- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Martian,
Is that your way of saying “oops, ya got me and I can't admit it” to my following proof of Jesus' pre-existence:John 1:15-16
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ' He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”
NASUIn my understanding, this speaks of Christ existing before John existed and we know that Mary (Christ's mother) became pregnant after Elizabeth (John's mother). That is clear to me that Christ was a living heavenly being before His conception within Mary. If you say that, yes, He existed but only as the plan and purpose of God before John was born then I disagree. I believe we were all pre-existing as the plan and purpose of God before we became alive, even John. I think that it is about Christ being a living heavenly being in existence even before John's conception. So, if someone was alive before their conception in their mother, well that would be unique and different than mankind in general and make Christ more than just a man, in my opinion.
You have avoided answering the above question. I just want everyone to know that. You have also avoided giving me credible references to your “definitions”. I just want everyone to know that also. You are not seeking truth of scripture you are rewriting it. That is fine if you do not want to spend time showing me how your rewrite scripture to fit the supposed Hebrew mindset. It is wasting my time as well.
lightenup…… Go to Jeff benner's web sit and check out the Hebrew word create, you will find there is no Hebrew word for create, in fact the way the first sentence of Genesis should read is this way,> in the summit “Elohiym {powers}” fattened the sky and land. So you can see martian's point. I fact please show where Jesus every said that he Preexisted as a being before his birth. And explain what point would it make on mankind if He did preexist, and why didn't Peter say when he was talking about that subject that Jesus was (FORORDAINED) and then went on to say (BUT) was manifested in our time. Why didn't he just say he preexisted as a being and was reborn in our time. You have swolled the trap all trinitarians have by giving Jesus preexisted powers, when in fact he had none. He was a ordinary human being just like you and me who God was with from berth.
IMO…………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 16 2008,11:42) lightenup…… Go to Jeff benner's web sit and check out the Hebrew word create, you will find there is no Hebrew word for create, in fact the way the first sentence of Genesis should read is this way,> in the summit “Elohiym {powers}” fattened the sky and land. So you can see martian's point. I fact please show where Jesus every said that he Preexisted as a being before his birth. And explain what point would it make on mankind if He did preexist, and why didn't Peter say when he was talking about that subject that Jesus was (FORORDAINED) and then went on to say (BUT) was manifested in our time. Why didn't he just say he preexisted as a being and was reborn in our time. You have swolled the trap all trinitarians have by giving Jesus preexisted powers, when in fact he had none. He was a ordinary human being just like you and me who God was with from berth. IMO…………gene
KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.NKJV – Gen 1:1 – IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
NLT – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Footnote:
Or In the beginning when God created, or When God began to create.NIV – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman FoundationRSV – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
American Standard Version 1901 InfoDarby – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 InfoWebster – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Noah Webster Version 1833 InfoHNV – Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the eretz.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 InfoGB
Maybe you can enlighten us on how you and martian came to the conclusion the word “Create” is not found Hebrew scriptures.
Where is the evidence?
In fact the Hebrew word for created is “bara'”
It is found 42 times in the Hebrew scriptures as meaning create.
The Hebrew word means “to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
Interesting, it says with God as subject, yet in the NT we see Jesus is the creator. John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Hebrews 1:10. Yet we know that the Hebrew scriptures says God alone, by himself created all things.
But of course all you will do is make empty accusations against all who disagree with your “Unitarian” concept and accuse them of being decieved while you yourself will claim to have the truth.
Lightenup has truly sought to understand where and how you and martian come to your unscriptural claims. But instead of martian giving solid information or answering her questions, all he does is patronize her and then runs off in a huff without answering her questions as usual.
Of course we understand that he has far to important things to do than to waste his time on all these ignorant and stupid and decieved Christians.
Why dont you answer her questions? Instead of making these claims and then pointing her to some apollogist, why dont you give her some concrete evidence as to why she is wrong.
Funny, even when someone who isnt a Triinitarian disagrees with you then you seek to add wieght to your claim by accusing them of being like Trinitarians and decieved or twist scriptures. Yet you guys never present any evidence to disprove scriptures that clearly teach against your view.
How arrogant!
How is it that you and martian think you have more authority than the 100s of translaters who are the experts in Hebrew and Greek?
I would rather you just say the scriptures are corrupt, which of course I have heard you say that the scriptures have been tampered with when they do not agree with you.
Even One of the newest translations disagree with you. Which is far more credible than anything I have seen you or martian present.
The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations).
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
Add those 25 Scholars to the over 600 that brought us the current translations found on Blueletterbible.org and bible gateway.
But you guys know more than they right?
NET
1:1 In the beginning1 God2 created3 the heavens and the earth.43tn The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb בָּרָא (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2008,19:42) lightenup…… Go to Jeff benner's web sit and check out the Hebrew word create, you will find there is no Hebrew word for create
Hi Gene,
You say that there is no Hebrew word for create. How do you explain this:OT:1254
bara' (baw-raw'); a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): -choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)Hmmmmm! It looks like there is indeed a Hebrew word for create and it is “bara'”.
hmmmmm!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 15 2008,19:42) lightenup…… He was a ordinary human being just like you and me who God was with from berth. IMO…………gene
Hi Gene,
Ordinary human beings weren't born of a virgin were they?!Matt 1:22-25
23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NASUOrdinary human beings weren't conceived of the Holy Spirit were they?!
Matt 1:20-21
20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ” Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has beenconceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
NASUOrdinary human beings didn't exist before they were conceived, did they?!
John 1:15
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ' He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.
NASUTherefore, Jesus was not an ordinary human being just like you and me.
Hi all!
KJV
John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
King James Version 1611, 1769NKJV – Jhn 1:15 – John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.'”
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas NelsonNLT – Jhn 1:15 – John pointed him out to the people. He shouted to the crowds, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, `Someone is coming who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before I did.' ”
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable TrustNIV – Jhn 1:15 – John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV – Jhn 1:15 – (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB – Jhn 1:15 – John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' ”
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV – Jhn 1:15 – (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'”)
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.ASV – Jhn 1:15 – John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.
American Standard Version 1901 InfoYoung – Jhn 1:15 – John doth testify concerning him, and hath cried, saying, `This was he of whom I said, He who after me is coming, hath come before me, for he was before me;'
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 InfoDarby – Jhn 1:15 – (John bears witness of him, and he has cried, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me😉
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 InfoWebster – Jhn 1:15 – John testified concerning him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that cometh after me, is preferred before me; for he was before me.
Noah Webster Version 1833 InfoLightenup brings up an interesting point. The Apostle John records John the Baptist saying that Jesus was before him.
Since it is true that JTB was conceived before Jesus, then this would mean that Jesus preexisted his natural birth.
And to keep true with this thread, this would also mean that The Apostle John meant that this Word that came in the flesh that existed before JTB is the Word that was with God and was God in John 1:1.
While looking at 1 Peter 1:20 that GB so often speaks of as if it unambiguously proves Jesus existed only in the mind of the Father as a plan before he came in the flesh, I came across this…
Jesus as Preexistent Son of God
Responding to one Muslim’s Appeal to NT Greek Grammar
Sam Shamoun
This resumes our analysis of Badawi’s points which he raised against the Lord Jesus in his debate with Jon Rittenhouse, specifically his attempt to deny that Jesus personally existed with his Father even before creation.
It is apparent that Badawi is getting his information concerning Jesus’ ideal preexistence in the foreknowledge of God, as opposed to actual personal preexistence, from Wierwille as well.
Be that as it may Badawi faces a few problems with the claim that Jesus only preexisted in God’s foreknowledge. First, if all the NT is saying is that Christ merely existed in God’s mind or that God had foreordained for him the glory which he was going to receive after his resurrection then there was a way for Jesus and the NT writers to indicate this. They could have communicated this point by using the very words which Badawi and Wierwille themselves appeal to in denying Jesus’ actual prehuman existence, namely the terms foreknew or foreknowledge.
In other words, Christ and the authors of Holy Scripture could have used either the verb foreknew or the noun foreknowledge if all they meant to say was that Jesus existed in God’s mind or that Christ’s mission was preordained before creation. After all, these are the very words which the NT writers employ when they speak of God foreordaining peoples and events:
“This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.” Acts 2:23
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30
“God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel:” Romans 11:2
“who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.” 1 Peter 1:2
“For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.” 1 Peter 1:20 NASBIt looks like Muslims also do not believe Jesus preexisted before he came in the flesh.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_jesus_preexistence.htm
WJ,
It's good to see your light on again.
I see you are back in full-swing here.
Press on, bro!
Love,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ April 16 2008,18:08) WJ, It's good to see your light on again.
I see you are back in full-swing here.
Press on, bro!
Love,
Mandy
Not3Thanks!
I have been busy with a long paper for school!
Glad that is done. But it was a blessing to learn so much about the scriptures.
I was pressed to did deep and hard and long in such a short time.
Hope you are well.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 16 2008,11:42) lightenup…… Go to Jeff benner's web sit and check out the Hebrew word create, you will find there is no Hebrew word for create, in fact the way the first sentence of Genesis should read is this way,> in the summit “Elohiym {powers}” fattened the sky and land. So you can see martian's point. I fact please show where Jesus every said that he Preexisted as a being before his birth. And explain what point would it make on mankind if He did preexist, and why didn't Peter say when he was talking about that subject that Jesus was (FORORDAINED) and then went on to say (BUT) was manifested in our time. Why didn't he just say he preexisted as a being and was reborn in our time. You have swolled the trap all trinitarians have by giving Jesus preexisted powers, when in fact he had none. He was a ordinary human being just like you and me who God was with from berth. IMO…………gene
Greetings…..Part of the essense of God is his Word,by which he commanded things to happen and so they did,by the power of his spirit things were created…..John was asked who he thought Jesus was and he said…In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…
It is not hard to see how it can be construed that Jesus preexisted….although there are no mentions of Jesus in the OT with the exception of Isa 53 and that at best was a description of the Man who would be the Messiah,with specific reference to the suffering he would experience for our sake…..Lightenup, I apologize if I seemed harsh in my post to you. I am however not going to apologize for my frustration at your continual ignoring of the principles of interpretation that you agreed were appropriate.
I do not have to rewrite this particular scripture. That has already been done by the Trinitarians. I attempt to get back to the original text and not what a biased translator has written.
Several points for you to consider.
1. The theory of a Pre-existant Christ is a primary ingrediant of the Trinity theory. There are literally hundred of times in our modern translations where a verse or word has been translated in light of the Trinitarian doctrine. They assumed the Trinity to be true (including the preexistant Christ) seeing to it that words and phrases were translated to support that doctrine. This was done without any textural support in context or language.2. According to the NAS Greek Lexicon the Greek word eimi is used 300 times in the NT. Only 4 times is it translated existed. This Greek lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”
3. The primary meaning of “eimi” is “to be” and is most often (130 times) translated as “am”.
4. Context –
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”—– Here the context is set. John the Baptist begins comparing himself to Christ. He states clearly that Christ is of a higher rank then him. Then John the Baptist says why. “for He to be before me”. In preeminence, Christ is to be ahead of John the Baptist. In rank Christ is to be above or before John the Baptist. TO BE future tense, not in some preexistant state.
Now John the apostle goes on to clarify why Christ is ahead of all of us in rank.—————-
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
—————– Verses 16 through 18 John the Apostle points out two things.
1) Christ is above Moses in rank.
2) That Christ’s rank is due to these things.
A) We received grace upon grace which happened at Calvary.
B) Grace and truth realized through Christ which was an act of His Earthly ministry “I am the truth and the light”.
C) He is in the bosom of the Father which happened after His resurrection. D) Christ explained God to us in His Earthly ministry.
John gives clear evidence as to why Christ is of higher rank then us. Not because of pre-existing but because of His work on Earth. ———————————————19This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
20And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”
21They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not ” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”
22Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”
23He said, “I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said.”
24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know.
27″It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
————————- Again John the Baptist carries on the context of Christ being of higher rank then he. The context of verses 16 through 27 is about the rank or preeminence of Christ over John the Baptist, John the apostle, Moses and us. The reasons for that preeminence are made clear. They are because of His work on Earth and not because of some pre existence.—————————As you have often done in the past, you have not studied the Greek word origins nor have you considered the context of the verse. You did not consider the word usage of eimi in other places in scripture but instead accepted a meaning that fits your theory. You have again played cut and paste theology. Taking a scripture out of context and attempting to use it to prove a pet theory. Again you have set out in your study with a preconceived idea of doctrine and only go as far as needed to get some form of supposed proof for what you already have decided is true. You are not looking for truth. You are looking for proof.
Lightenup……> the despite what WJ and his 200 scholars say the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the bible by Jeff Benner puts it this way…….> B-RA, means to fill:, the fattening or filling up of something. The filling of the earth in Genesis 1 with sun, moon, plants, animals,ect. And the filling of man with life and the image of God. [freq. 54] (vf: Paal, Niphal, Hiphil, Piel) {kjv: create, creator,choose, make, cut down, dispatch, done, fat. (str. 1254). Interesting in the original Hebrew it's used 54 times for fill or fattening, but in the kjv, its used for all kind of different things that have hardly nothing really in common with each other, O well i guess WJ's 600 scholars cant be right all the time can they. But as you can see there is no Hebrew word for create, it's a western word not a Hebrew word.
Hope this helps……….gene
WJ…….> Your criticism of me and martian is unfounded we have both given you solid explanations for what we expound, you and others constantly imply meanings to texts that are not there, you simply put them there to fix your own Trinitarian belief systems, but you cannot find any absolute statements to back up you suppositions. If Jesus preexisted as God or anything else he would have (CLEARLY) stated that fact, then we would not be having this debate would we. What your trinitarian theology teaches as fact is simply your forcing of texts, saying or implying things that aren't there as if they were . You have still never as far as i am concerned answered the simple scripture i quoted you with regards to Jesus saying (FOR THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD) The word (ONLY) means no other as i recall, but of course you trinitarians don't seem to understand that as well as other scriptures you assert as fact when in fact there not.
IMO………..gene
Lightenup,
Before I delve into this more perhaps you might consider the source of your support. I would beware when the Trinitarians begin to back me up.
Now as to your accusations —–
My oh my, aren’t you full of assumptions. Both about my motives and the scripture.
I did not go into more detail on proving Bara means fatten because you have proven time and again that you are not interested in anything that might contradict your already decided upon and supposed truth. However for the benefit of those that might actually be open to truth I will attempt to make it clear.In determining the meaning of “bara” I will cross reference other scriptures in which the word is used and consider the concrete versus the abstract way in which the Hebrews thought and wrote.
The fact is that we are still in the reformation. Centuries of misguided understanding are still being overthrown. Hundreds of reference works have been produced that base all of their conclusions on a Western mindset or way of thinking. Until recently little credence has been given to the cultural or nomadic nature of the ancient Hebrews and that nature’s influence on the way they thought or wrote. Recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Hittite/Babylonian pictographs have yet to filter into the reference works that have been established for the last hundred years. In many cases even modern reference works are simple copies of the same info that was researched 150 years ago. Most Christians do not even know that the culture of the ancient Hebrews was vastly different then the Western cultures in which we now live. Nor do they understand the concrete way in which the Hebrew mind thought compared to our abstract way of thinking. We are so inundated with the philosophical/Greek way of viewing God and our surroundings that we find it very hard to comprehend any other way of thinking. We cannot see or identify things by virtue of their purpose. As I mentioned in a previous post we look at the Earth and conceptualise the matter and physical qualities that make up this ball spinning in space. The Hebrew mind sees the Earth after it’s purpose. It is the place that houses the children of God. It is the place where they are matured through testing and teaching from God. When the ancient Hebrew hears the word “Earth” this s the concept that comes to mind. This is not just my opinion but any careful study of Hebrew culture will reveal this way of thinking. One thing I cannot do on a forum such as this is detail what it has taken me years to learn.
Now to the word “create”.First from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center we have this explanation –
“The first verse of Genesis begins, according to most modern translations, “In the beginning God created.” According to most theologians, the word “create” is understood to mean “to make something out of nothing.” This definition is an abstract concept with no concrete foundation and is therefore not a Hebraic concept. To discover the original meaning of the Hebrew behind this English word, we will need to take a close look at the Hebrew word arb bara [H:1254], the word behind the English word
“create.”
In Genesis 2:7 it states that God “formed” man. The Hebrew word translated as “formed” is the verb ruy yatsar [H:3335] and is best understood as the process of pressing clay together to form an object such as a figurine. We can plainly see from this verse that man was made from something; however, in Genesis 1:27
we read, according to most translators, “God created man.” As we have discovered, man is made from something, therefore the word “create” in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:27 cannot mean to make something out of nothing. If the word arb bara [H:1254] does not mean “create” then what does it mean? By examining other passages where this word appears, we can begin to uncover its true meaning18.
Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine
offering, which I have commanded in my
habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to
make yourselves fat (bara) with the chiefest of all
the offerings of Israel my people?
1 Samuel 2:29 (KJV)
Believe it or not, the word bara is translated as “fat” in the verse above and is the original concrete meaning of this word. What does it mean in Genesis 1:1 when it literally says, “God fattened the heavens and the earth”? When an animal is chosen for the slaughter, it is placed in a pen and fed grain so that it can be fattened, or “filled up.” This idea of “filling up” is now more relevant to the next verse.
Because the land was empty and unfilled
Genesis 1:2
With a better understanding of the word bara we can now see the meaning of Genesis 1:27.
And Elohiym filled (bara) the man with his image,
with his image he filled (bara) him, male and
female he filled (bara) them. “Other places wherein bara is used.
Jos 17:15
And Joshua said to them, “If you are a numerous people, go up to the forest and clear (bara or fill) a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you.”
Jos 17:18
but the hill country shall be yours. For though it is a forest, you shall clear (bara or fill) it, and to its farthest borders it shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, even though they have chariots of iron and though they are strong.”
Eze 23:47
'And the company will stone them with stones and cut them down (bara or fill them) with their swords; they will slay their sons and their daughters and burn their houses with fire.From The Christian Leadership Center ——-
In the ancient Greek translations of the Bible several words were used to translate bara’, the most common being ktizein (which also translates other words for creation). In classical use the word meant “to people a place” or “to make habitable.” But in the New Testament it is used for the creation by God (Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9) as well as the transforming of people who come to faith (Eph. 2:10; 4:24).
The second major word used in the Greek is the general word poiein. Hatch and Redpath list over a hundred forms translated by it. Poiein most often translates Hebrew ‘asah, “to make, do,” but it translates bara’ in Genesis 1:1, 21, 27; 5:1, 2; 6:7; Isa. 42:5; 43:1; 45:7, 18; and 65:18. Aquila, however, preferred the precision of ktizein in the creation accounts.
Several other Greek words are used. In Numbers 16:30 we find deiknuein, “to show, bring to light.” Archein is used in Genesis 2:3–“which God began to do.” Isaiah 40:28 and 43:7 have kataskeuazein, “to equip, furnish, prepare, build and furnish a house.” In Isaiah 40:26, 41:20, and 42:15, katadeiknunai, “to introduce, invent, make known,” is used.
So the Greek translators did not confine themselves to the main words “create” or “make,” especially when working with the different nuances of bara’ in the prophets.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary the English word “create” means (1) to cause to exist, bring into being, originate; (2) to give rise to, bring about, produce. It derives from the Latin creare, “to bring forth, create, produce” (“to cause to grow.” Ceres was the goddess of agriculture, especially the growth of fruits [see also “cereal”]). See also “procreate.”
?
Significance
The word bara’ is used exclusively for the activity of God in which he fashions something new and pristine. The word could be used for creating something out of nothing, but that emphasis must come from the context and not from the meaning of this word
Bara’ Includes the ideas of creating, shaping, forming, and transforming. Its emphasis lies in the fact that what is produced is new and fresh and good and perfect. It does not produce something imperfect or incomplete. While many English word
s could be used in the translations, “create” still serves very well because its connotations have been elevated by association with the Creator. We tend to use the word “create” to refer to a work of art, a masterpiece, something new and wonderful. For all the ordinary things, or inferior things, “make” serves very well.Strong Hebrew Dictionary also includes the meaning of making fat for Bara.
1254. bara' (baw-raw')
a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes)
choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Some who read Genesis 1-2 have suggested, for example, that the Hebrew words translated “create” (bara) and “make” (asah) always mean entirely different things. They believe that bara means “to create,” while asah means “to re-create” or “to make over.” Thus, we are told, “the heavens and earth” were created in the beginning (vss. 1-2; supposedly a time that could have been billions of years ago), and then there was a six-day “make over” (vss. 3-31). The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.
Consider Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Gap theorists contend that this verse speaks only of God’s “re-forming” from something already in existence. Yet notice that the verse specifically speaks of the heaven and the earth—the very same things mentioned in Genesis 1:1. Notice also the psalmist’s commentary on Genesis 1:
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He commanded and they were created (Psalm 148:1-5, emp. added).
The psalmist indicated that the Sun, Moon, and stars (among other things) were created (bara). However, Genesis 1:16 states: “God made (asah) two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made (asah) the stars also.” When we “couple” Genesis 1:16 with Psalm 148:1-5, the only logical conclusion that we can draw is that “to create” and “to make” are used to refer to the same event—the making of heavenly bodies on the fourth day of creation.
Finally, consider what Nehemiah wrote concerning God’s creation:
You alone are the Lord; You have made [asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You (9:6, emp. added).
When Nehemiah wrote about some of the same events recorded in Psalm 148:1-5 and Genesis 1:1 [in which the word “created” (bara) was used], he employed the word “made” (asah).
Copyright © 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Much of the OT original text must be understood in the same way as one might read the poetry of Shakespere. “Lend the eye a terrible aspect. Set the teeth” (Henry V) or in our modern English? “Get angry”. One must understand the concrete or aligorical nature of those words to really understand them.
From the perspective of the ancient Hebrew the act of creating something from nothing would have been far too much of an abstract concept. Did God create the universe/matter form nothing? Who knows”, but our Western mindset likes to think so. For this reason modern translators use the word “create” to satisfy the way in which we think. However, from the way in which the Hebrews viewed life and objects after the function or purpose they served and their nomadic, herding lifestyle they would conceive of God bringing to fruition (fattening, developing, filling up) a universe that would function to bring about His purposes. To the Hebrew the purpose of tending flocks was to meet their need for food and continue the line of their people. To increase their household by providing an atmosphere wherein their family would flourish. The fattening of their flocks was the process by which they increased their household.
God fattened/filled the universe to house mankind. It was void and empty and God filled it. In the same way God formed mankind from the dust of the Earth but He was created/bara/filled when He breathed life into him and he became a living soul. That filling is not a one time experience. We are to continually be more filled with the life/Spirit/breath of God. The Hebrews continually fed their flocks till the process was completed. We are to be fattened/filled by the breath of God till we are brought to completion. Brought to fruition by that continual filling.
.
The Pre-existant Christ theory is really just another of the sub doctrines of the Trinity. Though I can applaud Nick and Lightenup for coming out of some of the Trinity doctrine, they still cling to some of it’s off shoots.
One of the early problems encountered by the followers of the Trinity doctrine was that of the nature of Christ. There are very clear scriptures that state that Jesus was a man. This was a problem because this was contrary to the original Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was a co-equal person of God and of the same substance. (A philosophy forced on the Nicean Counsel, at sword point by the pagan sun worshipper Constantine.)
Jesus as a man also contradicted dualist who could never accept Jesus as fully human of the lower earthly realm. Dualists believed that only the transendental realm of the Spirit had merit and all things of the lower physical realm were of lesser or no importance. From this philosophy sprang renewed theories of some pre-existance of Christ that somehow magically dissapeared when he was born of Mary. This despite the fact that no one could explain what happened to this person of Christ that pre-existed.Future councils had the impossible task of defending the Trinity while at the same time dealing with these contradictions.
Again we must ask ourslves, Where does this concept come from? Simply put these councils were hard pressed to find an answer to the contradictions found in the Trinity. With this in mind they formulated a doctrine with no scriptural proof and just applied it as truth. They went to the scriptures with this doctrine and applied scriptures out of context. By using unclear scriptures they could twist them to seem to validate their doctrine.Since there are no clear scriptures to define this pre-existant Christ we must look elsewhere to determine it’s origin and history. This doctrine did not happen overnight, but took decades to develop. The result was a cocktail of Irational and illogical thought leading to meaningless rhetoric. Let’s look at some of the history, by which these doctrines entered the teaching of the church.
Most of the primary tenants of the dual nature doctrine and pre-existant Christ stem from several councils starting in 325 A. D. These councils were formed for the purpose of denouncing what was then believed to be false doctrine and for instituting some central statements defining the faith. These definitions were needed to unify the church and were much more politcaly motivated then scripturally motivated. Unfortunately, as stated before, Christianity had been corrupted by Paganism and Greek philosophy and the councils reflected this influence. The Nicene council stated that Jesus was fully God in response to the Aryans who believed that Jesus was not God.
The Apollianarians Did not believe that Jesus was fully human, therefore the council of Constantinople (381 U.S.) declared he was fully human.
The Nestorianism group denied that Mary could be called the mother of God. They believed that Mary was only the mother of the human part of Jesus. The resulting belief dictated that there exists two Christ's, one divine and one human. This theory explains part of the reason why some still cling to a concept of a super natural Christ that preceeded his birth on Earth.
Of course at this point non trinitarians that believe in a pre-existant Christ stop and circle their wagons. Although they will deny the Trinity, they do not admit that their theory of a Christ before He was born to Mary has it roots in the same corruption as the Trinity.You ever notice that those in false doctrine more often then not post singular scriptures as proof text and rarely post the entire context. This occurs because in many cases the context would clarify that particular scripture and invalidate their claims. Just as rare among those that have false teaching is the practice of cross referencing a particular scripture with other scriptures that speak on the same subject. This is also due to the fact that in many cases this comparison would invalidate their claims.
Another give away of false teachers is their insistance on placing more weight on modern translations then on the original text in the original language and defined by the culture in which it was written.
I am not saying that there are not particular scriptures that can stand alone or every part of a modern translations is inaccurate, however when an interpretation is challenged one of the primary test is to examine it within the context of scripture itself. This must be both in the words themselvs and the cultures in which the words are written.Continuing the conversation on fatten versus create, let me ask this question.
If you were to read the phrase “slow to nose”, what would that mean to you? How about if I were to tell you that this phrase is the literal word for word translation of a portion of Hebrew scripture. When one makes a literal mechanical translation of the Hebrew into English this is the result. This can be verified through any literal mechanical translation of the Hebrew OT. To understand this phrase one must understand the difference between concrete and abstract thought. I realize that I quote Jeff Benner quite a bit but any real scholar of Hebrew will be able to say the same things. I prefer the way in which Jeff explains things. And I quote —
“Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither”. In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and a unwithered leaf (prosperity).”
“Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love”. As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.”
“Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word ?? (awph) which literally means “nose”, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as “the flaring of the nose (nostrils)”. If the translator literally translated the above passage “slow to nose”, it would make no sense to the English reader, so ??, a nose, is translated to “anger” in this passage.”Obviously one can see the daunting task set before translators to translate concrete thoughts and words into abstract concepts easily understood by we of Western cultures. Just as obvious is the idea that some things are lost in the translation. This is usually by accident, but in some cases done on purpose to support the prevalent doctrines of the time. Just as often many folks go only as far as they need to support their doctrine.
In the case of Gen 1:1, were it to be literally translated “In the beginning God fattened (bara) the sky and the land” we of modern Western cultures would not have a clue what it means. For this reason modern translators used the word “Created”. What was the motivation behind using that particular word? No one can really say, but it is reasonable to see that the word can leave some of the meaning of “bara” in the dust. The idea of feeding, filling and bringing to fruition which is clear in the cultural understanding of “fattening” is lost in the finite abstract word create.
This Hebrew culture was still in place during the gospel period and was finally overwhelmed and destroyed by Rome and it’s spreading of Greek/Western culture. Because of it’s existence in the NT period one must also see that regardless of the language in which the NT was written these same cultural concepts would need be considered.
For example Eph 4:10
He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
The false teacher takes this verse out of context and attempts to use it to show that Christ must have pre-existed or that he is God because He is able to fill all things. The truth is that the context is very clear in saying that this is about Christ establishing the offices of the church.
4There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
5one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8Therefore it says,? “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH,? HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES,? AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.”
9(Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,
12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.Christ is filling, fattening and bringing to fruition or completion His church.
Once one starts to see the Hebrew concepts behind the words it is easier to see all of the richness of what God is trying to convey.
Quote (martian @ April 16 2008,10:25) Lightenup, I apologize if I seemed harsh in my post to you. I am however not going to apologize for my frustration at your continual ignoring of the principles of interpretation that you agreed were appropriate. I do not have to rewrite this particular scripture. That has already been done by the Trinitarians. I attempt to get back to the original text and not what a biased translator has written.
Several points for you to consider.
1. The theory of a Pre-existant Christ is a primary ingrediant of the Trinity theory. There are literally hundred of times in our modern translations where a verse or word has been translated in light of the Trinitarian doctrine. They assumed the Trinity to be true (including the preexistant Christ) seeing to it that words and phrases were translated to support that doctrine. This was done without any textural support in context or language.2. According to the NAS Greek Lexicon the Greek word eimi is used 300 times in the NT. Only 4 times is it translated existed. This Greek lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.”
3. The primary meaning of “eimi” is “to be” and is most often (130 times) translated as “am”.
4. Context –
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'”—– Here the context is set. John the Baptist begins comparing himself to Christ. He states clearly that Christ is of a higher rank then him. Then John the Baptist says why. “for He to be before me”. In preeminence, Christ is to be ahead of John the Baptist. In rank Christ is to be above or before John the Baptist. TO BE future tense, not in some preexistant state.
Now John the apostle goes on to clarify why Christ is ahead of all of us in rank.—————-
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
—————– Verses 16 through 18 John the Apostle points out two things.
1) Christ is above Moses in rank.
2) That Christ’s rank is due to these things.
A) We received grace upon grace which happened at Calvary.
B) Grace and truth realized through Christ which was an act of His Earthly ministry “I am the truth and the light”.
C) He is in the bosom of the Father which happened after His resurrection. D) Christ explained God to us in His Earthly ministry.
John gives clear evidence as to why Christ is of higher rank then us. Not because of pre-existing but because of His work on Earth. ———————————————19This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
20And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”
21They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not ” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”
22Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”
23He said, “I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said.”
24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.
25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know.
27″It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
————————- Again John the Baptist carries on the context of Christ being of higher rank then he. The context of verses 16 through 27 is about the rank or preeminence of Christ over John the Baptist, John the apostle, Moses and us. The reasons for that preeminence are made clear. They are because of His work on Earth and not because of some pre existence.—————————As you have often done in the past, you have not studied the Greek word origins nor have you considered the context of the verse. You did not consider the word usage of eimi in other places in scripture but instead accepted a meaning that fits your theory. You have again played cut and paste theology. Taking a scripture out of context and attempting to use it to prove a pet theory. Again you have set out in your study with a preconceived idea of doctrine and only go as far as needed to get some form of supposed proof for what you already have decided is true. You are not looking for truth. You are looking for proof.
To all,John 1:15
15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ' He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.
NASUThe greek word used in this verse for existed is “een”
NT:2258
It is definitely not written in the future tense (as Martian wants to claim) according to “The NIV English-Greek New Testament-A Reverse Interlinear”. The original greek word is written as a verb in the imperfect, active, indicative, third person, singular form.
The word “imperfect” means that it describes a past continuous action, it does not tell us whether that action was ever completed or not.
The term “active” means that the subject is doing the action of the verb as opposed to the subject receiving the action as in a “passive” way.
Therefore, Christ existed in the past in an active way. It was Christ doing the existing and the existing wasn't being done to him (as if He were simply a “plan” or “purpose” or “will” of God).
You can see how Martian has gone so far as to change the tense of the verb from the past tense to the future tense. And then He has the gall to accuse others. Be on the alert!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 17 2008,05:26)
WJ…….> Your criticism of me and martian is unfounded we have both given you solid explanations for what we expound, you and others constantly imply meanings to texts that are not there, you simply put them there to fix your own Trinitarian belief systems, but you cannot find any absolute statements to back up you suppositions.
Really? Where is it? All I see is apologetics and misinterpreting Hebrew and Greek words as Lightenup has clearly shown.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 17 2008,05:26)
If Jesus preexisted as God or anything else he would have (CLEARLY) stated that fact, then we would not be having this debate would we.
Well then maybe you should listen to the words of our Lord and see what he says…For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38
Jesus likens himself to the Manna that God gave the children of Israel. Did that manna just appear out of nowhere or did it come from above? Context my friend!
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. John 6:46
When did Jesus see the Father? Or was he lying, since he said no one has seen the Father except him, and we know the Father was in heaven, then if he didn’t come down from the Father he must have been just a set of eyes with the Father huh? Context my friend.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven… John 6:51
Definitely matches the manna in the wilderness which came down from heaven. Context again. Comparing scriptures with scriptures.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: John 6:58
Boy, Jesus really wants to get this point across. Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. And Jesus says it more than three times.
[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6:62
Seriously, if you cannot accept preexistence after this statement then what scriptures do you believe?
“Was Before”. Simple English. Go ahead check it out. The Greek means the same thing, the words are “Past tense”. Of course the Translators were all idiots and deceiving Trinitarians right?
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5
Why didn’t Jesus just say “Glorify me with the Glory you had with your thought or plan before the world was?”
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47
Well if Jesus didn’t come from heaven then then what was the point of the virgin birth? Or do you and martian believe in the virgin birth?
Paul agrees with Jesus and the other Apostles, and so should we.
Tell you what GB. You and martian take these scriptures and show everyone on this board how you and mr benner, would translate them using “Hebrew mindset”, and while you are at it be sure to show us how over 600 Hebrew and Greek scholars got it all wrong.
You guys should start a new religion and write your own Bible, because apparently the one that we have is totally wrong. I think I'll stick with the current versions rather than listen to an apologist who claims to know more than the 100s of translators and 100s of commentators who disagree with him and you.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 17 2008,05:26)
What your trinitarian theology teaches as fact is simply your forcing of texts, saying or implying things that aren't there as if they were .
Are you looking in a mirror?Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 17 2008,05:26)
You have still never as far as i am concerned answered the simple scripture i quoted you with regards to Jesus saying (FOR THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD) The word (ONLY) means no other as i recall, but of course you trinitarians don't seem to understand that as well as other scriptures you assert as fact when in fact there not.IMO………..gene
First of all Jesus didn’t say “FOR THOU ART THE ONLY TRUE GOD”.
Here is what he said…
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
Again, here is one of your favorites that you think that unambiguously disproves the Trinitarian view.
Talk about Hebrew mindset. What do you think a Hebrew would say about Jesus using his name right next to the Father as a prerequisite to knowing God and having eternal life? After all the Hebrews believed only God was their savour. So which one is it? Is it the Father you are getting to know or is it Jesus?
And if everything that we are going to know of the Father can only come through knowing Jesus, then that would mean he would have to be equal to the Father in nature.
But lets see what John says about this because after all he is the one who penned the words.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
Compare…
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.
John clarifies who the Eternal life is in 1 John 1:1-3
The NET explains how grammatically, hermeneutically, contextually this verse should be read.
sn The pronoun This one (οὗτος, Joutos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to
Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.So you see GB you and martian have no corner on truth. At best your proof text are ambiguous as to the Ontological nature of Jesus.
Tell me GB when the Father says…
But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Hebrew 1:8
Was he meaning Jesus was a “True God” or a “false one”?
Maybe this will help.
Is 1:18 explains it very well here….
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1279
Blessings!
Quote (Colter @ April 17 2008,01:42) Quote (theodorej @ April 16 2008,23:18) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ April 16 2008,11:42) lightenup…… Go to Jeff benner's web sit and check out the Hebrew word create, you will find there is no Hebrew word for create, in fact the way the first sentence of Genesis should read is this way,> in the summit “Elohiym {powers}” fattened the sky and land. So you can see martian's point. I fact please show where Jesus every said that he Preexisted as a being before his birth. And explain what point would it make on mankind if He did preexist, and why didn't Peter say when he was talking about that subject that Jesus was (FORORDAINED) and then went on to say (BUT) was manifested in our time. Why didn't he just say he preexisted as a being and was reborn in our time. You have swolled the trap all trinitarians have by giving Jesus preexisted powers, when in fact he had none. He was a ordinary human being just like you and me who God was with from berth. IMO…………gene
Greetings…..Part of the essense of God is his Word,by which he commanded things to happen and so they did,by the power of his spirit things were created…..John was asked who he thought Jesus was and he said…In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…
It is not hard to see how it can be construed that Jesus preexisted….although there are no mentions of Jesus in the OT with the exception of Isa 53 and that at best was a description of the Man who would be the Messiah,with specific reference to the suffering he would experience for our sake…..
Forum,Here's a novel idea, there was no specific mention in the OT about the Son of God because such things had not been previously revealed to the Jews.
While it's darn near impossible to tell religion ANYTHING new, Jesus revealed the nature of a beautiful loving Father that was not previously understood.
Much that is considered “sacred” in religion is simply the writings of men who held the previous writings of men to be sacred. So then the Church, for simple reasons of “preservation”, bound all those writings of men together and considered them all equally true, all the time and written by God himself.
When the Christian church set out to build a new religion on top of the OT they unintentionally contaminated or handicapped the Gospel of Jesus with things that were inferior or flat our erroneous to his teaching. The OT has become validated by association so now confusion rules the day.
With the current state of affairs in sect divided Christendom, with the anti Trinitarian movements, doctrinal inflexibility etc, one could see Jesus being rejected by the Church which bears his name should he appear on the scene as he did 2,000 years ago.
What a mess!
Colter
Greetings Colter….You observation has merit..let me add that Jesus came initially for the Jews,the NT bears this out in his many encounters with all levels Rabbinical leadership and ultimetely their execution of him…I agree with you that the scripture have been compromised to some degree as result of men attempting to interpret something that by design is meant to confuse the learned…Christianty today in its organization consists of hundreds of groups…each with a different set of core beliefs (doctrines)….They can't all be correct….There is only one that can be correct…..and in closing…Iam in search of that one….Quote (Colter @ April 17 2008,02:38) Just a thought, With all of the various controversies about “bias translations” which we find in the NT books, should we consider the same kind of “bias translations” in the compilations of the OT books?
We know that (some) of the language used in OT writings dates to the times of the Babylonian captivity yet they were writing about ages and event's which took place long before the Hebrews even had a common written language. The Hebrew language was in a state of development throughout the period between Abraham, Exodus and the captivity. Were there no “Nation of Israel” racial bias in the minds of those translators?
That would explain a lot!
Colter
Greetings Colter….I would think the OT has been spared simply because the keeping of the law as written is one of the principle reasons why we are able to identify the Jews which consist of the tribes Levi,Benjimen and Judah….This is not the case for the remaining 10 tribes who have lost their identity as a result of Idoletry….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
