyway, don't get too burnt out focus on what God is leading you to.
Thanks Kathi.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
