The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 31 2008,06:20)

So, if we agree then, on these guidelines allow me to ask you a question:

Could Genesis chapter 1 be speaking of two different lights, the one on day one and the one on day four. Why or why not.

I began to write a whole disertation to explain Gen 1 and then realised that The Ancient Hebrew Research Center had already done that. I post it in response to your question.

The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One
By Jeff A. Benner
When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.

The most common form of Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. Parallelism is when the writer says one thing in two or more different ways. The Psalms and Proverbs are filled with these such as the examples below.

Psalms 119:105 – “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” The first part of this verse is paralleled with the second part. This verse is not saying two different things, rather, one thing in two different ways.

Proverbs 3:1 – “My son, do not forget my teaching, and keep my commands in your heart.” Again the first part is paralleled with the second part.

Genesis 4:23 – Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me and a young man for injuring me.”

Let's break down what Lamech says; [Adah and Zillah, listen to me] = [wives of Lamech, hear my words] then he says; I have killed [a man for wounding me] = [a young man for injuring me]. Lamech did not wound one and injure another, but killed one person and says it two different ways.

Often we overlook what the Bible is telling us because we are not recognizing what the poetry of a passage is attempting to convey. For example look at Psalms 40:8; “I desire to do your will, O my God; your Torah is within my heart” Here we see that doing the will of God is the same thing as having the Torah within your heart.

Now let us look at the Creation story Parallels of Genesis chapter one.

Creation Story Number 1

The first story is found in Genesis 1.1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word “bara” is a verb and is usually translated as “create”. To really understand what this word means let us look at another passage where this word is used.

1 Samuel 2.29 – Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?' The word “fattening” in the passage above is the Hebrew word “bara”. The noun form of this verb is “beriya” and can be found in Genesis 41.4 – “And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows.” The word “fat” is the Hebrew word “beriya”.

The word “bara” does not mean, “create” (Hebrew actually has no word that meaning “create” in the sense of something out of nothing) but “to fatten”. If we take the literal definition of “bara” in Genesis 1.1 we have – In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. What does this fattening of the heavens and earth mean? This verse is not showing the creation of the heaven and earth, but rather the fattening or filling up of it. Therefore, Genesis 1.1 is a condensed version of the whole creation story.

Creation Story Number 2

The second creation story paralleling Genesis 1.1 is Genesis 1.2 – “and the earth was unfilled and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Wind of God was hovering over the waters.” In this passage we see that the earth was formless and empty before it was filled up, then the Wind of God hovers over the waters of the earth. This hovering would be the action of the Wind of god filling up the earth.

The use of the word “and” at the beginning of this verse may cause some confusion due to an understanding of how this word is used in Hebrew. In English the word “and” in between verses one and two means that what happens in verse two occurs after what happens in verse one. In Hebrew, the word “and” is used in standard Hebrew poetry to link two statements as one. In other words, verse one is the same thing as verse two.

Creation Story Number 3

The third story is found in Genesis 1.3-5. “And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light and God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness and God called the light 'day', and the darkness he called 'night' and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day”.

Hebrew, like English, has a word for one and a different word for first. The same is true for the words two and second, three and third, etc. As an example the Hebrew word for “three” is “shelosh”, and the Hebrew word for “third” is “sheliyshiy”. Days 2 – 7 use the Hebrew word for second, third, fourth, etc. We would assume that the “first” day would use the Hebrew word “reshon” meaning “first” in order to be consistent with the other six days, but instead we have the word “echad” meaning “one” or ” in unity”. The author is making a parallel with the “first” day and with all the days of creation. I believe this is because all seven days of the fattening of the earth are being united in this verse. The first day of creation is also a parallel with the whole of creation as the earth was in darkness and the act of filling the earth brought light to the earth.

Creation Story Number 4

The fourth creation story is found in Genesis 1.3-13. In these passages we have the first three days of creation. These are the days of separating. On the first day God separated light and darkness. On the second day God separated the waters above from the waters below forming the sky and the seas. On the third day God separated the land from the water forming dry land.

Creation Story Number 5

The fifth creation story is found in Genesis 1.14-31. In these passages we have the second set of three days of creation. On the fourth day God filled the light with the sun and the darkness with the moon and stars. On the fifth day God filled the sky with the birds and the sea with the fish. On the sixth day God filled the dry land with the animals and man. Notice the correlation between the first set of three days of separation with the second set of three days of filling.

Creation Story Number 6

The sixth story is the whole of Genesis chapter one. Though we have looked at five different stories of creation, they are all combined together to form one complete story of creation.
CONCLUSION

It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.

March 31, 2008 at 5:21 pm#108080

Participant

So Martian,
I would suppose these conclusions to be a theory since there were no witnesses. The writer didn't write from experience or understanding because how would he write about the sun being put in the sky with understanding or any of it for that matter? How did the writer get this info to write down. Did he write verbatim, word for word, or thought by thought? What do you think? What did God use to make the sun and where did he get those ingredients. Does the Bible tell us these things?

March 31, 2008 at 5:38 pm#108081

Participant

In light of the Hebrew concepts I posted on the creation story let’s look at some stories of creation in the NT.
First whether written in Hebrew or Greek the Hebrews still carried the same concepts of creation in their minds.
Col 1:16 –
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

1.According to AT Robertson and Westcot and Hort the word “by” in this verse is not in the Greek. It is the word “in”. So it should read “For in him all things were created”
2.The same experts denote the second term “by” as incorrect also. This term should be translated “through”.
There for the verse should read –
For in him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:

3.This verse is a common form of poetic writing favored by the Hebrews called parallelism. The same thing is said twice in two different ways. All things created “in” him and “through” him are speaking of the same thing.
4.The concept of creation is not as the western cultures view it. AS posted previously it means to fatten or fill. All things are brought to fruition and completion in Him and through Him. Nothing in this universe has meaning except in Him and through Him. Without Christ the universe, and all it contains, loses it’s function and purpose.

March 31, 2008 at 6:20 pm#108082

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2008,05:21)

I assume when you speak of writer, you are speaking of the writer of Genesis?
All scripture is inspired by God. To me that means that God spoke to the writers of scripture in terms they could understand and put down in some form of writing. When one begins to grasp the Hebrew culture and way of thinking a person can seek the organic nature in which they though and wrote. Everything was related to their nomadic lifestyle and function. For example God wanted to relate an attitude He wished them to have toward His Torah. In this case God uses the same term as the one used to convey the fence of thorns a nomadic herder builds around his flock to protect them. This word is translated in English as “Keep” as in Keep the commandments. This showed respect to the needs of the flock by guarding and protecting them. So God showed them His need for them to guard and protect His teaching toward them. To show respect to his teaching and His heart to teach them. Exactly as a Father wants his children to show respect to him by honoring that which He teaches them.
The Hebrew meaning of “Keep” is carried on for centuries. Example the childhood prayer. Now I lay me down to sleep I pray the Lord my soul to keep. The word keep here does not mean obey or indicate possession, but rather a prayer to protect the child’s soul while they sleep. Also the “Castle Keep” was the most heavily defended and protected part of the castle.
Can you begin to see the organic nature of the Hebrew culture? How understanding that culture brings a clarity to the words and concepts of scripture that are lost if read within a Western perspective of culture.

It is possible that an oral tradition was the first way in which these stories were passed on. However there is archeological evidence dating as far back as 3000 BC in which pictographic writing of the Easter Cultures and people is found.
Because the Hebrews did not think in terms of linear time but in terms of circular time, it is possible that our “creation” as we know it could be only one of the circles or cycles of time that the matter of the universe has endured. I am aware of no place wherein the origin of matter is specified in scripture. Of Course that is all massive speculation.
It is clear that our responsibility is to deal with our own “cycle” or time block as God has set up.

March 31, 2008 at 10:50 pm#108083

ronday888

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 31 2008,17:12)

Hi RD,
You say

“Likewise, the “panta” — all — that was created through the Logos, referred to in John 1:3,4, is speaking, not of everything in the universe, but the world that was made by means of the Logos, the same world that did not recognize him. — John 1:10″

Jn1
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I believe this speaks of God Himself in the vessel of the Son. The people belonged to God as His chosen people and not to Jesus who had not been born and is not said to have had any prior relationship with them. Christ was the lamp that shed the light. Thus he too can be called the light of the world..

*********
Jesus' own people were the children of Israel since Jesus was born of a woman under the law. “His own” does not mean ownership in the same sense that Yahweh has ownership of Israel, the earth and all things in it. Jesus came into the world that was made through him, and came to his own people to whom he was sent by God. When God gave Moses the Law concerning the high priest, he said that the high priest should that he should take as a wife “a virgin from his own people.” (Leviticus 21:10-15) This does not mean that the people of Israel were his own as God has ownership of Israel, but rather it speaks of the people of whom he was a member. Likewise, the manslayer, once the High Priest had died, was told that he was to return to “his own” city. (Joshua 20:6) This does not mean that the manslayer possessed ownership of the city, but that it was the city that he resided. Likewise, a Cherokee might speak of his own people as being the Cherokee nation, not meaning that he owned the people, but that he was a member of that nation.

In the same manner, when Jesus came into the world of mankind, he was born of woman under the Law, thus his own people were the children of Israel.

Jesus was, while he was in the world of mankind, the light of the world. He said: “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:5, Revised Standard Version) How could this be? Proverbs 6:23 tells us: “For the commandment is a lamp, And the law is light.” In Isaiah 51:4, Yahweh states: “Attend to me, my people; and give ear to me, my nation: for a law shall go forth from me, and I will establish my justice for a light of the peoples.” The Law Covenant was the standard for justice, of light and life. For Jesus to be the “light of the world”, he had to keep the Law Covenant perfectly, which he did.

John tells us of Jesus that “in him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:4) What does this mean, that in Jesus, as a human “was life”? John 9:5 and 2 Timothy 1:10 give us a clue. Since Jesus, unlike Adam, was totally obedient, his sinless human life offered light to the dying race of mankind. Thus Jesus said: “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:5, New King James version) The good news is that Jesus came with a erfect human life that he could offer in sacrifice to his God on man's behalf in order to atone for the sin of the world. Thus Jesus, while a man, possessed life, and by his continued obedience brought life and incorruption to light. (2 Timothy 1:10) Jesus condemned sin in the flesh by showing that a sinless, incorrupt human can obey God's laws. — Romans 8:3; 2 Timothy 1:10.
==========
http://atonement.reslight.net/c-s.html

How could Jesus keep the law perfectly, when no one else could? Jesus' human body was not prepared from sinful human stock, but Jesus says of his God: “But a body did you prepare for me.” (Hebrews 10:5) It is thus this sinless human body, having sinless life, that Jesus willingly offered in sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:10) Yes, in Jesus *was* life — human life, crowned with the glory of a sinless man, who by sinlessness had not fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23; Hebrews 2:9) Since Jesus was not under the condemnation, he was not made crooked. He had the ability to either obey or disobey God's law, but willingly obeyed. However, he sacrificed his everlasting human life in order to redeem mankind from the condemnation in Adam. — Romans 5:10-19.

Jesus, as a human, as most know the scriptures say, was without sin. Unlike dying mankind, Jesus had life, thus in him was life! How thankful we can be that the great Logos, the Word of God, the only direct living creation of God, the one through whom all things were made, when the offer was made, and the “joy set before him,” said to his God, “Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 0 God.” (John 1:1-3, Diaglott Literal; Hebrews 10:7; 12:2; Revelation 3:14). The life and personality of the Logos was then transferred and he became the babe of Bethlehem. “He was made flesh and being found in fashion [likeness] as a man [sinful flesh –Romans 8:3] he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross [stauros].” – John 1:14; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 2:14.

Jesus will become the enlightenment of every man that has come into the world due to the ransom sacrifice that Jesus has given on their behalf. In “the age to come”, the age of the regeneration of the world, they will know that Jesus, as a perfect man, kept God's perfect law, and know that they also can do so since they will no longer have the sinful flesh to hinder them.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus! — Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.

Christian love,
Ronald

April 1, 2008 at 12:47 am#108084

Participant

Hi RD,
“11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. “

Why should the Jews receive one man more than another?

April 1, 2008 at 1:23 am#108085

Participant

Dear Martian,

AT Robertson and Westcot and Hort differ from others on whether en is by or in so that is not reliable is it?

April 1, 2008 at 2:51 pm#108086

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 01 2008,13:23)

Dear Martian,

AT Robertson and Westcot and Hort differ from others on whether en is by or in so that is not reliable is it?

Robertson and Wescot ad hort are acknowledged as being two of the top expersts in Greek. Certainly there will be others that may disagree. REally it is no different then those that insist that 1 John 5:8 belongs in the Bible. There are miriads of individual people that are more then willing to change the scriptures to fit their doctrine. To my knowledge neither Wescot, hart or Robrtson reject the Trinity and it's supportive doctrine of a pre-existant Christ. It leads one to ask if they have a motive for changing that particular word. I have yet to discover it. In fact it would weaken their own doctrinal stand.
This is another reason why we have principles by which to determine what is true and not just opinions. A few steps to follow.
1. Of the thousands of times the “en” is used in scriptue, How is it translated most?
2. What are the credentials of those experts you say disagree with my stand? Even just the names?
Since a doctrine is being formed on the basis of this and a few other scriptures, what is the end conclusion of that doctrien.
1. How does it support the plan of God?
2. How does it make Christ a more viable example for me?
3. Since the conclusion denoted an existance for Christ before He was born of Mary. What can be said about His state then and what happened to the memories and life that He lived in that state?

If there is an unreliability on the translation of that particular verse and differerent “experts” say different theing it puts that verse in the ambigous category and should be thrown out as use for positive proof for either side. Ambigous scriptures have to be defined by clear verses. They cannot be relied upon as positive proof of any stand.

It is like the proper treatment of Gen 1:26. This is an ambigous scripture. Trinitarians will proclaim that the “us” is Christ and God or all three members of the Trinity speaking to eachother. (actually the Hebrew explains this verse very clearly but I will not start that now.) There are many posibilities for that verses proper undrstanding that have to be examined. However those with the preconceived idea of doctrine only go as far as needed to find proof and forget about truth.

April 1, 2008 at 4:25 pm#108087

Participant

Hi Martian,
These are the Bibles and some scholars that translate this word as “by” ESV, NASB, KJV, NAS, NKJV, NIV. Matthew Henry, Barnes, Adam Clarke.

It is translated in the New Testament as “in” the most and “by” a substantial number of times as well. I think that both have credibility. As far as in the verse Col 1:16, I find it as “by” more than “in”. So, If I had to choose, I would go with “by”.
This is all I have time for right now. I have to take my daughter to the museum. Have a great day Martian.

April 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm#108088

Participant

Hi martian,
Your question

“1. How does it support the plan of God?”

presupposes that men are able to grasp the full plan of God.

I am not convinced that is the case.

April 1, 2008 at 8:06 pm#108089

Mr. Steve

Participant

To all;

Whether you like “by” or “in”, he being the Son of God was with the Father before the foundation of the world as the only begotten Son of God.

Steven

April 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm#108090

Participant

Quote (martian @ April 01 2008,10:51)

Since a doctrine is being formed on the basis of this and a few other scriptures, what is the end conclusion of that doctrien.
1. How does it support the plan of God?

Hello Martian,
While I was at the museum this afternoon I had a thought that might help answer how the pre-existence of the Son of God and His role in creation supported the plan of God.

We are told that in Job 38:2-7 that the angels were witnesses to the “fattening” of the earth because that is who is referred to in v.7. Well, supposing that the only begotten Son of God (Jesus) did in fact have a role in creation as He existed in a heavenly body as it implies in Is 51:16 and other places. He performed that role with the witness of the other sons of God, the angels. Therefore, because the angels were there and witnessed this, they knew that Christ was unique to them and above them. God established Christ priority to creation and to the angels through this. That is a reason or part of the reason to show how His pre-existence supports the plan of God.
Job 38:2-7

2 “Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 “Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6 “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
NASU

Isa 51:14-16
15 “For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name). 16 “I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are My people.'”
NASU

I must go now to take my daughter to her softball game and I will have some time for “bleacher meditation” regarding the rest of your questions. It will probably be a very slow moving game with alot of walks. The team's strategy depends on stealing bases to get the runs scored.:) Not too many hits! Oh well, more time to concentrate on your questions.

April 1, 2008 at 10:28 pm#108091

Participant

good points LU

April 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm#108092

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ April 02 2008,09:58)

Quote (martian @ April 01 2008,10:51)

Since a doctrine is being formed on the basis of this and a few other scriptures, what is the end conclusion of that doctrien.
1. How does it support the plan of God?

Hello Martian,
While I was at the museum this afternoon I had a thought that might help answer how the pre-existence of the Son of God and His role in creation supported the plan of God.

Before I continue to reply let me try again to explain the way in which the Hebrews think. You made post a few days ago in which you said your mindset was to act in love toward those on this board. This implies a choice on your point. It is possible for another action to occur to you. With the Hebrew mindset nothing outside of their culture occurs to them. This is amplified by the centuries of separation from the other cultures of the world.
The Western idea of creation in which something comes from nothing would be a completely foreign concept to the Hebrew thinkers. The idea of fattening carries the concept of bringing to fruition or bearing fruit or ripening of the fruit.
The Hebrew agrees with the idea of Christ having part in creation but in the Hebrew way of thinking He takes part in the bringing to fruition the plan of God.
Remember too that the Hebrews view objects by virtue of their function. When you conceptualise the Earth, you see the planet with all of its minerals and physicality. The Hebrew views the Earth as the place that houses the proving ground for the sons of God. He views it by its function. The heavens and the Earth were brought about to bring about the completion of the plan of God to mature sons of God.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Before I go farther, I am not going to deal with the “us” in this verse. I can do that at another time.

The word “after” in this verse carries the meaning at the end or edge and the word likeness means like the father. So we are made in the image of God and in the end will be like the father. The mechanical translation of this verse says “and Elohiym (multiplicity of power) said, we will make a human in our image and like our likeness…..”

Verse 27 clearifies what God did.
Genesis 1:27?God fattened man in His own image, in the image of God He fattened him; male and female He fattened them.

He fattened the image, but not the likeness. WE were brought to completion in the image but not in being like him. That was the process begun in the garden of Eden. That fattening of the likeness of God is still an ongoing process. A process each of us goes through to one extant or another.

Now to Isa 51:14-16
15 “For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name). 16 “I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, 'You are My people.'”

Look at three words in this verse.
Earth (functionally) = the place of maturing for the sons of God or simply the maturing of the sons of God.
Establish = To perform a work or experience the yoke.
Found = To lay the foundation of a household.

Now with the proper translation –
“For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name). 16 “I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to perform a work and experience the yoke of the heavens, to lay the foundation of the family wherein my children will be matured , and to say to Zion, 'You are My people.'”

There is some question as to this being a prophecy about Christ or about all of God’s people. Since we share in the glory of Jesus it could be both.
This verse is not about Christ taking part in a physical creation but about Christ being an integral part of bringing about the completion of God’s plan for His people.
Tie it in will all kinds of other verses. We are all part of the Temple of God. Jesus is the chief cornerstone. The 12 apostles are foundation stones. Jesus speaks of being yoked and asks us to take on the same yoke.

I am not going to deal with all of the Job you quoted just two portions.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Laid in this verse has a wide application but one of it’s primary meanings is to set into place.
Foundation carries the meaning of a plan like a blueprint.
Earth = maturing of the sons of God.

Again the proper translation would be something like –
“Where were you when I set into place the plan or blueprint for the maturing of the sons of God?
This ties precisely with John 1 in which the logos (intentions or plan) of God was with Him from the beginning and that Jesus is the fulfillment of the plan. The logos is the blueprint in the mind of God. Jesus is the completed building/Temple.

Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The cornerstone is Jesus. Set into place by God. At the end of Christ ministry the cornerstone was set into place for the eternal Temple of God (us). At this time the sons of God rejoiced.
John 8:56?” Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Hebrews 11 speaks of all the children/sons of God that came before us. These make up
the cloud of witnesses that look upon us now and saw the time of Christ and rejoiced.

As to your other post on “in” or “by” it is really not relavent either way when one considers what create means.

April 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm#108093

Participant

I believe I am done for th day on here. Take care all —-

April 2, 2008 at 9:25 pm#108094

Participant

Hi martian,
Was God really with his intentions or plans in the beginning?
Can we be with our thoughts or do they perish with us?
Speaking is an action that begets.
The Word was with God.

April 2, 2008 at 10:04 pm#108095

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 03 2008,09:25)

Hi martian,
Was God really with his intentions or plans in the beginning?
Can we be with our thoughts or do they perish with us?
Speaking is an action that begets.
The Word was with God.

So far, lightenup is the only one on here that I konw takes scipture interpretation seriously. I do not believe you do and therefor cannot take anything you post seriously. You have refused to consider the original languages or cultures unless it agrees with your preconceived idea of docvtrine. Everything you interpret is funneled through your doctrine. If it lines you use it. If it does not you ignore it.

April 2, 2008 at 11:43 pm#108096

Participant

Hi Martian,
You give alot of information. My brain's hurting. I know that takes alot of your time and I appreciate your effort. I am getting the impression that you are not satisfied with the modern English translations of the Bible. It seems to me that you think that most of the translations say one thing but really should say something else. Do you have a Bible that interprets scripture the way you think it should? What is the name of that Bible? What reference could I go to if I wanted to verify what you are saying?

This passage below clearly speaks of something done a long, long time ago. It speaks of the Red Sea parting does it not? The arm of the LORD is Jesus and He did something a long, long time ago. He was the plan of God that became more of a plan a very long time before Isaiah was writing this. He existed and did something way back during the time of the exodus from Egypt. This passage is about something that the arm of the LORD did in the past way before Christ came in the flesh.

Isa 51:9-10

9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;
Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago.
Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces,
Who pierced the dragon?
10 Was it not You who dried up the sea,
The waters of the great deep;
Who made the depths of the sea a pathway
For the redeemed to cross over?
NASU

April 2, 2008 at 11:45 pm#108097

Participant

Quote (martian @ April 03 2008,10:04)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 03 2008,09:25)

Hi martian,
Was God really with his intentions or plans in the beginning?
Can we be with our thoughts or do they perish with us?
Speaking is an action that begets.
The Word was with God.

Hi martian,
But the standard you offer for all these things
is yourself and your views.
Why?

April 3, 2008 at 3:59 am#108098